The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/23/15Tuesday, June 23, 2015 5:00 PM Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Council Chambers City Council Mayor Peter Tucker Mayor Pro Tem Nanette Barragan Councilmembers Carolyn Petty Hany Fangary Michael DiVirgilio Meeting Agenda SPECIAL MEETING (Closed Session-5pm, Open Session-6pm) REGULAR MEETING (7pm) Executive Team Viki Copeland, Finance Director Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director David Lantzer, Fire Chief Bob Blackwood, Interim Human Resource Manager Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Sharon Papa, Police Chief City Clerk Elaine Doerfling City Treasurer Karen Nowicki City Attorney Mike Jenkins Tom Bakaly, City Manager June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING AND AGENDA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach has called a special meeting of the City Council to take place at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, to consider and take action on only those matters as set forth on the agenda below. SPECIAL MEETING 5:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION (LOCATION: Meetings convene in the Council Chambers and move to the Second Floor Conference Room after Public Comment) CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION IN SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1.15-0522 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of the following Closed Sessions. a)May 12, 2015 b)May 21, 2015 c)June 5, 2015 d)June 9, 2015 2.15-0523 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: The City 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(d)(1) a) Name of Case: Roberts et al v. City of Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number: BC544495 b) Name of Case: David Bohacik (Dec’d), Martha Bohacik (Widow) v. City of Hermosa Beach WCAB Number: ADJ7960494 (Worker’s Compensation) RECONVENE SPECIAL MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 2 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda SPECIAL MEETING 6:00 P.M. – OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT 1. CONSENT ORDINANCES a)REPORT 15-0474 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1352 ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) TO OS (OPEN SPACE) FOR TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BARD STREET (1309 AND THE ADJACENT LOT), LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS NE 1/2 MEASURED ON NW AND SE LINES OF LOT 11, AND NE 79.2 FEET (MEASURED ON SW LINE) OF LOT 10, TRACT 780, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA.” (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No. 15-1352. 15-1352 Zone Change-1309 Bard-draft1Attachments: 2. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. a)REPORT 15-0488 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) Recommendation:To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. Tentative Future Agenda.docAttachments: 3. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Page 3 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda a)REPORT 15-0480 DOWNTOWN CORE STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (Economic Development Officer Shelli Margolin-Mayer) Recommendation:Receive and file this report. DowntownParkingConceptMasterPlan.pdf CommunityCenterParkingStructurePhases.pdf Implementation Timeline Table.docx Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Accepted 2-24-2015.pdf Principles and Guidelines.pdf Downtown Plan 5-19.pdf Attachments: b)REPORT 15-0507 CIP 11-537 SOUTH PARK PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS-PLAYGROUND REMODEL PROJECT UPDATE - CHANGES TO PLAYGROUND (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. c)REPORT 15-0489 STRATEGIC PLAN ACTION AGENDA QUARTERLY UPDATE (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (Management Analyst Nico De Anda-Scaia) Recommendation:That the City Council receive and file the Revised Action Agenda submitted by staff. Strategic Plan and Action Agenda Tracking 6-2015.pdfAttachments: 4. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a)REPORT 15-0477 VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSION - PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS TWO TERM EXPIRATIONS ON JUNE 30, 2015 AND ONE UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council appoint from among the applicants interviewed this evening to fill (1) two four-year terms ending June 30, 2019; and (2) one unexpired term ending June 30, 2017. Parks and Rec Commission Applications SUPPLEMENTAL Letter from Joey Farrales (added 6-8-15 at 5pm) Letter from Dency Nelson dated 6-17-15 in support of Isabel Rodriguez.docx Attachments: ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING Page 4 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda 7:00 P.M. - REGULAR AGENDA All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. City Council agendas and staff reports are available for your review on the City's web site located at www.hermosabch.org. Complete agenda packets are also available for public inspection in the Police Department, Hermosa Beach Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council Chambers foyer or you can access the packet at our website, www.hermosabch.org, on your laptop, tablet or smartphone through the wireless signal available in the City Council chambers: Network ID: City Council Password: chb13 Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California, during normal business hours. All written communications from the public included in the agenda will be posted with the agenda on the City’s website All written communications from the public included in the agenda will be posted with the agenda on the City’s website To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) will be available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0203 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Page 5 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT ANNOUNCEMENTS PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS a)REPORT 15-0532 APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE AND COUNCIL COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION - JUNE 2015 (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:Consistent with the City Council policy of an approximate nine and one-half-month rotation of Mayor and Mayor pro tempore, it is recommended that the following appointments be made: 1. Mayor for a term ending Tuesday, April 12, 2016; and 2. Mayor pro tempore for a term ending Tuesday, April 12, 2016. In conformance with State law (attached), after appointing a new Mayor and Mayor pro tempore, the following committee appointments must be made. 1.Mayor to the Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee. Authority in Government Code � 50270. The committee shall consist of the mayor of each city within the county. When the mayor is unable to attend a meeting, the mayor shall designate another member of the City Council to attend and vote at the meeting as the mayor's representative {Gov't Code � 50271}. 2.Mayor to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District Board of Directors, and another member of the Council to serve as alternate director. Authority in Health and Safety Code � 4730. The presiding officer of the governing body of each city within the district is a member of the Board of Directors, and another Council member shall be appointed as an alternate director to act as a member of the district board in place of the presiding officer during such person's absence, inability, or refusal to act. Comm.List.1 CommitteeInformation State Codes re CC appts Attachments: Page 6 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda as a business item. 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 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 (Miscellaneous Items and Reports – City Manager and Other Matters), or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar. Public comments on the agenda items called Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters will only be heard at this time. Comments on public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Members of the audience may also speak: 1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar; 2) during Public Hearings; and, 3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters raised in written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public comment permitted at that time. a)REPORT 15-0535 MEMORANDUM REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this memorandum. b)REPORT 15-0515 CHECK REGISTERS (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:To ratify the following check registers. 06-04-15 06-11-15 Attachments: Page 7 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda c)REPORT 15-0528 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Recommendation:To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. Tentative Future Agenda.docAttachments: d)REPORT 15-0520 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS FOR MAY 2015 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:To receive and file the May 2015 Financial Reports. May 2015 Revenue Report May 2015 Expenditure Report Attachments: e)REPORT 15-0513 CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT (City Treasurer Karen Nowicki) Recommendation:To receive and file the May, 2015 City Treasurer's Report and Cash Balance Report. May'15 Treasurer Report.pdf May' 15 Cash Balances Report.pdf Attachments: f)REPORT 15-0524 ACTION SHEET OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2015 Recommendation:To receive and file the action sheet of the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2015. Pl. Comm. Action Sheet 6-16-15.docAttachments: g)REPORT 15-0526 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 12, 2015 Recommendation:To receive and file the action minutes of the Joint City Council and Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Study Session of May 12, 2015. MAY 12, 2015 JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STUDY SESSION.docx Attachments: h)REPORT 15-0509 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 20, 2015. Recommendation:To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of May 20, 2015. action minutes 5-20-15Attachments: i)REPORT 15-0508 PROJECT STATUS REPORT AS OF MAY 31, 2015 (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommendation:To receive and file the Project Status Report as of May 31, 2015. CIP Project Summary May 2015Attachments: Page 8 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda j)REPORT 15-0521 AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PALP, INC. DBA EXCEL PAVING COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT CIP NO. 14-128 AND 15-129 STREET IMPROVEMENTS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Award the Construction Contract for CIP Project No. 14-128 and 15-129 Street Improvements - Various Locations to Palp, Inc., DBA Excel Paving Company for the bid amount of $878,772.05; 2. Authorize a project budget of $1,107,253 to include geotechnical / materials testing, public works inspection, and a 15% construction contingency; 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Contract and the City Clerk to attest subject to approval by the City Attorney; 4. Adopt the attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CIP NO. 14-128 and 15-129 STREET IMPROVEMENTS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 830.6 AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT ACCOUNT"; 5. Authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the contract within the City's Street Improvement Program budget; and 6. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion following final completion and acceptance of the project. Street Improvements List- CIP 14-128.pdf Final Excel Paving Construction Agreement.pdf Final CIP 14-128 Street Improv Various Locations 6-23-2015 Reso.doc Attachments: k)REPORT 15-0512 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA) GOVERNING BOARD (Interim Human Resources Manager Robert A. Blackwood) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution appointing a City representative and alternate to the ICRMA Governing Board. Resolution to Apppoint Board Reps to ICRMA KB Vers2 122663v1Attachments: l)REPORT 15-0536 RESOLUTION ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015 (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution which, consistent with past policy, establishes a 200-word limit and requires candidates to pay all costs related to candidate statements for the November 3, 2015 General Municipal Election. CAND-REG R.15-Attachments: Page 9 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda m)REPORT 15-0539 PURCHASE NEW AMBULANCE (Fire Chief David Lantzer) Recommendation:Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve the purchase of a new ambulance in the amount of $165,000 from Emergency Vehicle Group, Inc. of Anaheim, California made in reliance on a bid solicitation by the Eloy Fire Protection District (Arizona); 2. Appropriate an additional $35,000 to the 2015-16 Budget from the Equipment Replacement Fund for this purchase; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Purchase Agreement with Emergency Vehicle Group, Inc. before July 1, 2015 for the purchase and delivery of the ambulance. Purchase Agreement_EVG and CHB-2015.pdfAttachments: 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES a)REPORT 15-0530 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1353 ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REVISING ORDINANCE NO. 93-1097, TO MODIFY THE DOLLAR THRESHOLDS FOR BIDDING AND TO ESTABLISH CITY MANAGER PURCHASING AUTHORITY FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.” (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No. 15-1353. 15-1353 CM Bidding-PurchasingAttachments: b)REPORT 15-0531 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1354 ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ERECTION OF EXTENDED TEMPORARY SIGNS BY AUTOMOBILE DEALERS FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD AND SUPERCEDING ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH.” (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No. 15-1354. 15-1354 Two.yr.extend-temp auto dealer signsAttachments: 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. Page 10 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. a)REPORT 15-0519 PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION (REFUSE) CHARGES FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLACING SAID CHARGES ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT WOULD AFFECT ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES WITH REFUSE BILLS DELINQUENT AS OF MARCH 31, 2015 (City Manager Tom Bakaly) Recommendation:That the City Council: 1. Receive testimony from affected property owners regarding their delinquent refuse bills; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing and directing the County Assessor to place delinquent refuse charges for Athens Services, which remain ten (10) days following this hearing, as a special assessment for collection as part of the County tax collection process. Reso15.doc EXHIBIT A - Tax Lien Accts-060915.pdf Public Notices.pdf Correspondence with Business Owners.pdf Attachments: b)REPORT 15-0517 PUBLIC HEARING - HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Conduct a Public Hearing in connection with the levy of assessments for FY 15-16; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution confirming the diagram and assessment for Hermosa Beach Landscaping & Street Lighting District 2015-2016 ("District") and levying an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016. Engineer's Report Landscaping and Lighting District FY 15-16.doc Resolution confirming diagram and levy assessment for landscaping st lighting fy 2015-16.doc Attachments: Page 11 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda c)REPORT 15-0525 MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE CHARGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 TO FUND MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, SERVICING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM; AND AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13.12 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council: Hold a majority protest hearing at the June 23, 2015 Council meeting, confirm the number of written protests received at the close of the public hearing, and if a majority protest is not received: 1. Adopt attached Resolution, adopting the annual sewer service charge and authorizing the charge for Fiscal Year 2015-16 to fund maintenance, operation, servicing, and improvements to the City's sewer collection system; and 2. Waive full reading and introduce attached Ordinance, adding a new Chapter 13.12 to the Municipal Code regarding the sewer service charge. HB Sewer 218 Notice 2015 - FINAL(1)_attach 1 Sewer Service Charge Public Presentation Questions and Answers_for Staff Report_Final_Attach 2 RESO approving sewer service charge_6-23-15_Attach 3 PENCO Hermosa Beach Sewer Services Charges Report 6-8-15 for Reso 6-23 Sewer Service Charge Ordinance 6-23-15_Attach 4 Objection to Proposed Sewer Charge - Roberta Moore 5-14-15.pdf Attachments: 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a)REPORT 15-0541 MUNICIPAL CARBON NEUTRALITY IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommendation:Staff recommends City Council receive and file this report Attachment 1- Brendle Group Memo.pdf Attachment 2-Scenarios.pdf Attachments: Page 12 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda b)REPORT 15-0503 REVIEW ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF THE DRAFT EWMP TO THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND ADOPT LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTATION. (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommendation:Staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt attached Resolution: 1) Approving and authorizing submittal of the Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for review, comment and approval; and 2) Adopting the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for EWMPs, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Figure 1 - Beach Cities Jurisdiction Areas (Watersheds).pdf Attachment 1_Beach Cities EWMP_Draft_ExSumm.pdf Table 1. Total BMP Costs.pdf Table 2. Est BMP Costs.pdf Table 3. Proportional BMP Cost Distribution.pdf Table 4. Implementation Schedule.pdf Table 5. Project Implementation Timeline.pdf Beach Cities EWMP_Draft_Full Report.pdf EWMP Resolution.docx EWMP Findings_clean.pdf SOC.pdf MMRP.pdf Attachments: Page 13 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda c)REPORT 15-0504 DISCUSSION OF PROHIBITING SINGLE-USE CARRY-OUT BAGS (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommendation:Staff recommend City Council: 1. Receive and file this report; 2. Direct staff on whether to develop an ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach prohibiting single-use carryout bags; and 3. Recommend the appropriation of $18,515 from the General Fund's fund balance to prepare an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (AEIR). Senate Bill 270.pdf Single Use Bag Ordinances in CA 12-31-14.pdf CGA Support Letter.pdf Surfrider Support Letter.pdf Sapphos Quote.pdf Attachments: d)REPORT 15-0537 CALLING, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION, AND CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR HOLDING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 2015 (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached three Resolutions pertaining to the November 3, 2015 General Municipal Election: (1) call and give notice of said election for the election of certain officers; (2) request consolidation with the County; and (3) provide for the conduct of a special runoff election for elective offices in the event of a tie vote. Resolution Calling Election Resolution Requesting Consolidation Resolution Providing for Runoff Election Preliminary Election Calendar Attachments: e)REPORT 15-0516 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE 2015 SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR FROM AUGUST THROUGH DECEMBER (Senior Recreation Supervisor Kelly Orta) Recommendation:Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve the 2015 special events calendar for events from August to December. 2015 Calendar of Events One-Page Event Information 2015 Event Information Matrix HBMC Section 12.28 Special Event Permits Attachments: Page 14 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda f)REPORT 15-0534 AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES REGARDING AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATION OF COUNCIL MEETINGS (City Attorney Mike Jenkins) Recommendation:The City Council adopt the two Resolutions attached to this report consistent with Council direction at its May 12, 2015 meeting. Redline of Resolution No. 08-6607.pdf Redline of Resolution No. 12-6787.pdf Attachments: 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a)REPORT 15-0518 UPDATE ON FORCE OPTIONS SIMULATOR/FIRING RANGE (Police Chief Sharon Papa) Recommendation:To receive and file this report. Council Agenda 022415.pdf Additional Appropriations Report 022415.pdf Midyear Budget Recommendations 5_0 vote 022415.pdf Attachments: b)REPORT 15-0542 UPDATE ON BICYCLE PARKING (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommendation:Staff recommends City Council receive and file this report. 2015 PW Bicycle Parking Report.pdf PW Commission 052015_KM.pdf Attachments: 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a)REPORT 15-0529 DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE & ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE (City Manager Tom Bakaly) Recommendation:Designate a voting delegate and an alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting scheduled for Friday, October 2, at the San Jose Convention Center. League of CA Cities Letter and Voting Procedures.pdf Voting Delegate and Alternate Form.pdf Attachments: Page 15 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 June 23, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda b)REPORT 15-0533 VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS EXPIRATION OF TERMS SCHEDULE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council schedule Planning Commission applicant interviews for a time and date certain. 2015 Planning Commission AppsAttachments: 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Council members for possible 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. NONE ADJOURNMENT Page 16 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015 Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report15-0522 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Closed Session of June 23, 2015 MINUTES:Approval of minutes of the following Closed Sessions. a)May 12, 2015 b)May 21, 2015 c)June 5, 2015 d)June 9, 2015 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report15-0523 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Closed Session of June 23, 2015 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL:The City 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(d)(1) a) Name of Case: Roberts et al v. City of Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number: BC544495 b) Name of Case: David Bohacik (Dec’d), Martha Bohacik (Widow) v. City of Hermosa Beach WCAB Number: ADJ7960494 (Worker’s Compensation) Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0474 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1352 ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) TO OS (OPEN SPACE) FOR TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BARD STREET (1309 AND THE ADJACENT LOT), LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS NE 1/2 MEASURED ON NW AND SE LINES OF LOT 11, AND NE 79.2 FEET (MEASURED ON SW LINE) OF LOT 10, TRACT 780, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA.” (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No. 15-1352. Background: At its meeting of May 26, 2015, the subject ordinance was presented to the City Council for consideration and was introduced by the following vote: Ayes:Barragan, Fangary, Petty, Mayor Tucker Noes:None Absent:DiVirgilio Abstain:None Attachments: 1.Ordinance No. 15-1352 Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 3 15-1352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1352 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) TO OS (OPEN SPACE), FOR TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BARD STREET (1309 AND THE ADJACENT LOT), LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS NE 1/2 MEASURED ON NW AND SE LINES OF LOT 11, AND NE 79.2 FEET (MEASURED ON SW LINE) OF LOT 10, TRACT 780, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Hermosa Beach initiated an application for an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map from GC (General Commercial) to OS (Open Space) and rezone from C-2 (Restricted Commercial) to OS (Open Space) on two parcels totaling 6685+ square feet owned by the City of Hermosa Beach and currently occupied by City Police and Fire Department operations and Friends of the Library, including 1309 Bard Street, located to the rear of the Civic Center, on the west side of Bard Street adjacent to the City of Hermosa Beach employee parking lot (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 4187-020-905 and 4187-020-906). (GP 15-2, ZON 15-1) SECTION 2.The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on April 21, 2015, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of said zone change. SECTION 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and rezoning is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15322 because the project conforms General Plan and Zoning designations with land uses on the parcels that have existed for over a decade within existing buildings which will not be expanded or materially altered; the site is an existing urbanized site of less than one acre; the Page 2 of 3 15-1352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amendments are otherwise consistent with the intent of the proposed General Plan and Zoning designations; the amendments would not result in significant effects to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; the site currently exhibits adequate utilities and public services; and therefore no impacts will occur. SECTION 4. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and makes the following factual findings: 1. The parcels are zoned C-2 (Restricted Commercial). 2. The subject lots are owned by the City and have been and will continue to be occupied by Police and Fire Department operations and the Friends of the Library, and the re- designations will conform land uses and designations and provide for the orderly development of the City. 3. The zone change will be consistent with the City Council Resolution No. 15-6963 to amend the General Plan to redesignate the subject properties from General Commercial to Open Space and is thus consistent with the General Plan and will carry out the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 5.Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby ordains a Zone Change from C-2 (Restricted Commercial) to OS (Open Space) as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 6.Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and in effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Page 3 of 3 15-1352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original Ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Barragan, DiVirgilio, Fangary, Petty, Mayor Tucker NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0488 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) Recommended Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. Attachments: Tentative Future Agenda Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ June 4, 2015 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 9, 2015 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS JUNE 23, 2015 @ 5:00PM CLOSED SESSION: EXISTING LITIGATION JUNE 23, 2015 (SPECIAL MEETING @ 6:00PM) NO PRESENTATIONS APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2015 Community Development Director Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of May 20, 2015 Public Works Director Purchase of Shooting Range Police Chief PUBLIC HEARINGS – 7:30 PM Review of Delinquent Solid Waste Collection (Refuse) charges for consideration of placing said charges on the property tax rolls as a special assessment City Manager Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2015-2016 Public Works Director Proposed Sewer Service Charge Public Works Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS Community Risk Analysis Fire Chief Stormwater Management Plan – Receive Approval from Regional Board Public Works Director Events Calendar Assistant to the City Manager Municipal Carbon Neutrality Implementation Update Environmental Analyst Updating the City Street Signs as presented by Graphic Solutions to give Hermosa Beach a new updated look Public Works Director Revisit operation Clean sweep to discuss modified standards that permit limited signage and/or approved displays that promote businesses yet do not impede pedestrian traffic Community Development Director Agenda Protocol City Attorney Enhanced Watershed Management Plan Environmental Analyst Discussion of prohibiting single-use carryout bags Environmental Analyst 2 JULY 14, 2015 @ 7:00PM CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of May 4, 2015 Fire Chief Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of June 2, 2015 Assistant to the City Manager PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 PM Amend the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.76 (Cigarette and Tobacco Retailers) requiring Licensure of Cigarette and Tobacco Retailers to reduce the illegal sale of Tobacco to minors, amending Chapter 8.40 to expand the definition of smoking to include electronic cigarettes, and making violations of Chapter 5.76 subject to administrative penalty procedures (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) Community Development Director 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 Community Development Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS Evaluate and update as necessary the City’s Master Fee Resolution to ensure appropriate fees are designated for specific City services Finance Director Evaluate the City’s notice procedures for public meetings and other activities/events. Evaluate the manner of providing necessary notices, and payment responsibility for such notices. Community Development Director Strand Hotel Update Community Development Director Downtown Enforcement Unit: Creation Police Chief Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans (Continued from meeting of April 14, 2015) Public Works Director Downtown/Pier Plaza Non Smoking Enforcement Community Development Director City Logo and Name on Council Chambers Wall City Manager JULY 28, 2015 @ 6:00PM STUDY SESSION – PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY JULY 28, 2015 @ 7:00PM CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 2015 Community Development Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS Marketing Plan for Parking Meters Demand Pricing/Free or Reduced Price Parking Management Analyst PCH/Aviation Blvd. Corridor Beautification Plan -Begin Design – Phase 1 -Complete PSR and 60% Design -Present Phase 1 to CalTrans/Metro Call for Project Funding Public Works Director 3 PENDING ITEMS Consideration of reduction of business license fee request from Carol G. Weiss, Ph.D. Finance Director Ethics Policy City Manager & Finance Director Food Trucks – Policy Discussion Community Development Director PCH/Aviation Aesthetic Signage Public Works Director Hope Chapel Development City Manager/Economic Dev Officer Strand/Pier EIR Contract (Continued from meeting of November 13, 2014)Community Development Director Business Improvement District (BID) for Pier Plaza – Assist in BID Proposal Economic Development Officer Additional Bike Paths Discussion Public Works Director Award Construction Contract for CIP 13-655 City Facilities ADA Improvements Public Works Director Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans (Continued from meeting of April 14, 2015) Public Works Director OTO 11th Court Hotel Update Community Development Director AUGUST 2015 Quarterly Update - Strategic Plan Action Agenda Management Analyst Monterey Sharrow Update Public Works Director Quarterly Update – Closed Session Litigation Assistant to the City Manager SEPTEMBER 2015 Land Management System: Upgrade Community Development Director OCTOBER 2015 Quarterly Update – Closed Session Litigation Assistant to the City Manager NOVEMBER 2015 Installation of Officers – November 24, 2015 City Clerk National Citizen Survey Overview Assistant to the City Manager Quarterly Update - Strategic Plan Action Agenda Management Analyst DECEMBER 2015 PCH/Aviation Blvd. Corridor Beautification Plan – Complete 90% Plans Public Works Director Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 DOWNTOWN CORE STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (Economic Development Officer Shelli Margolin-Mayer) Recommended Action: Receive and file this report. Background: The Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy is intended to provide a comprehensive approach for increasing the vitality of the downtown including assessing the role of key private sites and potentially leveraging City assets to achieve City goals. On February 24, 2015 the Council accepted the Strategy and a set of Principles and Guidelines to help guide implementation of the Strategy. The Strategy components and implementation paths include the following: ·The Hermosa Avenue and Pier Plaza improvement components have been referred to Public Works to refine concept plans before seeking input from relevant Commissions (Public Works and Planning Commission for Hermosa Avenue; Public Works, Parks and Recreation and potentially Planning Commission for Pier Plaza). ·Catalyst hotel development should be guided by the Strategy and Principles and Guidelines. ·Begin discussions on a comprehensive downtown and interceptor parking facilities. ·The zoning code related concepts of the Parking Strategy and commercial uses have been referred to Community Development, Economic Development and the Planning Commission. Some of the other Strategy components also address private development and the public/private realm interfaces. Community Development is addressing how these projects and programs relate to the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Update. A purpose of the Update process is to test and integrate the various independent planning and programs underway into one comprehensive, long-term plan that reflects a common vision and provides a framework for aligning policy and programs. o The Planning Commission began reviewing the strategy’s recommendations at their June 16th meeting during a special study session. They will continue reviewing the recommendations at their next meeting. Staff will then begin the process of making the necessary code changes to bring back to the Planning Commission for approval. It is anticipated that the zoning code changes will come before Council in Q1/2016. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 Analysis: The various components of the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy work together to advance a desired future vision. It is important to keep the overall context and Principles in mind as we move forward into the implementation stage: ·Proactive strategy: The Downtown Core, between 10th and 14th Streets and the Strand and Palm Drive focused on Hermosa Avenue and Pier Plaza is the heart of Hermosa Beach, and should be enhanced as the focus of social life in the city. It is part of the Downtown District, bounded by 15th Street, 8th Street, extending along Pier Avenue to Valley Drive. ·Family-friendly, inviting to all: Create an environment that appeals to the increasingly stable, diverse and family-oriented population and allows them to mutually co-exist, rather than being a place dominated by one group at the expense of another. ·Daytime district: Increasing the day-time population will add life and vitality that goes beyond the typical recreationally oriented uses that have been historically attracted to the beach setting of Hermosa Beach. ·Pedestrian oriented: Develop the Downtown Core as a pedestrian and people oriented place with an appropriate mix of uses and quality of development that contributes to a more sociable, publicly-spirited and economically viable place. ·Eclectic beach character: Improvement of parking facilities and management within the Downtown Core is essential to increasing economic vitality and maintaining the eclectic character of a district with small local businesses anchored by catalyst projects that provide synergy and support. ·Distinctive retail district: Create a distinctive and well-defined retail district with quality shops and restaurants on the ground floor that are pedestrian oriented, family-friendly and appealing to a wide range of people. ·Catalyst development: High quality hotel development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach and provides significant quality public spaces and benefits can enhance the hospitality, identity, and economic viability of the Downtown District. ·Public investment: Realizing the full potential of the Downtown Core requires investment in the public realm and public-private partnerships which signal the City’s commitment to the area and further city goals, attract economic enterprises, and reduce the negative social behavior that occurs within the Pier Plaza area. For each component of the strategy, staff provides a recommendation on the next steps for council review and confirmation. Generally, each component would be referred to the specified department (s) to develop additional information, provided to the relevant city commissions to solicit public input, and then forwarded to the City Council for direction on implementation. The Planning Commission began reviewing the various components to land use and zoning codes as they relate to the strategy on April 21st and May 19th, 2015. They have requested a special study session to go over each element in detail. They also have the ability to make comments on the following improvements. The Public Works Commission will also have an opportunity to review the strategy during their July 2015 meeting, as currently scheduled. Hermosa Avenue Streetscape Improvements: The Revitalization Strategy proposed streetscape Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 improvements on Hermosa Avenue between 10th and 14th Streets with diagonal parking on the east side of the street and landscape improvements on both sides of the street as well as in the median. These improvements are similar in concept to what was undertaken on Pier Avenue by the City. These proposals have been forwarded to Public Works for input, further evaluation and development of a Request for Proposal for the design of the streetscape improvements. The effort would include design, a review of traffic, parking and other considerations, coordination with utilities, preparation of a preliminary cost estimate, and options for funding and financing. Then, it will go to the Public Works Commission for consideration and public input, and its recommendations will then be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Implementation steps will include commitment of funding and direction on the preparation of construction documents. Pier Plaza and Strand Improvements: The proposal is for extending the line of palms, planting a second row of canopy trees to provide human scale, new lighting, banners and banner poles, and removal of obstructions in the pavement. Council also recommended consideration of fountains and/or sculptural elements in the plaza. For the Strand, introduction of a children’s play area, adult fitness equipment and a bicycle kiosk were noted. Revitalization of Nobel Park can also be reviewed as part of the implementation strategy. The purpose of all of these is to create a more diverse, family- friendly environment. These proposals have been forwarded to Public Works in coordination with Community Resources, Economic Development, Community Development and consultation with Police to outline the improvement program, develop cost estimates, and evaluate potential funding and financing sources. A Request for Proposal for the design of the streetscape improvements will be coordinated by Public Works and Economic Development. From there, the proposals would go to a joint Public Works and Parks and Recreation Commission meeting for consideration and public input and based on the recommendations of these Commissions, they would be forwarded to the City Council for direction on implementation. Implementation steps will include commitment of funding and direction on the preparation of construction documents. A single Request for Proposal will be written for the Hermosa Avenue Streetscape Improvements and the Pier Plaza and Strand Improvements. Downtown Core Parking Structures:Although the Revitalization Strategy proposes the construction of a public parking structure south of Pier Plaza adjacent to 11th Street on Lot A, Council has emphasized developing interceptor public parking near upper Pier. This parking structure would provide additional parking to meet commercial demand created by restructured zoning regulation to encourage revenue generating uses on ground floor spaces and office and service uses above. Additional parking will also serve visitor parking demand and promote foot traffic throughout the Downtown and along PCH. The attached Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan reflects the opportunity for development of public parking structures at the Community Center and City Hall (with a new civic center). Phasing could include underground parking structures at the Community Center and a future Civic Center built over underground parking. The Community Center improvements should include replacement of the existing tennis courts and skate park. There would be an opportunity for additional recreational Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 uses on top of the structures. The Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan also depicts possible opportunities for Lot D and demand pricing for parking near the beach to encourage the City Council’s sustainability goals. A demand pricing program could include low rates in facilities that capture traffic as it enters the Downtown to encourage folks to get out of their cars and walk (or take a proposed electric trolley) through the Downtown. This would help support Downtown businesses as well as the Council’s Carbon Neutral goals. In order to make this option more feasible, a pricing scheme should be employed with higher public parking prices the closer parking is to the beach. These concepts are being discussed with Community Development, Public Works, Economic Development and the City Manager with input from Finance. The next step would be to have a feasibility study preformed that includes phasing. The Public Works Department would coordinate the Request for Proposal to confirm cost estimates, identify any related infrastructure improvement requirements, identify funding options in coordination with Economic Development, and prepare a construction phasing strategy. Finance would also assist in identifying potential revenue streams, funding and financing options. The proposal will then be forwarded to the Public Works Commission for recommendations to City Council for action. Bolour Associates requested and was granted permission to include parking Lot B in their hotel/mixed commercial development application. The Council has also granted OTO Development permission to include Lot A in a future application for a hotel project including mixed commercial, parking and public amenities with a concept to be presented to City Council. It has been indicated by the developers that such development proposals would likely replace existing public parking and provide parking for the subject developments, rather than providing a new source of parking for other uses. More information on the status of these projects should be provided within the next few months. Should Lot B (and/or A) not be included within the subject developments then they could be included within the City’s parking discussion. Land Use and Zoning Recommendations:The Revitalization Strategy recommended that certain zoning and land use regulations particularly related to the Downtown Core be modified and/or augmented. These included requirements for active ground level uses promoting vibrancy and revenue generation on Hermosa Avenue, Pier Plaza and on the Strand between 13th and 11th Streets, and augmenting provisions in the ordinance to facilitate upper floor office and service uses development, and modify parking requirements in the zoning ordinance to encourage a pedestrian and bicycle oriented district, and to allow flexibility to meet parking requirements offsite and in public parking facilities rather than onsite: 1. Pier Avenue, from PCH to Hermosa Avenue and including the Community and Civic Center sites and Hermosa Avenue and the Downtown Core from 10th to 14th Streets should be designated as a pedestrian-oriented district, with special incentives and provisions to minimize the impact of parking and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility. 2. Required parking in the pedestrian-oriented district should be allowed, to provide off-site, rather than the current 25% of required on-site parking for buildings with greater than a one floor-to-area Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 ratio (FAR). This is only currently allowed in the SPA-11 zone (Pier Avenue east of Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive) as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings (Section17.38.550(D)). 3. There should be a reduced amount of required parking for commercial (office and retail) uses within the pedestrian oriented district. Currently one space per 250 SF is required for these uses, however, the Coastal Commission recently provided for a reduced standard of 1/333 SF, which is more consistent with other beach communities, contingent on a parking evaluation from the City which should be undertaken. 4. There should be a reduced amount of required parking for restaurant uses within the pedestrian-oriented district. Currently, one space per 100 SF is required. Cities such as Redondo Beach utilizes a one space per 250 SF for pedestrian-oriented districts, which should be considered in Hermosa Beach as well. 5. Outdoor seating should be encouraged for the creation of a more sociable environment within the pedestrian oriented district. The determination of the appropriate amount of outdoor seating within the public street right-of-way should be based on lot frontage length, maintaining adequate space for pedestrian circulation and considerations related to adjacencies and public safety. These are to be determined on a case-by-case basis at a staff level by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. Parking requirements for outdoor seating should be reduced appropriately to encourage the diversity of types of establishments within the downtown district and in particular within the Downtown Core. For example, in Redondo Beach, no additional parking is required for the first 12 seats of outdoor seating. 6. Parking requirements should be reduced for mixed use buildings on a single lot that generate parking demand during different times of the day without the need for a discretionary action by the City. There are currently a variety of conditions upon which the amount of parking reduction may be allowed or a fee paid in lieu of providing parking, but a discretionary review is required. 7. Upper level office use should be encouraged to attract a lively downtown environment and provide a greater daytime population that supports retail and restaurant uses. Parking for upper level office and service uses should be reduced and located off-site in shared parking and public parking facilities. 8. Vehicular parking requirements should be reduced in exchange for the provision of additional bicycle parking, beyond what is already required by the City. This provision is currently limited to development along Pier Avenue. An equivalence of 4 bicycle spaces for one car space, up to 20% of the parking required for non-residential projects should be considered (which is the provision allowed in the City of Los Angeles and other cities’ zoning codes). This includes the required bicycle parking and any additional bicycle parking. 9. For an existing non-restaurant use that is converting to restaurant use and whose parking requirements are met in common facilities within the pedestrian-oriented district, a credit against the future parking requirements should be allowed, based upon the zoning requirements of the existing use. Currently this is not allowed for some types of restaurants in the downtown district. 10. Parking requirements for commercial uses within the pedestrian-oriented district should be Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 allowed in common facilities within a quarter mile walking distance. This is currently only allowed for second floor office space as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings in SPA-11 zone along Pier Avenue. 11. Parking requirements for commercial uses within the pedestrian-oriented district should be based on a net usable building square footage basis that is, not including for example, bathrooms, hallways, lobbies, service, storage and mechanical rooms. Parking studies were undertaken in summer 2014 as part of the General Plan Update to support this work. Catalyst Project:The Catalyst Hotel Development Strategy includes the following: A.High quality hotel development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach and provides significant quality public spaces and benefits can enhance the hospitality, identity, and economic viability of the Downtown District. B.Catalyst hotel projects provide strategic, transformative and differentiated development: ·Rather than representing “business as usual,” catalyst projects define, enhance and communicate the City’s brand, and activate community involvement, participation, and innovation. ·Advance community objectives to maintain our small beach town character, enhance economic and environmental sustainability, and support an active healthy lifestyle. ·Provide significant and demonstrable positive effects on the social and economic fabric of the Downtown District, including benefits to residents, businesses, and visitors. ·Make significant contributions to a livable and sustainable community. C.Catalyst development that provides public benefits may merit public/private partnerships or incentives of various types, including potential use of city assets, consistent with community objectives and values and these guidelines. High priority benefits include: ·Includes uses, amenities or spaces that provide the ability for the public to use or derive benefit from the project. ·Provides space and design that facilitates a more diverse and balanced mix of uses that appeal to residents as well as visitors. ·Provides a unique hotel product with a quality design and experience that strives for a top rating of four-star or higher at all times. ·Design and operation that reduces vehicle trips in the Downtown. ·Demonstration of environmental leadership through development design and operations consistent with the city’s carbon neutral goal. ·Design and operation that expands opportunities for walking, biking, and use of alternative modes. ·Demonstration of marine protection through development design and operations that result in net zero urban and stormwater runoff. Other priorities include: Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 ·Minimizing parking demand through use of shuttles, carsharing, etc. ·Improvements or investments that serve as a catalyst to carbon reduction by others. D.Catalyst development design exhibits the following: ·Takes a holistic and integrated approach in order to maximize community benefits and compatibility. ·Creates high quality public spaces for uses that appeal to a diverse population throughout the day and create synergy with nearby development. ·Community spirited improvements or public benefits may be located on property being developed for a hotel or other catalyst project, or on other property that is associated with the comprehensive development project. ·Maintains the connectivity of the mobility grid (streets, alleys, pedestrian and bike pathways) so people can continue to easily move from place to place, especially by walking and biking. E.Hotel development with frontage on Pier Plaza, The Strand between 11th and 13th Streets, Hermosa Avenue, or Pier Avenue exhibits the following: ·The ground floor frontages on the Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets must provide quality public spaces appeal to a diverse population and create a more sociable and attractive place. ·Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability (without windows and doors inviting to the general public), and ground floor non-retail uses (including uses such as offices and appointment-driven services) must be avoided. ·Provision of high quality public spaces on the ground floor and roof terraces which enhance opportunities to enjoy the unique beachfront setting of Hermosa Beach but do not add stories may merit consideration of increased height. Any increased height is subject to a vote of the people. Potential Funding SB 628 - “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD)” was approved by the State earlier this year. It is a tax increment financing program which municipalities can capitalize on in the same manner as former redevelopment agencies. In brief, EIFDs can fund streetscape improvements, parking facilities and parking projects, trolleys, and municipal buildings. Staff will come back to Council with more information on EIFD opportunities for the entire city. Attachments: 1.Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan 2.Potential Phasing of Underground Structures at the Community Center 3.Project Timelines - Table 4.Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy (accepted by Council 2/24/15) 5.Guidelines Reflecting Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy (accepted by Council 2/24/15) 6.Planning Commission Staff Report - May 13th, 2015 Respectfully Submitted by: Shelli Margolin-Mayer, Economic Development Officer Pam Townsend, Senior Planner Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0480 Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ $$$ $$ $ $ Lot C300 Spaces Lot B Lot A Lot D19 Spaces 68 Spaces 124 Spaces City Hall withMunicipalPublic Parking Community Center with MunicipalPublic Parking Pier Ave Palm DrValley DrLoma DrThe StrandBayview DrArdmore AveSunset DrHermosa AveMonterey BlvdManhattan Ave14th St 8th Pl 9th St 11th St 10th St 15th St Bard StOak St 13th St 14th Ct Cypress Ave13th Ct 11th CtBeach Dr15th Ct 9th Ct Pier Plaza 10th Ct 11th Pl Bard StCypress AveLoma Dr10th St 13th St 11th St 11th St Oak St 9th St 11th St Beach Dr± Potential Trolley Service Public Parking and Potential Future Public Parking Potentially Associated with New Hotels Hotel Development Sites Potential Hotel Remodel/Develpment Sites $$$$$$$$$$ Lower Cost ParkingMedium Cost ParkingHigh Cost ParkingVery High Cost Parking Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan Notes Lot A Potentially associated with new hotel mixed-use development (retail, hotel, banquet/meeting space, public amenities, and parking for these uses -116 spaces may remain public parking) Lot B Potentially associated with new hotel development 30 spaces to remain public parking (automated valet parking structure) Lot C Current Municipal Public Lot Lot D Current Municipal Public Lot Potential under grounding 1 story & 2 above ground (candidate for automated valet parking) Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Ave general streetscape improvements: 2 lanes, diagonal parking, widen sidewalks, streetscape furnishing City Hall Potential to rebuild large civic center on top of new 3 story underground public parking facility/facilities Community Center Potential to build 3 or 4 stories underground public parking facilities and replace tennis courts, etc. on top of parking facilities Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2APier Ave Ardmore Ave11th Pl ± Potential Phasing of Underground Parking Structure at Community Center Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Implementation Project Timelines – Table Component FY14/15 FY15/16 Sept- Dec Jan-Jun Jul-June 1. Hermosa Ave Improvements Prep for Commission review Commissions/Council review Implementation 2. Pier Plaza/Beach Improvements Prep for Commission review Commission /Council review Implementation 3. Parking Structure Lot A If the Council grants consent to developer to use Lot A then a proactive study is immaterial. Consolidated downtown parking generally If Council agrees to move forward with consolidated parking at a future date, then staff would return with more information, once the strategy has been accepted by the Planning Commission and Public Works Commission. 4.Land Use and Zoning Prep for Commission review Commission/Council review 5. Catalyst Projects Zoning amendments may address certain aspects of catalyst projects HERMOSA BEACH Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach by ROMA Design Group and Economic & Planning Systems JANUARY 2014 HERMOSA BEACH Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach by ROMA Design Group and Economic & Planning Systems JANUARY 2014 Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................1 The Downtown Core .....................................................................................3 Commercial Tenanting Strategy ................................................................7 Hermosa Avenue Streetscape Improvements ....................................10 Pier Plaza and The Strand Improvements .............................................12 Hotel Development Strategy ...................................................................16 Parking Strategy ............................................................................................23 Overview of South Bay Cities DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 1 Introduction Hermosa Beach is one of three beach cities in the South Bay and together with Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, repre- sents a resource of great value within the larger Los Angeles region. Established as independent municipalities more than one hundred years ago, they were originally resort and recre- ational settings, somewhat removed from the economic life of the land-centric city of Los Angeles to the north and east. Once only accessible by trolley and rail to the rest of the region, these cities are now very well connected to the metropolitan area and have become even more attractive places for residents. At the same time, they also serve as a regional open space and recre- ational resource for the metropolitan area and therefore have to contend with the surges of population on weekends and during the summer months. Historic census information reveals continu- ously upward trends in household income, educational levels, home ownership and land value. Upgrades and improvements to the building stock, which was built for shorter-term summer stays, have been undertaken. As the region has continued to grow and expand, the beach cities have become increasingly valuable places to live, work and play. Hermosa Beach has many features in common with Manhattan Beach to the north and Redondo Beach to the south, and is closely linked to these communities by the continuity of the public beach, the Strand along the beach and the Greenbelt. But, it is also a very distinctive place with its own issues, opportunities and chal- lenges. Hermosa Beach is the smallest of the beach communities and it is also the one that is geographically most focused on the coast. It is also more of a bedroom community, with greater out- commuting of residents to work and a smaller daytime popula- tion. At the same time, historic economic data indicates resiliency in the real estate market and generally the market potential is good for a variety of different uses, particularly with the effects of the Great Recession waning. Hermosa Beach has an attractive, small town character and a fine- grain urban fabric generally comprised of small lots and build- ings. The urban pattern is oriented to the beach and the pier, connected by the Strand and the Greenbelt and punctuated by other parks and open spaces. As the City continues to change and evolve over time, and as growth occurs, there is an ongoing concern over the surges in population and the generally nega- tive social behavior that occurs within the Pier Plaza area. These are important concerns, which may be best addressed by posi- tive changes aimed at making upgrades and investments that will attract economic enterprises and activities that will ultimately overshadow the negative aspects. 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y H E R M O S A A V E N U E PIER PLAZAPIER AVENUECLARK FIELD CORPYARDHERMOSAVALLEYELEMENTARY COMMUNITYCENTER CIVIC CENTER DOWNTOWN CORE Downtown Context DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 3 Over the past several months, ROMA Design Group has been working with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), economic consultants, and the City of Hermosa Beach in developing strate- gies for the economic development of the Downtown and Civic Center areas. In the first phase of the work effort, options related to the leveraging of City-owned property were identified and evaluated. Based on direction from the City Council, the Phase 2 effort has focused within the Downtown Core. The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the Phase 2 work effort. The Downtown Core The Downtown Core encompasses the rectangle between 10th and 14th Streets and between the Strand and Palm Drive and is focused on Hermosa Avenue and Pier Plaza. It is part of the downtown district, which extends north to 15th Street, south to 8th Street and east along Pier Avenue to Valley Boulevard. While the upper Pier Avenue has an important relationship to the Downtown Core, it has already been the subject of a successful revitalization effort and is not the primary focus of the strategies described herein. The Downtown Core is the oldest part of Hermosa Beach, which was originally platted in the early 1900’s. Today, it has many of the characteristics of an older downtown, with buildings on relatively small parcels that have incrementally developed over time. Some of the most notable older structures were built with clear civic intent and stature, attaining heights of 40 to 60 feet. Historically, these taller buildings with large windows and high floor-to-ceiling ground floor spaces were located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. Commercial uses were built to support the recreational nature of the beach community as well as to serve the small permanent and seasonal residential population. Landmark build- ings reflect the early identity of Hermosa Beach, including the Biltmore Hotel (now demolished), the Bijou Theater and the Bank of America and a number of mixed-use buildings with ground floor shops with upper floor office and residential uses. As the population increased, particularly after World War II, and as the pattern of shopping shifted to larger shopping centers, the nature of the downtown also underwent significant changes. Within the center of downtown at the foot of Pier Avenue, bars began to occupy buildings as commercial uses declined and relo- cated elsewhere. Now, it is important to create an environment that nurtures the increasingly stable, diverse and family-oriented population. Investing in improvements to the public realm is one of the first steps that can be made, and will signal the City’s commitment to the area. Subsequent important steps will be to better manage parking and encourage a greater variety of busi- nesses, including fine dining establishments, high quality hotels and upper floor offices that reflect the changing nature of the population and contribute to the overall downtown environment 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 The Lighthouse, featuring jazz on Pier Plaza, the landmark Biltmore Hotel and the Bijou Theater, made distinctive contributions to the identity and activity of Hermosa Beach. After WWII the downtown underwent significant changes and now it is poised to change in a fresh new way. DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 5 and quality of life in the city. In the future, downtown Hermosa Beach should become a place that appeals to a wide diversity of people – the surfer, the creative entrepreneur, the high tech busi- nessman and the young family with children. It should be a place that allows a diversity of groups to mutually co-exist - not a place that is dominated by one group at the expense of another. The downtown district is the heart of Hermosa Beach and should be enhanced so that it becomes, to an even greater extent than today, the focus of social life in the city. The betterment of the downtown will reflect positively on the quality of life in the com- munity as a whole. In 2010, the City invested in improvements to upper Pier Avenue that have already had significant benefits on the character and quality of that street. This report addresses what further actions should be taken to nurture positive change. As Hermosa Beach has matured as a community, the downtown has evolved as well. Still, the downtown businesses do not serve a broad cross-section of the population and provide less in the way of diverse retail and fine dining than would be expected, given the demographics of the community and the high quality assets of the area. If we look at the downtown district in its entirety, and the core area more specifically, there is a significant amount of land that is now vacant, used for parking or is underutilized. Positive Pier Avenue Improvements redevelopment of these areas will help to enhance the quality of life in the city. Critical to the transformation of the area is achieving the appropriate mix of uses and quality of development that makes Hermosa Beach a more sustainable and livable commu- nity. From a land use point of view, there are certain types of uses that can contribute to a more sociable, publicly-spirited place and a more economically viable district. Within the downtown as a whole as well as within the core, there is a need to increase the day-time population to add life and vitality that goes beyond the typical recreationally oriented uses that have been historically attracted to the beach setting of 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 A diverse family-friendly downtown environment Hermosa Beach. Office development, whether on upper floors or in stand-alone buildings, is an important activity that can build economic support for local-serving retail and quality dining estab- lishments. Recent office development that caters to businesses in knowledge work fields, such as finance, real estate and infor- mation, has occurred within the city primarily within downtown along Pier Avenue. This reflects a larger trend in which knowl- edge workers are taking advantage of the flexibility afforded by communications systems for work closer to their homes and in areas offering a high quality of life. Hotel development can also help to improve the vitality and economic viability of the Downtown Core by providing for over- night stay and longer visitation. There is strong market potential for hotel development on beachfront locations which are limited within Los Angeles County. Hermosa Beach is exceptionally well positioned for upscale hotel facilities on beachfront locations within the Downtown Core. In addition, if new hotel develop- ment includes an ample lobby, restaurant, spa, and other ameni- ties, it will help to create a more sociable and attractive destina- tion that will enhance its image and identity and contribute to its sense of security. Furthermore, high quality hotel development will, as with additional office uses, also provide greater market support for quality retail and restaurant establishments. DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 7 The encouragement of office and hotel uses cannot come at the expense of creating a pedestrian oriented people place with active ground level uses on key corridors and adjacent to impor- tant public spaces. In addition, creating a more active, people- oriented place must also be pursued in conjunction with quality development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach. To realize the potential of the Downtown Core will require the pro-active pursuit of appropriate infill develop- ment as well as public-private partnerships, implementation of public parking and streetscape improvements as well as some modifications to existing zoning. Commercial Tenanting Strategy Within the Downtown Core, the prime commercial tenanting opportunities are located along Hermosa Avenue, adjacent to Pier Plaza and on the Strand. Strategic public investment and successful development of catalyst sites in these three areas – Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue and the Strand frontage – could dramatically enhance the appeal, sociability and security of the Downtown Core and help transform it into a vibrant center for Hermosa businesses. Today, the quality and diversity of many existing retail establish- ments is not on par with expectations of residents or potential visi- tors from other Beach Cities. For example, the current retail tenant Examples of mixed-use buildings with office above retail 8 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 mix along Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue appears to be over- represented in the health and beauty sector - uses more typical of a neighborhood center than a retail shopping district - and are under-represented in the apparel sector, where the City exhibits significant retail leakage. As previously discussed, uses that increase the day-time population and longer stay visitation will contribute to the market support for retail development. Streetscape improve- ments and public parking can also help to enhance the appeal, convenience and attractiveness of the area. In addition, zoning modifications that eliminate on-site parking requirements will help to create greater continuity and pedestrian interest. Creating a more distinctive and well-defined retail district will help to market the area as a destination and, at the same time, attract better quality shops and restaurants. Improvements to the public realm are key to the enhancement of the image and iden- tity of the Downtown Core as a retail destination. Widened side- walks and public plazas that create space for cafes and outdoor dining can also attract additional patrons. Activities that spill out and populate the public spaces communicate that this place is worth visiting - seeing people brings people. In addition, the provision of convenient on-street parking makes retail shopping appear more accessible and attractive. Furthermore, the current ever-increasing trend towards bicycling for both recreation and work trips needs to be recognized by the provision of convenient bicycle parking as well. Examples of active ground level uses DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 9P I E R P L A Z A1 3 T H S T R E E T1 1 T H S T R E E T1 0 T H S T R E E T1 4 T H S T R E E T1 4 T H C O U R T1 1 T H C O U R T1 0 T H C O U R T1 5 T H C O U R T H E R M O S A A V E N U E P A L M D R I V E M A N H A T T A N A V E N U E T H E S T R A N D Ground Level Retail and Dining Opportunities The Downtown Core is an ideal location for active ground floor uses, including retail shops, restaurants, cafes, juice bars, health clubs and a broad range of commercial establishments that will invigorate the downtown. A greater concentration and diversity of quality retail activity should be encouraged, along with a focus on smaller, local cafe and eating establishments, like the Gum Tree and Java Man on Pier Avenue have. Small snack and coffee shops (25 or fewer seats) that contribute to the local character and pedestrian orientation should be permitted within the Downtown Core. Currently, discretionary review is required. Streetscape improvements help economic vitality Lack of active ground level uses along the Strand 10 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 Hermosa Avenue Streetscape Improvements Just as Pier Avenue is the gateway to the downtown district from the east, Hermosa Avenue is an important north/south gateway into the City. It traditionally served as the “main street” to the community, providing essential goods and services for the local population. Hermosa Avenue has significant regional continuity but does not present a strong sense of arrival when it traverses the downtown core. Improvements that enhance this sense of arrival and provide a stronger sense of the downtown as a district should be considered. Just as the improvements on Pier Avenue have spurred reinvest- ment and positive changes, improvements to Hermosa Avenue between 10th and 14th Streets can strengthen the economic underpinnings of this part of the Downtown Core. A concept similar to what was successfully undertaken along Pier Avenue was favorably considered by the City Council at a recent study session in reference to the improvements planned for Hermosa Avenue. This concept would involve the provision of wider 20-foot sidewalks on the sunny east side of the street, where sidewalk cafes and outdoor seating should be encouraged, the addition of street trees and intersection and median improvements, as well as diagonal parking. From a traffic point of view, the concept would allow for flexibility in operations. Within the curb-to-curb dimension of the street, there would be one wide 14-foot southbound sharrows lane with 8 feet for parking, for a total of 22 feet. If needed, this area could also accommodate two southbound moving lanes during peak periods. In the other direction, separated by a 10-foot landscaped median or turn lanes, vehicles would travel along two 11-foot northbound lanes. In addition to movement down the street, it is anticipated that the curbside lane would be used for moving in and out of the parking spaces, and the median-side lane would accommodate bicycle movement. On the east side of the street, diagonal parking would be accom- modated within a 16-foot wide area. This could be configured as head-in parking that is preferred by retail shops or as back-in parking that is preferred by bicyclists since it offers greater visi- bility of motorists for moving bicycles. The addition of diagonal parking directly adjacent to the east side of the street would provide 30 additional on-street parking spaces. Tighter traffic lanes would also have the additional benefit of calming traffic within the Downtown Core and allow it to be perceived as a destination rather than a place to move through on the way to somewhere else. Overall, the improvements would provide convenient parking that would help expand the market potential of the street, and in combination with the streetscape improvements and the widening of the sidewalk, would also provide for a more sociable pedestrian-oriented environment. DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 11 Hermosa Avenue Streetscape Concept14TH STREET14TH CT13TH ST13TH CT11TH ST11TH CT10TH STREETPIERPLAZAPIER AVENUE20’ SIDEWALK 16’ PARKING 11’ 100’RIGHT OF WAY 11’10’ 12’ 10’ P 10’ SW Hermosa Avenue today 12 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 Pier Plaza and the Strand Improvements The pedestrianization of Pier Plaza and the addition of Canary Island Palms undertaken in 1998 was a good first step towards reclaiming this important space within the community. Today, it is a unique resource within the City and South Bay, offering a place for people gathering right at the threshold to the Pier, the Strand and the beach. However, when it was redesigned, it was still envisioned for vehicular movement and therefore the scale and organization of the street works well for special events and when there are crowds of people using the space. The events that are planned for Pier Plaza should continue and be encouraged fur- ther, promoting activities such as a regular farmer’s market once or twice a week, that bring residents to the area and create a greater sense that the place is not only for visitors but also for residents. At the same time, the space of the plaza needs to be rescaled and made more attractive during times when fewer people are present. It should feel like a comfortable outdoor room that works when it is full of activity and when it is not. Currently the space is 450 feet long and, with a width of 100 feet, seems vacuous. Specific recommendations to benefit the scale and structure of the street would include extending the palm trees all the way to the Strand and adding elements that will make it more attractive, including lighting, landscape and banners. Furthermore, upper story uses would not only provide additional activity but provide a better scale to this wide space and addi- tional support for the retail uses along it. A significant objective of many community groups within the City is to make the Downtown Core a stronger destination for resi- dents and families as well as for visitors and nighttime entertain- ment. Since the City controls the beach and Plaza areas west of the Strand, consideration could be given to building a new and exciting children’s playground that would serve a variety of age groups as well as adult fitness areas within view of the playground. Modern Pier Plaza during a special event DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 13 0 20’40’ PIER PLAZA STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT Strategic Plan for Economic Development Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach by ROMA Design Group in association with Economic & Planning Systems NOVEMBER 26, 2013THE STRANDHERMOSA AVENUE13’ WIDE POTENTIAL OUTDOOR SEATING ZONE 13’ WIDE POTENTIAL OUTDOOR SEATING ZONE NEW LIGHT FIXTURES IN EXISTING LOCATIONS 8 NEW CANARY ISLAND DATE PALMS 16 EXISTING CANARY ISLAND DATE PALMS NEW LIGHT FIXTURES IN EXISTING LOCATIONS TYPICAL BIKE PARKING AREA TYPICAL BIKE PARKING AREA4 BANNERS 22 NEW JACARANDA TREESPier Plaza Streetscape Improvement Concept Typical weekday at Pier Plaza 100’ RIGHT OF WAY 12’ 6’ 7’ 10’10’ 7’ 6’ 30’ 20’ CLEAR 14 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 trends indicate that there is a demand for this kind of combina- tion of recreational activities so that parents can exercise while their children are playing in close proximity and within view. These improvements would not only add to the activities in Pier Plaza to the east but would also enhance public access and enjoyment of the beach and the fishing and strolling activities on the pier. The development of a bicycle facilities for repair, servicing, rental and sales, could be located on the west side of the Strand right at the entrance to the pier. This would reinforce the family biking that already takes place and the diversity and mix of activities that are part of the Pier Plaza area. THE PLAZA WEST OF THE STRAND IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION FORTHE PLAYGROUND AND BIKE KIOSK Public Space Improvement Opportunities Examples of bike repair and rental kiosks DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 15 Additional Pier Plaza streetscape improvements, a bike kiosk and playground can help make Pier Plaza a more family friendly place 16 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 Hotel Development Strategy The Downtown Core is an attractive location for beachfront hotel development and historically, as well as in recent years, there have been a number of hotel projects of varying size and character and each with its own contributions to the city as a whole. The Biltmore Hotel, which has been demolished but began as the Surf and Sand Beach Club in the 1920’s and later owned by the LA Athletic Club, is reflective of a landmark hotel that set the tone for the City. The six-story, 120-room hotel with its pool, ballroom, and rooftop setting for starlight dancing and daytime sunbathing, was the social center of Hermosa Beach for many years. Today, there continues to be a few hotels in the Downtown Core and more are planned. The Sea Sprite Motel offers the price- conscious visitor a place for a short or long stay. Each of the 40 rooms has some kitchen facilities for family visits and a pool. The more recently constructed 96-room Beach House is in fractional ownership and offers both short and long stays. It has limited common area, does not have a pool, and is not a full service hotel. Also, just beyond the primary core area on Hermosa Avenue, north of 10th Street, a 30-room luxury boutique hotel (the Clash Hotel) has been approved for construction. More recently, a critical site along the Strand and Pier Plaza, has been assembled for a hotel development and is in the process of developing specific proposals. Hotel development is one of the uses allowed in the Coastal Zone, because it is in keeping with the objectives of making the coastal resources more publicly accessible. The City’s Coastal Land Use Plan permits three-story development within a 45-foot height limit, while the City’s zoning regulations limit any develop- ment to 30 feet. However, land values and operating efficiencies within the core area are such that it is difficult to develop the kinds of ground level uses that are desired along with upper level accommodations within the City’s 30 foot height limit. In addi- tion, these height limits not only restrict the height required for successful ground level publicly-oriented uses in a multi-story configuration, but they also restrict rooftop development of P I E R P L A Z A1 3 T H S T R E E T1 1 T H S T R E E T1 0 T H S T R E E T1 4 T H S T R E E T1 4 T H C O U R T1 1 T H C O U R T1 0 T H C O U R T1 5 T H C O U R T H E R M O S A A V E N U E P A L M D R I V E M A N H A T T A N A V E N U E T H E S T R A N D Hotel Opportunity Areas DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 17 amenities and facilities which can take advantage of the significant beachfront location. Hennessey’s Tavern is an example of the kind of rooftop amenity space that could be provided in conjunc- tion with a pool deck in a new hotel. A three-story height within 30 feet is a significant constraint to the development of a quality hotel facility, particularly within the constrained parcel sizes in the Downtown Core. The introduction of additional hotel accommodations is a critical component of creating a more diverse and inviting environment for residents and visitors. To achieve the greatest benefit from hotel development within the core, the qualitative aspects of the development of the public spaces, amenities and services that are provided must be addressed. Hotels historically have been a key element in establishing the unique place-making qualities of recreational areas and making them more attractive for the community as a whole. Examples abound of landmark hotels around the country and the world that have successfully achieved these qualities. They have furthered the identity of the unique settings, making them more welcoming for everyone and providing amenities that have furthered the sociability, sense of security and hospitality that contribute to a sense of place. Yosemite is a great natural environment that everyone wants to visit, but the Ahwahnee Hotel adds hospitality, comfort and iden- tity that makes Yosemite an even more special destination. La Jolla, as a tourist destination, similarly benefits from the La Valencia Hotel, through its landmark qualities and the recreational and social activities that are open to the community. A more recent example of striking success is the role the Hotel Healdsburg in northern California played in the emergence of the Healdsburg Town Square as a center of the Wine Country. We are very familiar with the story of the transformative effect that this hotel provided to the community because of our involvement in the master planning of the downtown and the development of the project. To illustrate, when we began the master planning effort, Healdsburg had a Town Plaza that was an identifiable landmark in this small town, but many of the businesses, particularly the bars around the square, catered to a rough-neck crowd that made the area feel unsafe and unwel- coming to many people. There were many elements of the Master Plan that were recom- mended to transform the nature of the area, but most importantly was the development of a hotel directly across from the Town Square on a key publicly-owned parcel. The goals of the hotel proj- ect were to not only provide for the lodging of visitors but to create a special place that would contribute to the life on the square and become a catalyst for further retail and restaurant development. That goal was achieved in the realization of Hotel Healdsburg which 18 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 Hotel Healdsburg reinforces the small town scale of its setting and brings attractive buildings and activities that helped transform the downtown DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 19 provided an architectural quality that heightened the identity and qualities of the Wine Country setting and provided a high level of amenity and a public spiritedness. The architecture is modern, but brings in and integrates landscaping in a manner that heightens the awareness of the unique qualities of the region. It also extends this approach to the public spaces by the introduction of taste- fully selected local art that emphasizes those qualities. The Hotel Healdsburg and the unique qualities it provided contributed to making Healdsburg a key destination in the Wine Country and the Town Square the sociable heart of the community. More specifically, the Hotel Healdsburg is a 3-story, 45-foot high hotel project that engages effectively the public environment of the street and the Town Square. It provides a massing and integra- tion of public and quasi-public spaces that extend the public realm into the hotel and help to make it a more inviting place. It provides a diversity of active ground level uses, including the Dry Creek Kitchen, a fine dining establishment, with an extensive outdoor seat- ing area along the street frontage, and a number of unique small shops along the streetfront that enhance the identity and experi- ence of place. The project includes a gracious lobby and adjacent casual meeting and gathering spaces as well as other separate meeting and catered dining rooms and a spa, pool area and out- door places for relaxation. Valet parking to a public off-site parking facility is also available from an attractive and well-integrated porte- cochere that does not diminish the urban qualities of the hotel. Hotel Healdsburg amenities 20 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 The landmark La Valencia Hotel is well fitted within its retail downtown setting and provides courtyard dining for visitors and residents DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 21 Hermosa Beach is a beach community that has many different qualities than Healdsburg and the development of a hotel here needs to build on the unique qualities of this place. At the same time, there is an opportunity to learn from historical precedents and the transformative qualities that benefitted Healdsburg and interpret them more specifically for how they might be applied locally. It is important that an attitude is taken that looks to the achievement of the qualitative dimensions of place-making as of at least equal value to the achievement of the room count and yield of the hotel. There are different categories of hotels, motels and inns in Hermosa Beach at different price points that provide for a diversity of visitors to the area. What could be strength- ened, however, is the creation of a distinctive, higher quality establishment that serves the more discerning visitor and that can also become a focal point for community life. The setting of the Downtown Core right at the beach and adjacent to Pier Plaza is ideal for such an establishment. To develop a quality hotel that achieves the public purpose and the desired positive spin-off effect in the Downtown Core, there are many factors that need to be addressed and overcome. Sites are small and land assembly is not easy. The existing 30-foot height limit makes it very difficult to achieve a tall ground level that graciously provides for the public spaces of the hotel and a rooftop level that would be ideally suited for special amenities and open-air functions. On the roof level, there is a possibility of outdoor dining, a pool deck and spa facilities. Currently, occupied rooftop space is counted as part of the height of the building. If the quality of life in the city and the sociability of the Downtown Core are priorities, and a distinctive hotel that helps to further these objectives is desired, then the City needs to take a pro- active role to help achieve these goals. The prospect of redevel- opment of the Mermaid Hotel site, on the north side of Pier Plaza, has been identified, but a hotel developer and operator cannot achieve all of the public-spirited qualities and spin-off effects that are desired on their own. To achieve these qualities, a public/private partnership is required. This partnership can include assistance in providing valet parking in the existing parking structure and replacing the public park- ing that is lost by constructing a large and efficient new structure on publicly-owned land on the south side of Pier Plaza. This new parking structure will not only replace the parking, but would create opportunities for other hotel and retail ventures on that side of the plaza as well. In addition, the City has land in street rights-of-way and in parking lots that could contribute to the cre- ation of a more appropriately configured site for a quality hotel. Equally important, the City should consider taking the lead in a ballot initiative for voter approval of a height limit change to 45 feet. This increase in height would be aimed at increasing 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 Without adding to the number of stories, a modest increase in height can help to improve the quality of hotel development in the core DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 23 the quality of development, not the intensity nor the number of stories. In addition, it would only be allowed on a limited basis and only for specific projects that clearly demonstrate achieve- ment of public objectives related to qualitative aspects including architectural and site design, publicly oriented activities on the ground floor, rooftop amenities, etc. It is important to note that the new height limit would be consistent with current Coastal Commission policies and generally is in the same area where the existing historic Bijou Building is 45 to 50 feet in height. Parking Strategy The parking strategy is intended to encourage small, indepen- dent, local businesses in the downtown district maintain the smaller scale, and small town character and manage the parking demand fluctuations more effectively, particularly since there are surges during the summer and weekends. There are two primary aspects of the parking strategy – first, the development of a public parking supply that is publicly managed with demand pricing to help control the distribution and availability of parking. The public parking can be provided for by using in-lieu fees and parking charges to help pay for the program and a specific financing plan for these will need to be developed. New public parking structures should be located to help alleviate peak loading on thoroughfares and for better traffic management. In addition to these, convenient, short term on-street parking, like what was developed on Pier Avenue, should be encouraged on Hermosa Avenue, the other major downtown retail street. The second component of the parking strategy involves modifica- tions to the existing zoning requirements for new development in support of a pedestrian-oriented district where the continuity and quality of the pedestrian experience is given a priority and a certain amount of walking to parking facilities is part of the experi- ence of place. Public Facilities and Parking Management The provision of centralized public parking facilities in beach- front locations and downtown districts is an essential component of a successful economic development strategy. The need for additional facilities in Hermosa Beach to both intercept parking demand and provide for a successful Downtown Core has long been identified. This work effort reinforces the importance of meeting these needs and identifies two strategic locations for the placement of these parking facilities. One of these would be located in the Downtown Core on City-owned property south of Pier Plaza. This is envisioned to be similar in size and character to the existing parking structure on the north side of the Plaza. The other would be located in the Community Center and/or Civic Center and would best serve the surge requirements of the recre- ational visitor, the beach-goer and parking for special events, civic and community functions and Pier Avenue retail. It is anticipated 24 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 P I E R P L A Z A1 3 T H S T R E E T1 1 T H S T R E E T1 0 T H S T R E E T1 4 T H S T R E E T1 4 T H C O U R T1 1 T H C O U R T1 0 T H C O U R T1 5 T H C O U R T H E R M O S A A V E N U E P A L M D R I V E M A N H A T T A N A V E N U E T H E S T R A N D A Public Parking Garage is needed to the south of Pier Plaza, similar to the one previously built to the north side DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 25 that each of these structures might accommodate 300 to 400 parking spaces similar to the existing downtown parking structure. The management of public parking facilities should include demand pricing and efficient parking information and control systems that provide a more effective distribution of the available supply. The Downtown Core parking structures should provide for the required commercial and hotel development on underutilized properties and public parking for existing uses and beach visi- tors. Parking between the existing and the new parking structure within the core could be redistributed between the two facilities, depending on where development is taking place. In addition to the provision of parking structures, it is important to maintain and augment, if possible, parking along the street. This parking should be time-managed and priced to emphasize short- term convenience needs and avoid being absorbed for long-term use and by employees. Street parking communicates a friendly and convenient environment and actually can help to contribute to a pedestrian-oriented environment, especially in combination with streetscape improvements. In Hermosa Beach, the parking and streetscape improvements that were implemented on Pier Avenue demonstrate the positive effect on retail activity that can be achieved. Zoning Modifications Concerns were raised in initial discussions with developers, realtors and property owners about parking requirements in the existing Zoning Code and the deterrent that they impose upon economic vitality and the ability to maintain and further the small scale vil- lage environment of downtown Hermosa Beach. In particular, a significant concern is the effect that these requirements have on the ability to encourage office development on upper floors which would be beneficial in enhancing the daytime population and thus the market support for retail and restaurant functions. Existing parking issues and requirements in Hermosa Beach were reviewed along with those of other selected beach cities. The conclusion of this effort is that there should be a greater emphasis on how parking solutions can help to create a more attractive and accessible pedestrian-oriented district, where a greater mix and intensity of activities are desired while still accommodating beach- going peak visitor demand. The following provides a series of recommended actions that would help to encourage a more pedestrian-oriented district through changes in the Zoning Code. 1. Pier Avenue, from PCH to Hermosa Avenue and including the Community and Civic Center sites and Hermosa Avenue 26 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • JANUARY 2014 and the Downtown Core from 10th to 14th Streets should be designated as a pedestrian-oriented district, with special incentives and provisions to minimize the impact of parking and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility. 2. All parking in the pedestrian-oriented district should be provided off-site, rather than the current 25% of parking for buildings with greater than a one floor-to-area ratio (FAR). This is only currently allowed in the SPA-11 zone (Pier Avenue east of Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive) as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings (Section17.38.550(D)). 3. There should be a reduced amount of required parking for commercial (office and retail) uses within the pedestrian- oriented district. Currently one space per 250 SF is required for these uses, however, the Coastal Commission recently provided for a reduced standard of 1/333 SF, which is more consistent with other beach communities, contingent on a parking evaluation from the City which should be undertaken. 4. There should be a reduced amount of required parking for restaurant uses within the pedestrian-oriented district. Currently, one space per 1,000 SF is required. Cities such as Redondo Beach utilizes a one space per 250 SF for pedestrian-oriented districts, which should be considered in Hermosa Beach as well. 5. Outdoor seating should be encouraged for the creation of a more sociable environment within the pedestrian oriented district. The determination of the appropriate amount of outdoor seating within the public street right-of-way should be based on lot frontage length, maintaining adequate space for pedestrian circulation and considerations related to adjacencies and public safety. These are to be determined on a case-by-case basis at a staff level by the Community Development and Public Works Director. Parking require- ments for outdoor seating should be reduced appropriately to encourage the diversity of types of establishments within the downtown district and in particular within the Downtown Core. For example, in Redondo Beach, no additional parking is required for the first 12 seats of outdoor seating. 6. Parking requirements should be reduced for mixed use build- ings on a single lot that generate parking demand during different times of the day without the need for a discretionary action by the City. There are currently a variety of conditions upon which the amount of parking reduction may be allowed or a fee paid in lieu of providing parking, but a discretionary review is required. 7. Upper level office use should be encouraged to attract a lively downtown environment and provide a greater daytime popu- lation that supports retail and restaurant uses. Parking for DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 27 upper level office use should be reduced and located off-site in shared parking and public parking facilities. 8. Vehicular parking requirements should be reduced in exchange for the provision of additional bicycle parking, beyond what is already required by the City. This provision is currently limited to development along Pier Avenue. An equivalence of 4 bicycle spaces for one car space, up to 20% of the parking required for non-residential projects should be considered (which is the provision allowed in the City of Los Angeles and other cities’ zoning codes). This includes the required bicycle parking and any additional bicycle parking. 9. For an existing non-restaurant use that is converting to restau- rant use and whose parking requirements are met in common facilities within the pedestrian-oriented district, a credit against the future parking requirements should be allowed, based upon the zoning requirements of the existing use. Currently this is not allowed for some types of restaurants in the downtown district. 10. Parking requirements for commercial uses within the pedes- trian-oriented district should be allowed in common facili- ties within a quarter mile walking distance. This is currently only allowed for second floor office space as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings in SPA-11 zone along Pier Avenue. 11. Parking requirements for commercial uses within the pedes- trian-oriented district should be based on a net usable building square footage basis, that is, not including for example, bathrooms, hallways, lobbies, service, storage and mechanical rooms. 1 Attachment 1 Principles and Guidelines Reflecting the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Goal: Create a sociable, publicly-spirited and economically viable Downtown District that appeals to residents and visitors alike and supports a sustainable and livable community. Principles: 1. Proactive strategy: The Downtown Core, between 10th and 14th Streets and the Strand and Palm Drive focused on Hermosa Avenue and Pier Plaza is the heart of Hermosa Beach, and should be enhanced as the focus of social life in the city. It is part of the Downtown District, bounded by 15th Street, 8th Street, extending along Pier Avenue to Valley Drive. 2. Family-friendly, inviting to all: Create an environment that appeals to the increasingly stable, diverse and family-oriented population and allows them to mutually co-exist, rather than being a place dominated by one group at the expense of another. 3. Daytime district: Increasing the day-time population will add life and vitality that goes beyond the typical recreationally oriented uses that have been historically attracted to the beach setting of Hermosa Beach. 4. Pedestrian oriented: Develop the Downtown Core as a pedestrian and people oriented place with an appropriate mix of uses and quality of development that contributes to a more sociable, publicly-spirited and economically viable place. 5. Eclectic beach character: Improvement of parking facilities and management within the Downtown Core is essential to increasing economic vitality and maintaining the eclectic character of a district with small local businesses anchored by catalyst projects that provide synergy and support. 6. Distinctive retail district: Create a distinctive and well-defined retail district with quality shops and restaurants on the ground floor that are pedestrian oriented, family-friendly and appealing to a wide range of people. 7. Catalyst development: High quality hotel development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach and provides significant quality public spaces and benefits can enhance the hospitality, identity and economic viability of the Downtown District. 8. Public investment: Realizing the full potential of the Downtown Core requires investment in the public realm and public-private partnerships which signal the 2 City’s commitment to the area and further city goals, attract economic enterprises, and reduce the negative social behavior that occurs within the Pier Plaza area. Guidelines: Catalyst Hotel Development Strategy (Principles 1- 8) A. High quality hotel development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach and provides significant quality public spaces and benefits can enhance the hospitality, identity and economic viability of the Downtown District. B. Catalyst hotel projects provide strategic, transformative and differentiated development:  Rather than representing “business as usual,” catalyst projects define, enhance and communicate the City’s brand, and activate community involvement, participation, and innovation.  Advance community objectives to maintain our small beach town character, enhance economic and environmental sustainability, and support an active healthy lifestyle.  Provide significant and demonstrable positive effects on the social and economic fabric of the Downtown District, including benefits to residents, businesses, and visitors.  Make significant contributions to a livable and sustainable community. C. Catalyst development that provides public benefits may merit public/private partnerships or incentives of various types, including potential use of city assets, consistent with community objectives and values and these guidelines. High priority benefits include:  Includes uses, amenities or spaces that provide the ability for the public to use or derive benefit from the project.  Provides space and design that facilitates a more diverse and balanced mix of uses that appeal to residents as well as visitors.  Provides a unique hotel product with a quality design and experience that strives for a top rating of four-star or higher at all times.  Design and operation that reduces vehicle trips in the Downtown.  Demonstration of environmental leadership through development design 3 and operations consistent with the city’s carbon neutral goal.  Design and operation that expands opportunities for walking, biking and use of alternative modes.  Demonstration of marine protection through development design and operations that result in net zero urban and stormwater runoff. Other priorities include:  Minimizing parking demand through use of shuttles, carsharing, etc.  Improvements or investments that serve as a catalyst to carbon reduction by others. D. Catalyst development design exhibits the following:  Takes a holistic and integrated approach in order to maximize community benefits and compatibility.  Creates high quality public spaces for uses that appeal to a diverse population throughout the day and create synergy with nearby development.  Community spirited improvements or public benefits may be located on property being developed for a hotel or other catalyst project, or on other property that is associated with the comprehensive development project.  Maintains the connectivity of the mobility grid (streets, alleys, pedestrian and bike pathways) so people can continue to easily move from place to place, especially by walking and biking. E. Hotel development with frontage on Pier Plaza, The Strand between 11th and 13th Streets, Hermosa Avenue, or Pier Avenue exhibits the following:  The ground floor frontages on the Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets must provide quality public spaces appeal to a diverse population and create a more sociable and attractive place.  Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability (without windows and doors inviting to the general public), and ground floor non-retail uses (including uses such as offices and appointment-driven services) must be avoided.  Multi-story buildings should be developed on Pier Plaza to provide additional activity and support for the retail uses, and frame the wide space by improving the sense of scale and security. Development design and 4 architecture should be mindful of the identity and scale of the City and the Downtown District, while celebrating the unique setting.  Provision of high quality public spaces on the ground floor and roof terraces which enhance opportunities to enjoy the unique beachfront setting of Hermosa Beach but do not add stories may merit consideration of increased height. Any increased height is subject to a vote of the people. Commercial Tenanting Strategy (Principles 1-8) A. Increase retail uses along Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue that appeal to residents as well as visitors, which are overrepresented by the health and beauty sectors, and underrepresented by the clothing sector. B. Active ground level uses that engage a diverse and pedestrian oriented population must be provided on key corridors (Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue, Pier Avenue, and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets) and adjacent to important public spaces. Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability, and non-retail uses (including offices and appointment-driven services) are to be avoided. C. Encourage uses that increase the day-time population and longer visitor stays in order to support retail development. D. Office development on upper floors or outside the Downtown Core can build economic support for local-serving retail and quality dining establishments. E. The encouragement of office and hotel uses cannot occur at the expense of creating a pedestrian oriented place. F. Activities that spill out and populate the public spaces create a pedestrian environment and communicate that the Downtown District is a place is worth visiting. G. Maintain the connectivity of the street/alley grid so people can continue to easily move from place to place, especially by walking and biking. H. Maximize uses welcoming and accessible to the general public along beachfront frontages and at locations with coastal views. I. Improvements to the public realm such as streetscape, plaza, and parking management, will enhance the image and identity of the Downtown Core as a pedestrian and retail destination. J. Continue the current trend towards bicycling for both recreation and work trips by the provision of convenient bicycle travel ways and bicycle parking. 5 K. Zoning modifications that facilitate parking in publicly managed consolidated/centralized facilities serving multiple uses rather than providing parking on each site will help maintain the eclectic character of the Downtown District, create a pedestrian oriented place, and improve land use efficiencies. Parking Strategy (Principles 1, 3, 4 5, 8) A. Maintain the eclectic scale and mix of small, independent, local businesses in the Downtown District by managing parking demand fluctuations more effectively. B. Modify zoning requirements in support of a pedestrian-oriented district where the continuity and quality of the pedestrian experience is a priority and a certain amount of walking to parking facilities is part of the experience of place. C. Develop consolidated/centralized public parking facility(ies) within the Downtown Core to serve redevelopment, improve land use efficiency, help alleviate peak loading on thoroughfares, and improve traffic management. Interceptor parking to serve the surge requirements of recreational, special events, and civic and community functions, as well as supporting upper Pier Avenue retail and office parking, should be developed at the Community Center/Civic Center. D. Develop a public parking supply that is publicly managed with demand pricing to help control the distribution and availability of parking. E. Develop convenient, time-managed and priced short term on-street parking on Hermosa Avenue to support retail and convenience needs and avoid being absorbed for long-term use and by employees. F. Modify zoning requirements to provide incentives and provisions to minimize the impact of parking and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility addressing: off-site parking; parking for upper story office, retail, restaurant, mixed use and outdoor seating; and bicycle parking. Hermosa Avenue Streetscape (Principles 1-8) A. Make improvements to create a sense of arrival and definition of the Downtown Core as a unique district. B. Implement a streetscape strategy similar to that along upper Pier Avenue: consider wider sidewalks, street trees, intersection and median improvements, diagonal parking, and also sidewalk cafes. C. Widen sidewalks and public plazas on Hermosa Avenue will create space for cafes and outdoor dining and attract additional patrons. D. Provide convenient on-street parking on Hermosa Avenue to make retail shopping 6 appear more accessible and attractive. Pier Plaza and The Strand (Principles 2, 3, 5, 7, 8) A. Promote and facilitate frequent activities (e.g. weekly) that attract residents and create a greater sense that these spaces are not only for visitors but also for residents. B. Rescale the Plaza to make it more attractive during times when fewer people are present: consider extending palm trees westward, smaller canopy trees, and elements that will make it more inviting such as lighting and banners. C. Encourage multi-story uses along the Plaza to provide additional activity and support for the retail uses, and to frame this wide space by improving the sense of scale and security. D. Create a stronger destination for residents and families: consider playground, fitness area, bicycle facilities, and other family and multi-generational activities and facilities. E. Ground floor frontages on Pier Plaza and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets, must provide quality public spaces that appeal to a diverse population and create a more sociable and attractive place. Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability, and non-retail uses (including offices and appointment-driven services) are to be avoided. 2 important steps will be to better manage parking and encourage a greater variety of businesses, including fine dining establishments, high quality hotels and upper floor offices that reflect the changing nature of the population and contribute to the overall downtown environment. Within the downtown as a whole as well as within the core, there is a need to increase the day- time population to add life and vitality that goes beyond the typical recreationally oriented uses that have been historically attracted to the beach setting of Hermosa Beach. Office development, whether on upper floors or in stand-alone buildings, is an important activity that can build economic support for local-serving retail and quality dining establishments. Hermosa Beach is exceptionally well positioned for upscale hotel facilities on beachfront locations within the Downtown Core. In addition, if new hotel development includes an ample lobby, restaurant, spa, and other amenities, it will help to create a more sociable and attractive destination that will enhance its image and identity and contribute to its sense of security. Furthermore, high quality hotel development will, as with additional office uses, also provide greater market support for quality retail and restaurant establishments. The encouragement of office and hotel uses cannot come at the expense of creating a pedestrian oriented people place with active ground level uses on key corridors and adjacent to important public spaces. In addition, creating a more active, people oriented place must also be pursued in conjunction with quality development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach. To realize the potential of the Downtown Core will require the pro-active pursuit of appropriate infill development as well as public-private partnerships, implementation of public parking and streetscape improvements as well as some modifications to existing zoning.” The Commercial Tenanting Strategy addresses way to increase daytime activity to support retail uses and is important to consider as part of the Commission’s deliberations on the parking strategy: “Within the Downtown Core, the prime commercial tenanting opportunities are located along Hermosa Avenue, adjacent to Pier Plaza and on the Strand. Strategic public investment and successful development of catalyst sites in these three areas – Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue and the Strand frontage – could dramatically enhance the appeal, sociability and security of the Downtown Core and help transform it into a vibrant center for Hermosa businesses. Today, the quality and diversity of many existing retail establishments is not on par with expectations of residents or potential visitors from other Beach Cities. For example, the current retail tenant mix along Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue appears to be overrepresented in the health and beauty sector - uses more typical of a neighborhood center than a retail shopping district and are under-represented in the apparel sector, where the City exhibits significant retail leakage. As previously discussed, uses that increase the day-time population and longer stay visitation will contribute to the market support for retail development. Streetscape improvements and public parking can also help to enhance the appeal, convenience and attractiveness of the area. In addition, zoning modifications that eliminate on-site parking requirements will help to create greater continuity and pedestrian interest. 3 Creating a more distinctive and well-defined retail district will help to market the area as a destination and, at the same time, attract better quality shops and restaurants. Improvements to the public realm are key to the enhancement of the image and identity of the Downtown Core as a retail destination. Widened sidewalks and public plazas that create space for cafes and outdoor dining can also attract additional patrons. Activities that spill out and populate the public spaces communicate that this place is worth visiting - seeing people brings people. In addition, the provision of convenient on-street parking makes retail shopping appear more accessible and attractive. Furthermore, the current ever-increasing trend towards bicycling for both recreation and work trips needs to be recognized by the provision of convenient bicycle parking as well.” The Principles accepted by Council reflect the Strategy and as such provide s succinct summary of the future vision of the downtown district: Principles: 1. Proactive strategy: The Downtown Core, between 10th and 14th Streets and the Strand and Palm Drive focused on Hermosa Avenue and Pier Plaza is the heart of Hermosa Beach, and should be enhanced as the focus of social life in the city. It is part of the Downtown District, bounded by 15th Street, 8th Street, extending along Pier Avenue to Valley Drive. 2. Family-friendly, inviting to all: Create an environment that appeals to the increasingly stable, diverse and family-oriented population and allows them to mutually co-exist, rather than being a place dominated by one group at the expense of another. 3. Daytime district: Increasing the day-time population will add life and vitality that goes beyond the typical recreationally oriented uses that have been historically attracted to the beach setting of Hermosa Beach. 4. Pedestrian oriented: Develop the Downtown Core as a pedestrian and people oriented place with an appropriate mix of uses and quality of development that contributes to a more sociable, publicly-spirited and economically viable place. 5. Eclectic beach character: Improvement of parking facilities and management within the Downtown Core is essential to increasing economic vitality and maintaining the eclectic character of a district with small local businesses anchored by catalyst projects that provide synergy and support. 6. Distinctive retail district: Create a distinctive and well-defined retail district with quality shops and restaurants on the ground floor that are pedestrian oriented, family-friendly and appealing to a wide range of people. 7. Catalyst development: High quality hotel development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach and provides significant quality public spaces and benefits can enhance the hospitality, identity and economic viability of the Downtown District. 4 8. Public investment: Realizing the full potential of the Downtown Core requires investment in the public realm and public-private partnerships which signal the City’s commitment to the area and further city goals, attract economic enterprises, and reduce the negative social behavior that occurs within the Pier Plaza area. I. PARKING STRATEGY The Strategy states: “The parking strategy is intended to encourage small, independent, local businesses in the downtown district maintain the smaller scale, and small town character and manage the parking demand fluctuations more effectively, particularly since there are surges during the summer and weekends. There are two primary aspects of the parking strategy – first, the development of a public parking supply that is publicly managed with demand pricing to help control the distribution and availability of parking. ... The second component of the parking strategy involves modifications to the existing zoning requirements for new development in support of a pedestrian-oriented district where the continuity and quality of the pedestrian experience is given a priority and a certain amount of walking to parking facilities is part of the experience of place.” The City Council preliminary accepted the attached Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan which identifies potential location for additional centralized parking. Zoning Modifications: “Concerns were raised in initial discussions with developers, realtors and property owners about parking requirements in the existing Zoning Code and the deterrent that they impose upon economic vitality and the ability to maintain and further the small scale village environment of downtown Hermosa Beach. In particular, a significant concern is the effect that these requirements have on the ability to encourage office development on upper floors which would be beneficial in enhancing the daytime population and thus the market support for retail and restaurant functions. Existing parking issues and requirements in Hermosa Beach were reviewed along with those of other selected beach cities. The conclusion of this effort is that there should be a greater emphasis on how parking solutions can help to create a more attractive and accessible pedestrian-oriented district, where a greater mix and intensity of activities are desired while still accommodating beach-going peak visitor demand.” The Strategy identified eleven potential code amendments to encourage a more pedestrian-oriented district, which are the focus of Commission discussion. 1. Pier Avenue, from PCH to Hermosa Avenue and including the Community and Civic Center sites and Hermosa Avenue and the Downtown Core from 10th to 14th Streets should be designated as a pedestrian-oriented district, with special incentives and provisions to minimize the impact of parking and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Discussion: Specific Plan Area No 11 Zone (SPA-11) adopted for Upper Pier Avenue between Palm and Valley Drives is a “form” and use based code that shapes the physical form of the private realm to create a pedestrian oriented district that requires permeable facades placed close to the 5 sidewalk with parking placed to the rear of buildings. While a wide variety of uses are allowed, the facades provide interest and make walking more pleasant and this form is enduring over the life of the building while uses may change. SPA-11 provides incentives that can be granted by the Commission for “the conservation and continued use and reuse of existing buildings that are iconic of and contribute to the character of upper Pier Avenue as a small-scale, pedestrian-oriented village with diverse architectural character...” (17.38.550(C)). SPA-11 works in concert with the streetscape, which provides wide sidewalks, bulb outs, medians and crossings to slow traffic and make walking safer, and vegetation to create shade and protect against summer heat. The SPA-11 Zone also requires provision of bicycle parking at the rate of one space per 7 employees or 3,000 square feet of new floor area. Please refer to the SPA-11 Zone in full: (http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HermosaBeach/#!/HermosaBeach17/HermosaBeach1738.ht ml#17.38.510) There has been general community support of the Pier Avenue streetscape and the changes it has brought aesthetically, via reinvestment, and economic activity. There has remained the desire to maintain Upper Pier Avenue east of Monterey as a more resident serving portion of the street. While new buildings such as 200, 205 and 338-400 Pier Avenue were approved for construction prior to adoption of the SPA-11 Zone, they generally comply with the intent of the code. The project at 338-400 Pier Avenue, which is comprised of two large buildings occupied by a single office tenant is less consistent with the intent. While the building with its large windows lies adjacent to the sidewalk, with parking located off Pier Avenue, is generally compatible with the SPA-11 Zone, the use of the building that does not provide attraction to residents or visitors creates a closed feel and lack of interest for the pedestrian. The SPA-11 Zone states that ‘service, office and other non-pedestrian oriented uses are encouraged to locate on the second story. When there is a mix of uses on the ground floor, the pedestrian-oriented uses should be located so that the building facade, window displays and interior are highly visible to pedestrians on the public sidewalk” and the Commission may grant incentives to facilitate this, excluding parking incentives (17.38.550(C)). The building at 200 Pier Avenue was built as an office building but has evolved to provide retail on the ground floor as well, which is compatible with a pedestrian oriented district. Large format markets and department stores exceeding 4000 square feet on the ground floor are not permitted in order to maintain the eclectic, small-scaled nature of the district. When the Commission originally evaluated the SPA-11 Zone there was discussion of whether to restrict the front 15 or 20 feet of the buildings to retail uses but the Commission ultimately did not recommend this restriction. Commission Direction:  Should the SPA-11 Zone be applied to the remainder of the downtown district? Should changes be made to the SPA-11 Zone as applied to Upper Pier Avenue, or as may be applied to the remainder of the downtown district?  Is the mix of uses allowed appropriate? Should any restrictions be considered relating to uses that may be located on the ground floor, such as revenue generating uses? 2. All parking in the pedestrian-oriented district should be allowed to be provided off-site, rather than the current 25% of parking for buildings with greater than a one floor-to-area ratio (FAR). This is only currently allowed in the SPA-11 Zone (Pier Avenue east of Hermosa Avenue to 6 Valley Drive) as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings (Section 17.38.550(D)). Discussion: The suggestion is that all parking should be allowed to be provided offsite (subject to payment of in-lieu fees) rather than requiring some of the parking to be provided onsite for expansion or new buildings with more than one story. This suggestion recognizes that most lots in the downtown area are too small or have limited street access to accommodate on-site parking and is coupled with the general philosophy that common parking facilities should be used such as in new parking structures developed by the City at city hall or at the community center for efficient land use in this concentrated district for economic and social activity. It is possible that developers could identify off-site parking locations for 100% of the required parking even in the absence of construction of new facilities by the City. (see attached Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan) Encouraging the development and use of second floor commercial space will provide for more daytime population in the downtown. This, in turn, will greatly support our current and future ground floor retail and restaurants. It will also free up more square footage for sale tax generating uses. The SPA-11 Zone states that, “Building sites where buildings will exceed gross floor area to building site area ratio of one to one (1:1) may pay an in-lieu fee for all the required on-site parking spaces” as an incentive to protection of iconic buildings (17.38.550(D)). Conversely, “Building sites where buildings will exceed a 1:1 gross floor area to building site area ratio shall be required to provide a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the required parking on-site.” (17.44.040(E)). Commission Direction:  Should the provision in the SPA-11 Zone be allowed within the downtown core and not be just limited to conservation of iconic buildings?  Should the SPA-11 Zone as applied to Upper Pier Avenue be modified to allow in-lieu fees - generally and encourage second floor office and service uses, rather than just as an incentive to conservation of iconic buildings? 3. There should be a reduced amount of required parking for commercial (office and retail) uses within the pedestrian oriented district. Currently one space per 250 SF is required for these uses, however, the Coastal Commission recently provided for a reduced standard of 1/333 SF, which is more consistent with other beach communities, contingent on a parking evaluation from the City which should be undertaken. This will assist in making the city more competitive in recruiting retail and office uses. Discussion: In 2003 the City amended the zoning code to require one space per 333 SF for office and retail uses (17.44.040). However this provision sunset and a request by the City in 2007 to extend it was not acted upon by the Coastal Commission due to the lack of a parking study being filed as part of the application evaluating potential development, parking adequacy for these uses, and its impact on beach parking. The Beach Use and Parking Study prepared for the General Plan 7 update indicates there is some surplus parking on the street and in the public lots on both weekends and weekdays in the the downtown area. However further analysis of realistic development potential to accompany the environmental document and application to the Coastal Commission will be necessary. Commission Direction:  Should the City pursue an amendment to reduce parking standards for retail and/or office uses within the downtown district?  Should any parking reduction for office include the stipulation that a reduction for office and service use is restricted to upper levels only (not ground floor) consistent with the Strategy? 4. There should be a reduced amount of required parking for restaurant uses within the pedestrian-oriented district. Currently, one space per 100 SF is required. Cities such as Redondo Beach utilize a one space per 250 SF for pedestrian-oriented districts, which should be considered in Hermosa Beach as well. (Also the City currently requires expansions of small restaurants to be subject to a restrictive standard that parking must be provided for the entire restaurant rather than just the expansion, this is discussion in item 9.) Discussion: Snack shops, which are restricted to 25 seats and generally do not attract people as part of single destination trip, are permitted to use the 1/250 SF standard pursuant to a parking plan. If more, or expansions of existing, restaurants are desired in the downtown core or downtown district generally then a parking reduction would facilitate this use. Inquiries of staff indicate there is market demand to develop or expand restaurants. Anecdotal information also indicates that restaurants (particularly on-sale) command more rent. Commission Direction:  Are more, or expansions of existing, restaurants desired in the downtown core or downtown district generally?  If so, should they be facilitated via reduced parking standards, and how great of a reduction should be allowed? ....  Should a reduction be allowed only as an incentive to advance a stated purpose?  Should the allowance for snack shops to have a reduced parking standard (reduced from 1/100 to 1/250) be an administrative decision based on specific criteria, rather than requiring a parking plan? 5. Outdoor seating should be encouraged for the creation of a more sociable environment within the pedestrian oriented district. . Outdoor dining activates the street level and brings vibrancy, a sense of community in a pedestrian district, which all adds to the quality of life. The determination of the appropriate amount of outdoor seating within the public street right-of-way should be based on lot frontage length, maintaining adequate space for pedestrian circulation and considerations related to adjacencies and public safety. These are to be determined on a case-by-case basis at a staff level by the Community Development and Public Works Director. Parking requirements for outdoor seating should be reduced appropriately to encourage the diversity of types of establishments within the downtown district and in particular within the Downtown Core. For 8 example, in Redondo Beach, no additional parking is required for the first 12 seats of outdoor seating. Discussion: The zoning code allows 200 SF of outdoor seating, with a max. of 13 seats (1/15 SF) on the public right-of-way without provision of parking in the Downtown Core. However, restaurants that purport to be snack shops must first apply for a parking plan; once determined to be a snack shop the 200 SF allowance applies. The SPA-11 Zone does not allow outdoor seating on the public right-of-way and on Pier Plaza outdoor dining encroachments are only allowed contingent on compliance with parking requirements. Commission Direction:  Should the prohibition on outdoor dining on Pier Avenue be eliminated and the 200 SF allowance without parking be incorporated?  Should the standards for Pier Plaza encroachments be amended to allow the 200 SF allowance without additional parking?  Should snack shops be allowed a reduced parking standard (from 1/100 to 1/250) as an administrative decision based on specific criteria, rather than requiring a parking plan? Should outdoor dining on the sidewalk for snack shops be counted as part of the 25 maximum number of seats allowed for snack shops? 6. Parking requirements should be reduced for mixed use buildings on a single lot that generate parking demand during different times of the day without the need for a discretionary action by the City. There are currently a variety of conditions upon which the amount of parking reduction may be allowed or a fee paid in lieu of providing parking, but a discretionary review is required. Discussion: As indicated, a parking plan considered by the Planning Commission is required in order to share parking among uses with varying time of day demands (17.44.060, 210; 220). Commission Direction:  Should the review of parking demands for mixed uses be an administrative decision? 7. Upper level office use should be encouraged to attract a lively downtown environment and provide a greater daytime population that supports retail and restaurant uses. Parking for upper level office use should be reduced and located off-site in shared parking and public parking facilities. Discussion: Parking standards for office uses are the same as for retail uses (1/250 SF). Office standards are not related to location within the building. Commission Direction:  Should the City pursue an amendment to reduce parking standards for upper floor office uses within the downtown district?  Should any such reduction require a restriction on office uses on the ground floor such as no future office on the ground floor, or relocation of office that may be located on the ground floor to the upper floor? 9 8. Vehicular parking requirements should be reduced in exchange for the provision of additional bicycle parking, beyond what is already required by the City. This provision is currently limited to development along Pier Avenue. An equivalence of 4 bicycle spaces for one car space, up to 20% of the parking required for non-residential projects should be considered (which is the provision allowed in the City of Los Angeles and other cities’ zoning codes). This includes the required bicycle parking and any additional bicycle parking. Discussion: There is no specific requirement for parking reductions relating to provision of bicycle parking. Provision of bicycle parking may support reduced parking per a parking plan. The SPA-11 Zone requires provision of bicycle parking at the rate of one space per 7 employees or 3,000 square feet of new floor area: “Secure bicycle parking facilities shall be supplied at the rate of one (1) space per seven (7) employees or three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area. Bicycle facilities installed onsite shall not be placed within required pedestrian ways. Where facilities cannot be accommodated onsite as determined by the community development director or planning commission, the developer shall pay a commensurate fee adopted by the city for the provision and installation of bicycle parking facilities along Pier Avenue in a manner determined by the public works director. ’Secure’ facilities means firmly attached devices in well-lit locations, protected from rain if feasible.” (17.38.550(I)(5)) Commission Direction:  Within the downtown district should parking requirements should be reduced in exchange for the provision of additional bicycle parking?  Is an equivalence of 4 bicycle spaces for one car space, up to 20% of the parking required for non-residential projects be considered?  Could this bicycle parking be provided offsite? 9. For an existing non-restaurant use that is converting to restaurant use and whose parking requirements are met in common facilities within the pedestrian-oriented district, a credit against the future parking requirements should be allowed, based upon the zoning requirements of the existing use. Currently this is not allowed for some types of restaurants in the downtown district. Discussion: The zoning code applicable to the downtown district states, “B. When the use of an existing building or portion thereof is less than five thousand (5,000) square feet gross floor area is changed from a nonrestaurant use to a restaurant use, the parking requirement shall be calculated as set forth in Section 17.44.030, with no parking credit allowed for the existing or prior use.” (17.44.040(B)) This disincentivizes conversion of small retail, service or office uses to restaurants uses. Conversely, a credit is allowed for conversion of non-restaurant uses of 5,000 SF or greater to restaurant uses. Commission Direction:  Is the existing standard consistent with the vision for the downtown district?  Should conversion of small (under 5,000 SF) format uses to restaurant continue to be disincentivized? 10. Parking requirements for commercial uses within the pedestrian-oriented district should be 10 allowed in common facilities within a quarter mile walking distance. This is currently only allowed for second floor office space as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings in SPA-11 zone along Pier Avenue. Discussion: This recognizes the walkability of the downtown district and strategy to consolidate parking. Currently parking must be onsite or located within 300 feet of the use for which it is provided, on property under the same ownership (17.44.090(A)). Since a parking plan only allows consideration of number of spaces, a Variance would be required to consider a longer distance and variance findings can be difficult to make. In the SPA-11 Zone, as an incentive to conserve iconic buildings, “Parking spaces for office uses located on a second story may be located not more than one-quarter (1/4) mile walking distance from the site, and/or on property not under the same ownership as such office use. Where the parking is located off-site, the owners shall file with the community development department a covenant approved by the city and recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder for the improvement and maintenance of the required parking facilities for the use specified.” 17.38.550(D)) Commission Direction:  Should parking requirements for commercial uses within the downtown district be allowed in common facilities within a quarter mile walking distance? 11. Parking requirements for commercial uses within the pedestrian-oriented district should be based on a net usable building square footage basis, that is, not including for example, bathrooms, hallways, lobbies, service, storage and mechanical rooms.” Discussion: The zoning code bases parking standards on gross floor area. "Gross floor area" means the total area occupied by a building or structure, excepting therefrom only the area of any inner open courts, corridors, open balconies (except when utilized, e.g., restaurant seating or similar usage), and open stairways. Such total area shall be calculated by measuring along the outside dimensions of the exterior surfaces of such building or structure.” (17.44.010). The Commission has allowed some spaces, which are unlikely to be occupied or occupied concurrently with other spaces to be exempted based on a parking plan documenting parking demand. This is essentially the reasoning for basing parking on net usable building square footage. This could complicate future remodels or rearrangement of spaces which then need to supply parking for spaces which were not counted. Commission Direction:  Should parking for commercial uses within the downtown district be based on a net usable building square footage basis, that is, not including for example, bathrooms, hallways, lobbies, service, storage and mechanical rooms? II. COMMERCIAL TENANTING STRATEGY 11 The Commercial Tenanting Strategy cited above addresses way to increase daytime activity to support retail uses. It notes that “the current retail tenant mix along Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue appears to be overrepresented in the health and beauty sector - uses more typical of a neighborhood center than a retail shopping district and are under-represented in the apparel sector, where the City exhibits significant retail leakage.” Most of the Guidelines provide direction (bolded) that could be incorporated into the zoning code in the form of use restrictions or design standards to ensure its implementation: A. Increase retail uses along Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue that appeal to residents as well as visitors, which are overrepresented by the health and beauty sectors and financial sectors, and underrepresented by the clothing sector. B. Active ground level uses that engage a diverse and pedestrian oriented population must be provided on key corridors (Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue, Pier Avenue, and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets) and adjacent to important public spaces. Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability, and non-retail uses (including offices and appointment-driven services) are to be avoided. C. Encourage uses that increase the day-time population and longer visitor stays in order to support retail development. D. Office development on upper floors or outside the Downtown Core can build economic support for local-serving retail and quality dining establishments. E. The encouragement of office and hotel uses cannot occur at the expense of creating a pedestrian oriented place. F. Activities that spill out and populate the public spaces create a pedestrian environment and communicate that the Downtown District is a place is worth visiting. G. Maintain and improve the connectivity of the street/alley grid so people can continue to easily move from place to place, especially by walking and biking. H. Maximize uses welcoming and accessible to the general public along beachfront frontages and at locations with coastal views. I. Improvements to the public realm such as streetscape, plaza, and parking management, will enhance the image and identity of the Downtown Core as a pedestrian and retail destination. J. Continue the current trend towards bicycling for both recreation and work trips by 12 the provision of convenient bicycle travel ways and bicycle parking. K. Zoning modifications that facilitate parking in publicly managed consolidated/centralized facilities serving multiple uses rather than providing parking on each site will help maintain the eclectic character of the Downtown District, create a pedestrian oriented place, and improve land use efficiencies. (see attached Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan) Commission Direction:  Should a Specific Plan Area code be created for the Downtown Core incorporating relevant Guidelines along with pedestrian-oriented form standards?  Should additional restrictions on the types of uses within this narrowly defined area be imposed?  Should office and service-type uses be required to be located on upper floors? III. HERMOSA AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The proposal for redevelopment of Hermosa Avenue is integrally related to the private realm. This strategy states, “Just as Pier Avenue is the gateway to the downtown district from the east, Hermosa Avenue is an important north/south gateway into the City. It traditionally served as the “main street” to the community, providing essential goods and services for the local population. Hermosa Avenue has significant regional continuity but does not present a strong sense of arrival when it traverses the downtown core. Improvements that enhance this sense of arrival and provide a stronger sense of the downtown as a district should be considered. Just as the improvements on Pier Avenue have spurred reinvestment and positive changes, improvements to Hermosa Avenue between 10th and 14th Streets can strengthen the economic underpinnings of this part of the Downtown Core. A concept similar to what was successfully undertaken along Pier Avenue was favorably considered by the City Council at a recent study session in reference to the improvements planned for Hermosa Avenue. This concept would involve the provision of wider 20-foot sidewalks on the sunny east side of the street, where sidewalk cafes and outdoor seating should be encouraged, the addition of street trees and intersection and median improvements, as well as diagonal parking.” The Guidelines illustrates how the vision for Hermosa Avenue draws upon the success of Pier Avenue. A. Make improvements to create a sense of arrival and definition of the Downtown Core as a unique district. B. Implement a streetscape strategy similar to that along upper Pier Avenue: consider wider sidewalks, street trees, intersection and median improvements, diagonal parking, and also sidewalk cafes. C. Widen sidewalks and public plazas on Hermosa Avenue will create space for cafes and outdoor dining and attract additional patrons. 13 D. Provide convenient on-street parking on Hermosa Avenue to make retail shopping appear more accessible and attractive. Commission Direction:  Consider whether a code similar to the SPA-11 Zone should be created for Hermosa Avenue. IV. PIER PLAZA AND THE STRAND IMPROVEMENTS The Strategy states, “Furthermore, upper story uses would not only provide additional activity but provide a better scale to this wide space and additional support for the retail uses along it.” The Guidelines provide several bolded directives that could be incorporated into the zoning code to facilitate implementation: A. Promote and facilitate frequent activities (e.g. weekly) that attract residents and create a greater sense that these spaces are not only for visitors but also for residents. (see attached Sociable City Plan) B. Rescale the Plaza to make it more attractive during times when fewer people are present: consider extending palm trees westward, smaller canopy trees, and elements that will make it more inviting such as lighting and banners. C. Encourage multi-story uses along the Plaza to provide additional activity and support for the retail uses, and to frame this wide space by improving the sense of scale and security. D. Create a stronger destination for residents and families: consider playground, fitness area, bicycle facilities, and other family and multi-generational activities and facilities. E. Ground floor frontages on Pier Plaza and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets, must provide quality public spaces that appeal to a diverse population and create a more sociable and attractive place. Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability, and non-retail uses (including offices and appointment-driven services) are to be avoided. Commission Direction:  Should the relevant provisions be incorporated into the zoning code along with restrictions or incentives to encourage implementation? V. HOTEL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY The Hotel Development Strategy states, “It is important that an attitude is taken that looks to the achievement of the qualitative dimensions of place-making as of at least equal value to the achievement of the room count and yield of the hotel.” ... “The goals of the [Healdsburg] hotel 14 project were to not only provide for the lodging of visitors but to create a special place that would contribute to the life on the square and become a catalyst for further retail and restaurant development.” The Catalyst Hotel Development Strategy is well defined in the Guideline adopted by Council and provisions relevant to zoning are bolded: A. High quality hotel development that respects the scale and unique character of Hermosa Beach and provides significant quality public spaces and benefits can enhance the hospitality, identity and economic viability of the Downtown District. B. Catalyst hotel projects provide strategic, transformative and differentiated development:  Rather than representing “business as usual,” catalyst projects define, enhance and communicate the City’s brand, and activate community involvement, participation, and innovation.  Advance community objectives to maintain our small beach town character, enhance economic and environmental sustainability, and support an active healthy lifestyle.  Provide significant and demonstrable positive effects on the social and economic fabric of the Downtown District, including benefits to residents, businesses, and visitors.  Make significant contributions to a livable and sustainable community. C. Catalyst development that provides public benefits may merit public/private partnerships or incentives of various types, including potential use of city assets, consistent with community objectives and values and these guidelines. High priority benefits include:  Includes uses, amenities or spaces that provide the ability for the public to use or derive benefit from the project.  Provides space and design that facilitates a more diverse and balanced mix of uses that appeal to residents as well as visitors.  Provides a unique hotel product with a quality design and experience that strives for a top rating of four-star or higher at all times.  Design and operation that reduces vehicle trips in the Downtown. 15  Demonstration of environmental leadership through development design and operations consistent with the city’s carbon neutral goal.  Design and operation that expands opportunities for walking, biking and use of alternative modes.  Demonstration of marine protection through development design and operations that result in net zero urban and stormwater runoff. Other priorities include:  Minimizing parking demand through use of shuttles, carsharing, etc.  Improvements or investments that serve as a catalyst to carbon reduction by others. D. Catalyst development design exhibits the following:  Takes a holistic and integrated approach in order to maximize community benefits and compatibility.  Creates high quality public spaces for uses that appeal to a diverse population throughout the day and create synergy with nearby development.  Community spirited improvements or public benefits may be located on property being developed for a hotel or other catalyst project, or on other property that is associated with the comprehensive development project.  Maintains the connectivity of the mobility grid (streets, alleys, pedestrian and bike pathways) so people can continue to easily move from place to place, especially by walking and biking. E. Hotel development with frontage on Pier Plaza, The Strand between 11th and 13th Streets, Hermosa Avenue, or Pier Avenue exhibits the following:  The ground floor frontages on the Pier Plaza, Hermosa Avenue and The Strand between 11th to 13th Streets must provide quality public spaces appeal to a diverse population and create a more sociable and attractive place.  Parking, driveways, walls lacking permeability (without windows and doors inviting to the general public), and ground floor non-retail uses (including uses such as offices and appointment-driven services) must be avoided. 16  Multi-story buildings should be developed on Pier Plaza to provide additional activity and support for the retail uses, and frame the wide space by improving the sense of scale and security. Development design and architecture should be mindful of the identity and scale of the City and the Downtown District, while celebrating the unique setting.  Provision of high quality public spaces on the ground floor and roof terraces which enhance opportunities to enjoy the unique beachfront setting of Hermosa Beach but do not add stories may merit consideration of increased height. Any increased height is subject to a vote of the people. Commission Direction:  Should the relevant provisions be incorporated into the zoning code along with restrictions or incentives to encourage implementation? Attachments: 1. Zoning code: Specific Plan Area No. 11 Zone (Upper Pier Avenue) 2. Zoning code: Off-Street Parking 3. March 17, 2015 Staff Report/Attachments 4. Sociable City Plan 5. Downtown Parking Concept Plan 17 Attachment 1 SPA No. 11 Zone – UPPER PIER AVENUE 17.38.510 Plan area no. 11 – Authority. This specific plan area is an instrument for implementing the general plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the state Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code §65450 et seq.). (Ord. 09-1300 §1, May 2009) 17.38.520 Plan area no. 11 – Location and description. The subject area, known as ’Upper Pier Avenue’, is located on the north and south sides of Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue, within the downtown district. The area is designated as ’general commercial’ on the official general plan map. (Ord. 09-1300, §1, May 2009) 17.38.530 Plan area no. 11 – Purpose. The purpose of this specific plan area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and uses for the subject area for the following purposes: A. Create a pedestrian-oriented seaside village center of small-scale commercial establishments that attract and serve local residents, in addition to visitors. B. Protect the history and character of upper Pier Avenue and the city of Hermosa Beach. C. Retain a ’sense of place’ with buildings of diverse character that have been constructed over time, reflecting use of local materials and changes in architecture and culture. The SPA-11 zone is also intended to: A. Strengthen the city’s economic base, and protect small businesses that serve city residents. B. Create a suitable environment for commercial uses and protect the available commercial land resources from change to noncommercial land uses and from the adverse effects of inharmonious uses. C. Minimize the impact of commercial development on adjacent residential districts. D. Ensure that the appearance and effects of commercial building and uses are harmonious with the character of a pedestrian-oriented seaside village. E. Ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking, loading and pedestrian amenities. F. Protect the environment, particularly air and ocean water quality, though green building, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, energy, materials and water conservation, water quality protection, and other sustainable measures. (Ord. 09-1300, §1, May 2009) 18 17.38.540 Plan area no. 11 – Uses. A. General. The following permitted and conditional uses are intended to be consistent with the purposes of this zone. Uses that support pedestrian activity should be prominent, including day time uses that serve the local residents and community. For definitions of the listed uses see Section 17.04.050. “Pedestrian-oriented” means uses and activities that attract, accommodate and are highly visible to people who are walking. Most prominent on the ground floor are retail uses, restaurants or snack bars, and places for people to congregate, with offices, services and business services on second stories." B. Permitted and Conditional Uses. The following use classifications are allowed subject to the requirements of this section and zone. In the following matrix, the letter "P" designates permitted use classifications. The letter "U" designates use classifications permitted by approval of a conditional use permit. Section numbers listed under "see section" reference additional regulations located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance or this code, and others may apply. In addition to the requirements in Chapter 17.40 of this Code, no conditional use shall be approved in this Specific Plan Area unless the planning commission finds the use, and its location and design, are consistent with the purposes of this zone. P = Permitted U = Conditional Use Permit (CUP) required (See Chapter 17.40) USES P or U SECTION Alcohol beverage establishments, on-sale (not including restaurants closing before 10:00 p.m. serving only beer and wine P 17.40.080 Alcohol beverage establishment, off-sale -- (closing at 11:00 p.m. or earlier) P Alcohol beverage establishment, off-sale -- (open between 11:01 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.) U 17.40.090 Aquariums, sales and supplies of marine life P Art/antiques/curios gallery or shop P Audio/video equipment and supplies, sales and repair P Bakery P Banks and financial institutions P Barber/beauty shop P Books/news/magazines, sales P Billiard or pool halls U 17.40.020 Clinic, dental and/or medical P Clothing and wearing apparel sales and service P Copying and printing services and supplies P Clubs, private U 17.40.020 Convention/meeting hall U 17.40.020 Day nursery, preschool U 17.40.110 Dancing, customer P 19 USES P or U SECTION Department stores (maximum 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground floor) P Department stores (more than 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground floor) U 17.40.020 Drugstore P Entertainment, live U 17.40.020 Florist or plant shop O Food and beverage market (maximum 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground floor) P Furniture/furnishings, sales and display P Garden equipment, small, hand-operated, sales and rentals P Gymnasium/health and fitness center P Hardware/home improvement store P Hobby and craft supplies and service P Household appliances/office equipment, sales and repair P Interior decorating studio, store or shop P Florist or plant shop P Large day spa U 17.40.050 Laundry business and dry-cleaning (including self-service) P Locksmith business P Massage therapy business U 17.40.160 Messenger service P Movie theaters U 17.40.020 Museums P Music academy U 17.40.020 Musical instruments, retail and repair P Offices, general P Outdoor uses on private property: dining, merchandise displays, entertainment, or special performances U 17.40.020 Parking lots and /or structures U 17.40.020 Pet grooming, no overnight kennels P Photography (equipment sales and service, film processing, studio) P Printing and or publishing business, commercial P Restaurant (drive-in, drive-thru window, outdoor dining on public right-of-way or outdoor walk-up window on public right-of-way is not allowed) P Restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages limited to beer and wine, closing at 10:00 p.m. or earlier P 17.26.060 Restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages, limited to restaurants with beer and wine closing later than 10:00 p.m. and restaurants with on-sale general alcoholic beverages U 17.40.080 Reverse vending machine(s) U 17.40.120 Secondhand merchandise, retail sales (pawn shops are prohibited) P Snack bar/snack shop P Sporting/recreational equipment sales, service, and rental P Supermarkets (more than 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground floor) U 17.40.020 20 USES P or U SECTION Ticket broker/sales P Temporary outdoor uses in conjunction with special event: merchandise displays, dining, entertainment, special performances, parades * 12.12.070 Tobacco store P Toy store P Wireless communication facility U 17.40.170 Youth Hostel U 17.40.150 *Allowed by special permit approved by city council on public street/right-of-way pursuant to Section 12.12.070 and allowed on private property in conjunction with such special permit. C. Similar Uses Permitted. Use classifications not listed as permitted or conditional uses shall be prohibited unless the community development director finds the use consistent with the purposes of the zone, and similar to and not more objectionable than other uses listed, as provided in Section 17.26.040. D. Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Nonconforming uses and structures shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.52, except as follows: 1. Residential uses. Residential uses in existence on the effective date of this section codified in this chapter may continue, be remodeled or altered, provided that: a. The number of dwelling units, floor area per unit, and number of bedrooms per unit shall not be increased. b. The continuation or alteration of residential uses located on the second story shall remain limited to the second story, and no new residential uses shall be located on the ground floor. c. Alteration of buildings or portions of buildings used for residential uses shall conform to the standards of this zone, excluding Sections 17.38.550(G) and (H). 2. Nonconforming buildings (excluding residential uses). a. Structural removal. Although not required, removal and replacement of building facades should conform to 17.38.550(G) and (H) to the extent feasible. Modification or alteration of portions of a structure nonconforming to front yard requirements if completely removed shall comply with the requirement to place buildings close to the frontage line unless the community development director, or planning commission when a precise development plan is required determines this requirement to be infeasible. b. Expansion shall conform to the requirements of this zone, including requirements to place buildings close to the frontage line. c. Determination of compliance with this section shall be made by the community development director. 3. Nonconforming use limits other uses. Conforming uses may be established on lots or in buildings with nonconforming uses, unless the community development director or planning commission determines that said uses are incompatible. (Ord. 09-1300, §1, May 2009) 21 17.38.550 Plan area no. 11 – Development standards. A. Purpose. Development shall be sited, designed, operated and maintained in a manner that achieves and is consistent with the development standards and purposes of this zone. Provisions that are encouraged but not required are indicated with words such as should, encouraged, although not required, and if feasible. B. Uses Conducted within Buildings or Enclosures. All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building enclosed on all sides, except for the following: 1. Outdoor uses may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit as stated in Section 17.38.540(B). 2. Uses incidental to a use conducted primarily within a building located on the premises, as determined by the community development director, provided that such incidental uses are not conducted in whole or in part on sidewalks, public ways or within any required yard; and that such incidental uses are of a type which cannot be economically or practically conducted within buildings. Where incidental uses are not conducted within a building, no part of the area devoted to the incidental uses shall be considered as part of the required parking facilities. All uses shall be substantially screened from public visibility, public streets, parks or other public places, and public properties. Uses within the meaning of this section include but are not limited to parking stalls, parking attendant booths, solid waste and other enclosures. 3. Commercial parking lots pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit as stated in Section 17.38.540(B). 4. Temporary outdoor merchandise display or outside dining in conjunction with a temporary outdoor event such as a sidewalk sale authorized by the City Council by special permit as set forth in Section 12.12.070. C. Location of Uses in Buildings - Incentives. Pedestrian-oriented uses are strongly encouraged to locate on the ground floor, fronting Pier Avenue. Service, office and other non-pedestrian oriented uses are encouraged to locate on the second story. When there is a mix of uses on the ground floor, the pedestrian- oriented uses should be located so that the building facade, window displays and interior are highly visible to pedestrians on the public sidewalk. The planning commission may grant incentives to facilitate this pattern of uses pursuant to the procedures in this subsection. 1. Incentives. Deviation from one or more zoning standards that inhibit construction, alteration or expansion of a second story for non-pedestrian oriented uses, or inhibit location of pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground floor may be granted. Deviation from parking requirements shall not be granted as an incentive. 2. Procedures. a. Applications for incentives filed with the community development department shall include a statement of incentives requested, statement of the specific relief that the incentive will provide, and fee adopted by the city. b. Procedures for the conduct of hearings, report of decision and findings, appeals, reapplication upon denial, and revocation shall be in accordance with Section 17.38.560(B). 3. Findings. a. In granting incentives, the planning commission shall make all of the following findings: 22 i. The incentive(s) will facilitate the ability to locate pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground floor and/or offices or other non-pedestrian-oriented uses on the second story. ii. Any deviation from zoning standards is to the minimum extent necessary. iii. The incentives are consistent with the purposes of this zone. iv. The project will not involve demolition or significant alteration of a building that significantly contributes to the character of Upper Pier Avenue as determined by the commission. v. The incentives will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general plan. vi. The incentives will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and this zone. b. The commission may place conditions on the granting of incentives to ensure that incentives granted will be implemented consistent with the findings of approval and do not otherwise constitute a grant of special privilege. D. Conservation of Existing Buildings - Incentives. The conservation and continued use and reuse of existing buildings that are iconic of and contribute to the character of upper Pier Avenue as a small-scale, pedestrian-oriented village with diverse architectural character is encouraged through the granting of incentives by the Planning Commission. Buildings need not be designated as historic landmarks pursuant to Chapter 17.53 in order to be eligible for the granting of incentives. 1. Incentives. Deviation may be granted from zoning standards, including parking requirements and in-lieu fees, that inhibit ability to retain, restore or reuse an existing building determined by the planning commission to be worthy of retention. Deviation from parking requirements may include: a. A parking credit for the existing or prior use may be granted when a non-restaurant use less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of gross floor area is changed to a restaurant use. b. Parking spaces for office uses located on a second story may be located not more than one-quarter (1/4) mile walking distance from the site, and/or on property not under the same ownership as such office use. Where the parking is located off-site, the owners shall file with the community development department a covenant approved by the city and recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder for the improvement and maintenance of the required parking facilities for the use specified. c. Building sites where buildings will exceed gross floor area to building site area ratio of one to one (1:1) may pay an in-lieu fee for all the required on-site parking spaces. d. Other parking modifications or reduction of in-lieu parking fees. 2. Procedures. 23 a. Applications for incentives filed with the community development department shall include a statement of incentives requested, statement of the specific relief that the incentive will provide, evidence that the building is worthy of retention, and fee adopted by the city. b. Procedures for the conduct of hearings, report of decision and findings, appeals, reapplication upon denial, and revocation shall be in accordance with Section 17.38.560(B). 3. Findings. a. In granting incentives, the planning commission shall make all of the following findings: i. The conservation of the existing building will contribute to the character of upper Pier Avenue and advance the purposes of this zone set forth in Section 17.38.530, or the building has been designated by a state or federal agency or the city council as a landmark pursuant to Chapter 17.53. ii. The project will not result in significant alteration of the building. "Significant alteration" means changes or modifications that adversely alter, affect or destroy exterior architectural features or the essential elements that make the building worthy of protection. iii. Any deviation from zoning standards is to the minimum extent necessary. iv. The incentives are consistent with the purposes of this zone. v. The incentives will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general plan. vi. The incentives will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and this zone. b. The commission may place conditions on the granting of incentives to ensure that the project and incentives granted will be implemented consistent with the findings of approval. The granting of parking incentives may be accompanied by reasonable requirements to provide additional pedestrian or other transportation amenities. The future significant alteration of the building shall not be approved by the city unless and until any fees waived or reduced by the city pursuant to this section have been paid. Parking incentives granted shall not be credited toward any future use of the property. An affidavit evidencing such conditions approved by the city and recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder shall be filed with the community development department. 4. Any waiver or reduction of in-lieu parking or other fees shall be in the form of a recommendation to the city council, which shall make the final determination pursuant to Section 17.38.560(B). E. Height and Number of Stories. Buildings shall be oriented and designed so as to improve the pedestrian environment and not overwhelm the sidewalk. 1. No building shall exceed a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. No building shall exceed two (2) stories. 2. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.010, no roof structure or element shall exceed the thirty (30) foot height limit; provided that antennas, satellite dishes and similar structures, solar energy systems, and single-pole umbrellas and small wind energy systems may exceed the height limit to the extent allowed by Chapter 17.46. 24 3. The ground floor of a two story building, or any one story building, shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, provided that parapets and other screens to conceal rooftop apparatus and roof deck railings may exceed this limit to the minimum extent necessary as determined by the community development director. 4. The second story of buildings on the Pier Avenue frontage shall be set back a minimum of: a. Five (5) feet from the face of the ground floor facade along at least fifty (50) percent of the facade length, provided building height does not exceed twenty-five (25) feet; or b. Ten (10) feet from the face of the ground floor facade along at least fifty (50) percent of the facade length if building height exceeds twenty-five (25) feet. 5. The following shall not be counted as a story: a. Mezzanines that cover less than one-third of the floor area of the story immediately below it. Semi-subterranean floors not exceeding three (3) feet above the adjacent Pier Avenue sidewalk grade at any point within twenty (20) feet of the lot frontage line. This provision is intended to provide flexibility in design to accommodate to changes in slope and shall not supersede the requirements in Subsections 17.38.550(G)(2) and 17.38.550(G)(3) enabling storefront visibility to the pedestrian. F. Building Location and Setback Requirements. 1. Front Yard: Buildings shall be located close to the front lot line along Pier Avenue as follows. Building facades shall be oriented approximately parallel to the Pier Avenue frontage so that the building facade, 25 window displays and interior are highly visible to pedestrians on the public sidewalk as provided in this subsection. Buildings shall not be located more than six (6) feet distant from the Pier Avenue lot frontage along fifty (50) percent of the length of the frontage. The distance from the frontage line may be increased up to twelve (12) feet for elements oriented to the pedestrian, such as prominent entryways, awning and gallery frontages, patios, benches, or planters with approved landscape to shade benches or the sidewalk. 2. Alley Setback. Setbacks shall conform to Section 17.44.130. 3. Rear and Side Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Zones. a. A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five (5) feet shall be provided, except where public rights-of- way twenty (20) feet or greater in width separate the site from the residential zone. b. Existing commercial buildings that do not comply with residential setback requirements shall not be considered nonconforming, and may be remodeled or expanded as long as new construction conforms to the requirements of this zone. G. Storefront Frontages. Building facades fronting Pier Avenue shall be designed as storefronts to facilitate pedestrian activity. 1. Facades shall have a prominent entryway easily accessible from the sidewalk and compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. 26 Although not required, primary entrances are encouraged be situated at the corner of buildings located at street intersections. The first story of buildings located within three (3) feet of the sidewalk shall be a minimum height of twelve (12) feet above sidewalk grade to accommodate awning or gallery frontage types. Projections over the sidewalk shall provide a minimum of eight (8) feet of vertical clearance from the sidewalk, and not extend closer than two (2) feet to the curb, and are subject to approval of an encroachment permit as set forth in Chapter 12.16. Although not required, awning or gallery frontage types are encouraged along Pier Avenue to provide shade and building articulation. The planning commission may require awning frontage types in conjunction with a precise development plan. 2. Doors fronting Pier Avenue shall be at sidewalk grade or at finished grade of the adjacent access way, spaced on average no farther than thirty (30) feet apart, and operable. Openings between buildings with publicly accessible walkways leading to courtyards, businesses or alleys may be counted as doorways when calculating this spacing. Out-swinging doors or windows encroaching on the sidewalk require approval of an encroachment permit as set forth in Chapter 12.16. Door walls and features that open to the sidewalk creating accessibility and visibility to the pedestrian are encouraged but not required. 3. On the ground floor facade fronting Pier Avenue, glazing shall cover at least seventy (70) percent of that area of the facade located between three (3) feet and eight (8) feet in height. "Glazing" means a transparent part of a wall, typically made of glass or plastic. Minor modifications to the location of glazing on the facade may be approved by the community development director to maximize visibility for the pedestrian on the sidewalk. Glazing shall be substantially transparent (e.g., 90% light transmission). Specialty windows may use stained or opaque glass. Buildings located at street corners are encouraged but not required to continue the glazed area on the elevation facing the secondary frontage. 27 H. Other Architectural Standards. The architectural character of Pier Avenue reflects Hermosa Beach’s locale and historic development patterns. Consistent with Hermosa Beach’s eclectic architecture, compatibility and variety, among styles and elements, rather than uniformity, is desirable along Pier Avenue. 1. Building mass, facades and roof lines shall be varied and articulated to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass, and maintain pedestrian scale and visual interest from the public sidewalk. Long, straight facades and blank elevations visible from Pier Avenue are not allowed. Facades and elevations shall be designed with openings and elements that provide relief or articulation, incorporating one or more of the following: cornices, parapets, eaves, awnings or canopies, balconies, entry or patio insets, or similar features. Second stories shall incorporate windows and one or more architectural elements (e.g., balconies, planter boxes, awnings). All exposed elevations, including rear and side elevations, shall be designed for compatibility. 2. Franchise architecture conflicts with local character and is not allowed. "Franchise architecture" means building design that is trademarked, branded or identified with a particular chain, corporation or business. Franchise architecture can be avoided by altering scale, proportion, branded element locations, colors, or incorporating locally recognizable elements. This provision does not prohibit chain, franchise or formula businesses within the specific plan area. Surfaces shall be painted, treated or otherwise exhibit a finished look. Multiple storefronts with a common facade or appearance shall be coordinated, but should not be identical. Synthetic material, such as hardboard siding, shall very closely simulate the natural material and have equal or better weathering characteristics. Exposed concrete block, corrugated metal, chain link fencing, and similar materials that present an unfinished or industrial look shall not be used on any building or wall visible from a public street or alley, except as accents. 28 Although not required, exterior colors should be characteristic of natural building materials and compatible with the surroundings, without being identical. Vandalism resistant finishes are preferred. 3. Elements of poor visual quality (e.g., rooftop mechanical devices, loading, service areas, utilities) shall be sited, designed and screened compatible with site elements to minimize visibility from Pier Avenue. Siting, design and screening shall also minimize visual, noise and air quality effects on nearby residential uses. Flat roofs shall be enclosed by parapets a minimum of forty-two (42) inches high to conceal rooftop apparatus; rooftop elements and structures and their screening shall not exceed the height limit, provided that antennas, satellite dishes and similar structures, solar energy systems, and single-pole umbrellas may exceed the height limit to the extent allowed by Chapter 17.46. 4. Solar orientation. Projects that require a precise development plan shall incorporate the following elements to facilitate passive and active solar energy use unless found by the planning commission to be infeasible or inapplicable due to site conditions: a. Design and orientation to accommodate solar collection systems. b. Install cool roofs. c. Install deciduous vegetation, overhangs, awnings or other features to protect south/west faces and/or improvements to moderate interior temperatures. Although not required, smaller projects should be designed to maximize opportunities for passive and active solar energy use. 5. Accessibility and visitability. a. Design and operation of development shall comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended and to the extent practical other requirements that facilitate physical accessibility for all persons, such as universal design principles. b. Projects that require a precise development plan shall incorporate the following elements to maximize accessibility to all persons unless found by the planning commission to be infeasible due to site conditions. A minimum of one (1) zero-step entrance to each building from an accessible path from the sidewalk and handicap parking space to the front, side or rear of each building shall be provided. All ground floor interior doors (including bathrooms) shall provide at least thirty-two (32) inches of clear passage. One half-bath (toilet and sink) shall be provided on the ground floor of each building. Although not required, smaller projects including second story businesses and facilities, should maximize accessibility by incorporating the elements above. I. Circulation and Parking. Development shall be designed to maximize pedestrian circulation among buildings, lots, and the street, coordinated with vehicular circulation. 1. Accessible sidewalks and pedestrian ways a minimum of four (4) feet wide shall be provided connecting buildings with the street, parking and other buildings. Pedestrian ways not illuminated by street lighting fixtures shall be provided with security lighting. 29 Pedestrian ways for projects that require a precise development plan shall be increased to five (5) feet in width unless the planning commission determines the requirement to be infeasible. 2. Parking location. Parking lots and parking structures shall be screened from visibility from Pier Avenue by buildings, and be accessed from alleys or secondary streets where available. New curb cuts on Pier Avenue shall not be allowed. Driveway and garage encroachments on alley or secondary street frontages shall be located at least thirty (30) feet from the Pier Avenue lot frontage line. Encroachments shall not exceed the required minimum width of nine (9) feet per lane. Directional signage to parking not readily visible from Pier Avenue shall be provided not to exceed a total area of four square feet per face and ten feet from grade to the highest portion of the sign body. 3. Surface parking lots. Surface parking visible from Pier Avenue shall be screened by buildings or by streetscreens (landscape that provides screening, fences or walls, or combination thereof) in compliance with the following requirements. a. Streetscreens shall be a minimum height of three (3) feet compatible with building or site elements. Streetscreens exceeding three (3) feet, but not more than four (4) feet in height, may be allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director or planning commission if at least thirty (30) percent permeable (e.g., openings encompassing 30% of the face) and well articulated to avoid a walled effect, and provided vision clearances set forth in Section 17.46.060 are maintained. b. Streetscreens incorporating planters shall comply with Subsection 17.38.550(L). c. Streetscreens shall have openings no wider than necessary to accommodate required driveways and pedestrian access ways. d. Streetscreens shall be installed in conjunction with development or redevelopment exceeding five hundred (500) square feet of floor area or lot area. 4. Parking structures. Parking structures shall be located to the rear of buildings fronting Pier Avenue. Monotonous, blank or unarticulated elevations, or levels with exposed parking shall not be visible from Pier Avenue, and visual effects to adjacent residential use shall be minimized. Mass, elevations and parked cars may be visually masked through design, stair towers, canopies and other screening techniques. Signs or other warning devices shall be installed at semi-subterranean garage entrances/exits to protect pedestrians. Ventilating systems shall be located and insulated to minimize noise and air quality impacts to surrounding uses, particular residential uses, to the satisfaction of the community development director. 5. Secure bicycle parking facilities shall be supplied at the rate of one (1) space per seven (7) employees or three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area. Bicycle facilities installed onsite shall not be placed within required pedestrian ways. Where facilities cannot be accommodated onsite as determined by the community development director or planning commission, the developer shall pay a commensurate fee adopted by the city for the provision and installation of bicycle parking facilities along Pier Avenue in a manner determined by the public works director. ’Secure’ facilities means firmly attached devices in well-lit locations, protected from rain if feasible. 6. Off-street parking requirements shall otherwise conform to Chapter 17.44, including those applicable to the downtown district, except as modified by the granting of incentives as set forth in Section 17.38.550(D). J. Pedestrian Amenities. Pedestrian amenities are desirable for the comfort and security of pedestrians. "Pedestrian amenities" mean any facility or feature that facilitates or increases the desirability of walking, 30 such as sidewalks and pedestrian ways, canopies or shade trees, outdoor places for pedestrians to congregate, seating, and security lighting and signage designed at the human scale and oriented to people walking. 1. Pedestrian amenities shall be provided in conjunction with the development or redevelopment exceeding five hundred (500) square feet of floor area or lot area. The planning commission may require additional pedestrian amenities related to the type or intensity of use in conjunction with a precise development plan, conditional use permit or parking plan. 2. One (1) bench visible from and accessible to the sidewalk and one (1) tree with irrigation to shade the sidewalk for each fifty (50) feet of lot frontage on Pier Avenue shall be supplied. Where frontage is less than fifty (50) feet, these amenities are not required. Where the amenities cannot be accommodated onsite as determined by the community development director or planning commission, the developer shall pay a commensurate fee adopted by the city for provision and installation of such amenities along Pier Avenue as determined by the public works director. K. Signs. Signs shall conform to Chapter 17.50, including standards for commercial zones, and specifically the C-2 zone. The following signs are additionally allowed: 1. Wall signs. One (1) wall sign per building may be located on a secondary frontage when there is no entrance/exit open to the public, not to exceed six (6) square feet in area. 2. Projecting signs. One (1) additional nonilluminated projecting, arcade or hanging business identification sign for each business visible to pedestrians is permitted to be hung over or near an entryway. The sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet per face. Signs projecting over the public sidewalk shall be located at least eight (8) feet in height above the sidewalk and not project outward more than three (3) feet, subject to approval of an encroachment permit as set forth in Chapter 12.16. L. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be designed and employed on the site to shade pedestrian ways, conserve energy and reduce urban heat absorption, retain onsite and filter rain water, and enhance the overall project including building design and the streetscape. 1. Existing trees and plants shall be protected, unless determined by the community development director or planning commission to be infeasible. 2. All lot areas not encumbered by buildings, required parking, and amenities required by this zone shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. Projects for which a precise development plan is required shall provide a minimum of two (2) percent of the lot area in landscape unless a reduced percentage is authorized by the planning commission. In addition, new development and redevelopment of at least five hundred (500) square feet of the surface area of the lot shall in the development area provide landscape, or increase conformance of existing landscape on the lot with this subsection, unless the community development director determines it to be infeasible. 3. Landscape may consist of lot perimeter, streetscreen, parking lot median, and other planters a minimum of four (4) feet wide, installed with live plants, compliant with the requirements of this section. One (1) five-gallon shrub shall be provided for each twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Adjacent to residential zones, the required rear and/or side yard area shall be provided with a minimum five (5) foot wide planter strip landscaped with a minimum of one twenty-four (24) inch or fifteen (15) gallon size 31 specimen tree for every ten (10) feet of length, unless an alternative consistent with the provisions of this subsection (L) is approved by the community development director or planning commission. One (1) tree with irrigation to shade the sidewalk for each fifty (50) feet of lot frontage on Pier Avenue, coordinated with street tree spacing, except as provided by subsection (J). 4. Landscape areas shall consist of at least seventy-five (75) percent pervious materials. Planting beds shall be mulched to a depth of two (2) inches or greater, and installed with live plants. Landscaping shall be perpetually maintained, trimmed and void of weeds. Landscape shall not impair vehicular sight distance or encroach on the public right-of-way or pedestrian ways. 5. Landscape shall consist primarily of species tolerant of drought and urban site conditions (e.g., constrained root area, compacted soil, reflected heat, urban runoff) and other localized site elements. No species listed by the Invasive Plant Inventory of the California Invasive Plant Council or equivalent authority accepted by community development director shall be planted. Trees species installed in planters adjacent to the public sidewalk shall be subject to the approval of the public works director. Although not required, native species should be used, deciduous trees should be used to shade southern and western exposures unless equivalent energy conservation features are employed, and species selected should not exceed thirty (30) feet in height at maturity under local site conditions. 6. All landscaped areas shall include an automatic water-conserving irrigation system that adjusts for hydrozones and seasons. Reclaimed water shall be used when available. Plans shall demonstrate a water budget that conforms to the California Department of Water Resources’ ’Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance’ or a local ordinance, whichever is stricter. 7. Six (6) inch high raised curbs shall be provided along the perimeter of all landscaped areas except on the side abutting building walls or fences. Modifications for stormwater and urban runoff management (e.g., curb inlets, at-grade planters) may be allowed to specifications approved by the building official or city engineer as applicable. 8. Landscape plans and irrigation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the community development director. 9. The Planning Commission may require additional or alternative measures in conjunction with a precise development plan or conditional use permit to further the purposes of this section and ensure that landscaping is compatible with the scale and design of the streetscape and site elements. M. Lighting. Lighting standards are intended to promote energy conservation and reduce the adverse effects of lighting on health and safety, neighboring uses, nocturnal environments and enjoyment of the nighttime sky, while providing appropriate light for safety and security. 1. Walkways, entrances, pedestrian spaces and parking facilities shall be adequately lit for safety and security. All lighting installations shall be designed and installed to be high-efficiency, fully shielded (full cutoff) and down cast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture), and shall have a maximum lamp wattage of two hundred fifty (250) watts incandescent for commercial lighting, and one hundred (100) watts incandescent or twenty-six (26) watts compact fluorescent for residential lighting. Light fixtures shall not create glare, spill beyond the property lines or shine toward the night sky. Yellow spectrum lamps such as sodium lamps are prohibited on private property. Exceptions are allowed to comply 32 with building, fire and city codes, and for signs, shielded landscape lighting not more than three (3) feet above grade, and temporary holiday or similar lighting. 2. Exterior lighting, excluding security lighting not more than three (3) feet above grade, shall be extinguished within one hour after close of business. Automated external lighting controls shall be used to extinguish lights prior to dawn. 3. Light fixtures shall be designed and installed so the light is reflected away from any dwelling unit and the lamp bulb is not directly visible from within any residential unit. 4. Lighting fixtures shall be designed and installed so that lamp bulbs are not directly visible to and do not shine into the eyes of pedestrians on sidewalks or pedestrian areas. 5. The Planning Commission may require more restrictive measures in conjunction with a precise development plan or conditional use permit to further the purposes of this section and ensure that lighting is appropriate to its purpose, and compatible with the scale and design of the streetscape and site elements. N. Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control. In addition to the stormwater and urban runoff pollution control regulations in Chapter 8.44, development and redevelopment creating or adding at least five hundred (500) square feet of impervious surfaces shall submit and implement a stormwater management plan of best management, good housekeeping, structural and treatment practices that are practical and feasible as determined by the public works director or building official as applicable, considering: 1. Use of pervious surfaces and/or reduction of hardscape (e.g., patios, parking stalls, landscape). 2. Onsite stormwater infiltration (e.g., drains to pervious surfaces, rain barrels, curb inlets to below or at- grade planters, drainage basins, filters). 3. Other measures set forth in Sections 8.44.060 through 8.44.095. O. Applicability of other standards. All other development standards shall be governed by the city zoning ordinance. When uncertainly over applicability of requirements exists, standards applicable to commercial development, and more specifically the C-2 zone, shall apply; provided that the regulations in Chapter 17.26 do not apply unless specifically referenced within the regulations for this zone. P. Green Building Standards. Although the following standards are not required, applicants are encouraged to incorporate other green site and building elements into development projects, to minimize the impact of development and building on the environment, its occupants and the community, such as: 1. Incorporate water quality and stormwater control measures such as those in Chapter 8.44 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations). 2. Reduce energy use and exceed the minimum energy standards of the California Energy Standards (Title 24, Part 6, California Code of Regulations) by at least fifteen (15) percent. 3. Utilize recycled materials and exceed the demolition/construction recycling requirements by at least fifteen (15) percent. 33 4. Install solar collection and/or solar hot water heating systems. 5. Utilize measures for healthy interior environments (e.g., low volatile organic compound finishes, flooring, cabinetry.) 6. Install grey water recycling systems and/or use of available reclaimed water. 7. Compliance with GreenPoint Rated Checklist (Build-It Green), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), International Code Council (ICC 700) National Green Building Standard, California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) or comparable green rating system measures as determined by the community development director, as applicable or adapted to commercial development. Projects for which a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) ’Certified’ standard, or other equivalent as determined by the community development director, is demonstrated shall be eligible for priority permit processing, promotion on the City’s green building website, use of City-approved green building logo as part of allowed construction signage and in its promotional materials, and other green building incentives which may be adopted by the City and made applicable to this zone. (Ord. 09-1300 §1, May 2009) 17.38.560 Plan area no. 11 – Procedures. A. Procedures Generally. Procedures for conditional use permits, variances, precise development plans, zone changes, amendments, parking plans, signs, development agreements, determination of legality of nonconforming residential buildings, and other entitlements under this title shall apply, except as specified within the regulations for this zone. B. Request for Incentives. Applications requesting incentives provided for in Sections 17.38.550(C) and 17.38.550(D) shall additionally conform to the following procedures: 1. Public comments or hearing. The applicant shall provide notice a minimum of ten (10) days before a hearing on an application for request for incentives. The method of notice shall be established by resolution of the city council. The date of the hearing shall be set by the community development department. The date must be a minimum of ten (10) days and a maximum of forty (40) days from the date the application is accepted as complete. 2. Report of decision and findings--Disposition of report. The planning commission shall issue the report of decision and findings for requests for incentives. The written report shall be issued within forty (40) days of the conclusion of the hearing on the request for incentives application. The report shall include a decision granting, denying or granting with conditions the request for incentives, the required findings, and an indication that the planning commission’s decision shall become final if not appealed within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the report of decision and findings. A copy of the report of decision and findings shall be sent to the name and address shown on the application. Reports shall be numbered consecutively in the order of filing, and kept as a permanent record. Notwithstanding, the commission’s decision on any request for a reduction in or waiver of in-lieu parking fees or other fees required by the city shall be in the form of a resolution of recommendation to the city council. The council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing a maximum of forty (40) days following receipt of the resolution from the planning commission, public notice of which shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to said hearing in accordance with requirements established by resolution of the council. 34 The council’s decision shall be final and conclusive. A copy of the report of decision and findings shall be sent to the name and address shown on the application. 3. Appeals--Filing, fees procedure. Appeals of the Planning Commission decision shall be in writing, including the specific areas of disagreement with the planning commission’s decision. Fees for appeals will be established by resolution of the city council. Appeals shall be filed with the city clerk’s office in writing within fifteen (15) days of the planning commission’s issuance of a report of decision and findings. When an appeal is filed, the planning commission shall transmit the record of the case to the city council. The city council shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with Chapter 17.68 (applying the procedures applicable to variances). Such hearing shall be held within forty (40) days of the council’s receipt of the written appeal. The city council shall announce its findings within sixty (60) days of the hearing, unless good cause is found for an extension. The council may incorporate by reference the findings of the planning commission. The council’s action shall be final. Within thirty (30) days of its final decision, the city clerk shall mail notice to the applicant and appellant. A copy of this notice shall be included in the planning commission’s permanent files. 4. Reapplication upon denial. After the denial of a request for incentives has become final, no further application for the same request for incentives shall be filed for the same property for the ensuing six (6) months, unless the project has been redesigned so as to eliminate the planning commission’s or city council’s previous objections to the project. Said redesign will require a new application process. 5. Revocation—Causes—Hearing. Any incentives granted may be revoked by the planning commission for any of the following causes: a. That any term or condition has not been complied with. b. That the property for which the incentives have been granted is used or maintained in violation of any statute, law, regulation or condition of approval. c. That the project or use for which the incentive was granted has not been exercised for at least twelve (12) consecutive months, or has ceased to exist, or has been abandoned. d. That the project for which the incentives were granted has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety or so as to constitute a nuisance. A hearing to show cause why the incentives should not be revoked shall be held by the approving body prior to the revocation of any incentives granted. (Ord. 09-1300 §1, May 2009) 35 Attachment 2 Chapter 17.44 OFF-STREET PARKING (EXCERPTS) 17.44.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: "Gross floor area" means the total area occupied by a building or structure, excepting therefrom only the area of any inner open courts, corridors, open balconies (except when utilized, e.g., restaurant seating or similar usage), and open stairways. Such total area shall be calculated by measuring along the outside dimensions of the exterior surfaces of such building or structure. "Off-street parking" means parking upon private property as accessory to other permitted land uses, and shall not include publicly owned parking. 17.44.030 Off-street parking--Commercial and business uses. Required Number of Spaces by Use. The aggregate amount of off-street automobile parking spaces provided for various uses shall not be less than the following: E. Commercial Uses. 1. Bars and cocktail lounges: one (1) space for each eighty (80) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Beauty colleges: one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. 3. Business schools and trade schools: one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. 4. Furniture and hardware stores: one (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 5. Offices, general: one (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 6. Offices, Governmental and Public Utilities. Government offices that generate high levels of contact with the public, or have high numbers of employees, including but not limited to employment offices, public social services offices, Department of Motor Vehicle offices: one (1) space per seventy-five (75) square feet of gross floor area for the first twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of the building(s), plus one (1) space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area for the remaining floor area. 7. Offices, medical: five (5) spaces for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. 8. Restaurants (other than walk-up, drive-through and drive-in: one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. 36 9. Restaurants, walk-up, drive-through and drive-in without adequate dining room facilities: one (1) space for each fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area, but not less than ten (10) spaces. 10. Retail, general retail commercial uses: one (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. H. Hotels: one (1) space for each unit for the first fifty (50) units; one (1) space per one (1) and one-half (1/2) units after fifty (50); and one (1) space per two (2) units after one hundred (100) units. Hotels with facilities including restaurants, banquet rooms, conference rooms, commercial retail uses and similar activities shall provide parking for the various uses as computed separately in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. O. Snack Bar/Snack Shop. The parking requirements for a snack bar and/or snack shop shall be the same as that for a restaurant, unless it can be shown to the planning commission that the characteristics of the building, its location, size and other mitigating factors such as limited service area relative to gross floor area and limited seating capacity result in less parking demand than for a restaurant use. In these cases the planning commission may consider the retail commercial requirement for parking, pursuant to Section 17.44.210, Parking plans. 17.44.040 Parking requirements for the downtown district. The following requirements apply within the boundary of the downtown district, as defined by the map incorporated by this reference: A. The amount of parking shall be calculated for each particular use as set forth in Section 17.44.030 with the exception of the following: 1. Retail, general retail commercial uses: one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area (or three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet). Staff Note: this is the correct standard. 2. Offices, general: one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area (or three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet). Staff Note: this is the correct standard. 3. Office, medical: one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area (or three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet). Staff Note: this is the correct standard. B. When the use of an existing building or portion thereof is less than five thousand (5,000) square feet gross floor area is changed from a nonrestaurant use to a restaurant use, the parking requirement shall be calculated as set forth in Section 17.44.030, with no parking credit allowed for the existing or prior use. C. When the use of an existing building or a portion thereof is changed to a more intensive use with a higher parking demand (with the exception of restaurants less than five thousand (5,000) square feet gross floor area as noted above), the requirement for additional parking shall be calculated as the difference between the required parking as stated in this chapter for that particular use as compared to a base requirement of one (1) space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet gross floor area. D. For expansions to existing buildings legally nonconforming to parking requirements, parking requirements shall only be applied to the amount of expansion. 37 E. Parking In-Lieu Fees. When the city council provides for contributions to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district in lieu of parking spaces so required, said in-lieu fee contributions shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of this chapter. 1. The director of the community development department shall be responsible for the calculations required under this chapter and shall calculate and collect the in-lieu contribution. 2. The following allowances through in-lieu fee contributions for parking may be allowed with a parking plan as approved by the planning commission and as prescribed in Section 17.44.210: a. Building sites with a ratio of building floor area to building site of 1:1 or less may pay an "in-lieu" fee for all required spaces. b. Building sites where buildings will exceed a 1:1 gross floor area to building site area ratio shall be required to provide a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the required parking on-site. 17.44.060 Common parking facilities. Common parking facilities may be provided to wholly or partially satisfy the off-street parking requirements of two (2) or more uses when one (1) or more of such uses will only infrequently generate use of such parking area at times when it will ordinarily be needed by the patrons or employees of the other use(s). A. Up to one hundred (100) percent of the parking requirements of governmental and public auditorium uses may be allowed to be provided in such multiple-use parking areas. Up to eighty (80) percent of the parking requirements of other uses may be allowed to be provided in such multiple-use parking areas. B. The following factors shall be considered in determining the proportionate part of the required parking for such use(s): 1. Whether the affected requirements are those of permanent buildings, or those of mere occupancies; 2. The peak as well as normal days and hours of operation of such buildings and of the structures and occupancies with which it is proposed to share multiple-use parking areas; 3. Whether the proposed multiple-use parking area is normally or frequently used by the patrons, customers or employees of other buildings or occupancies which will share such parking area at the same time as the applicant’s patrons, customers and employees will normally or frequently utilize such parking area; 4. The certainty that the multiple-use parking area(s) will be available for satisfying such parking requirements to the extent approved, and the permanency of such availability; 5. The proximity and accessibility of the multiple-use parking area(s). C. A parking plan approval by the planning commission for multiple-use parking area(s) shall be so conditioned as to reasonably ensure the satisfaction of the appropriate parking requirements during the continued existence of the buildings or occupancies involved. 38 D. If the common parking area(s) and the building sites to be served are subject to more than one ownership, permanent improvement and maintenance of such parking facilities must be provided in one of the following manners: 1. By covenant or contract among all such property owners; and duly recording an appropriate covenant running with the land; 2. By the creation of special districts and imposing of special assessments in any of the procedures prescribed by state law; 3. By utilizing the authority vested in a parking authority as provided by state law; 4. By dedicating such common parking area to the city for parking purposes subject to the acceptance of such dedication by the city council. 17.44.070 Off-street parking--Mixed uses. Whenever there is a combination of two or more distinct uses on one lot or building site, the total number of parking spaces required to be provided for such lot or building site shall be not less than the sum total of the parking spaces required for each of the distinct uses. No off-street parking facilities provided for one use shall be deemed to provide parking facilities for any other use except as otherwise specified within this chapter. 17.44.090 Off-street parking location. All off-street automobile parking facilities shall be located as follows: A. All required parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or building site as the use for which such spaces are provided; provided however, that such parking spaces provided for commercial, business, industrial or warehouse uses may be located on a different lot or lots, all of which are less than three hundred (300) feet distance from the use for which it is provided, and such lot or lots are under common ownership with the lot or building site for which such spaces are provided. Where the buildings are situated on one lot and the parking is situated on another lot, the owner shall file with the Community Development Department an affidavit recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder that these lots are held in common ownership for the use specified. Such distance shall be measured along a straight line drawn between the nearest point on the premises devoted to the use served by such parking facilities and the nearest point on the premises providing such parking facilities. It is further provided that uses located within the boundaries of an established off-street parking district, organized pursuant to action by the City Council, shall be waived by the requirements of this subsection. 17.44.210 Parking plans. A. A parking plan may be approved by the planning commission to allow for a reduction in the number of spaces required. The applicant shall provide the information necessary to show that adequate parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors and employees or when located in a vehicle parking district, the applicant shall propose an in-lieu fee according to requirements of this chapter. 39 B. Factors such as the following shall be taken into consideration: 1. Van pools; 2. Bicycle and foot traffic; 3. Common parking facilities; 4. Varied work shifts; 5. Valet parking; 6. Unique features of the proposed uses; 7. Peak hours of the proposed use as compared with other uses sharing the same parking facilities especially in the case of small restaurants or snack shops in the downtown area or in multitenant buildings; 8. Other methods of reducing parking demand. C. A covenant with the city a party thereto, may be required limiting the use of the property and/or designating the method by which the required parking will be provided at the time that the planning commission determines that inadequate parking exists. D. Fees, application and processing procedures for parking plans shall set forth by resolution of the city council. 17.44.220 Consolidated off-street parking. Subject to approval by the planning commission as prescribed in Section 17.44.210, required parking spaces for various uses may be reduced in number and computed at one space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area when parking is consolidated in retail shopping centers over ten thousand (10,000) square feet in size, or where public parking areas are created to take the place of on-site parking within vehicle parking districts. Sociable City DRAFT Conceptual Implementation Plan Create Downtown Stakeholder Working Group Meet quarterly before each downtown event to discuss issues and strategies 2 Restaurants - 1 Pier Plaza & 1 Hermosa Ave 2 Residents 1 Retail 1 Service Business 1 Hotel City Staff (Econ Dev, PD, PIO, Community Recourses and other departments, as needed) Ambassador Program Public Events, Weekends days and nights, Holidays and High Season • Greet and Provide information to residents and visitors • Give directions • Safely escort visitors and employees to and from vehicles and businesses upon request • Communicate w/ PD and report problems • Report problems to City departments • Keep Downtown Clean • Provide directions to Homeless services • Remind folks not to smoke and direct them to designated smoking areas • Handout a brochure listing all businesses in the Downtown Lighting Interim Step before Downtown Strategy Implementation • Pier Plaza o More lights on trees on Pier Plaza o String lights across Pier Plaza o Increase lighting in Lots A, B, C & D Business Visitations • Annual individual onsite visits w/ Police Chief and Econ Dev Officer • Hospitality Association meetings w/ Police Chief and Econ Dev Officer • Meeting per request with City Manager or other Dept. Head • Security staff training for late night establishments – Certificated program Marketing • Stakeholder group to work with City Public Info Officer to create positive marketing programs • Businesses create coordinated positive messaging • Advertise and “Alcohol Awareness Month” and educate about drunk driving • Use social media and email lists from stakeholders Resident Focused Entertainment on Pier Plaza Primarily between 7 pm – 10 pm • Art Walk • (Look into Hunting Beach activates) • Movies on the Plaza o Sing-alongs (Sound of Music, etc.) o Cult classics (Rocky Horror, etc.) o Retro Classics (Casa Blanca, Hitchcock, etc.) • Ballroom Lessons & Dancing • Local dog shows • Stage Music o Big Band o Jazz o Classical o Choirs (non-religious performance) o Cultural Performances • Permit & Regulate Individual Street Performances o Acoustical only o Requiring business license and special type of event permit o Static locations o Residents of Hermosa Beach preferential performer program o Acts approved by Community Resources staff • Local Children and School Performances o Choirs o Bands o Dance 40 o High School Rallies Continue Hospitality Staff Training Hospitality Association • Underage Drinking • Security • Customer Service 41 $$$ $$ $ $ Lot C300 Spaces Lot B Lot A Lot D19 Spaces 68 Spaces 124 Spaces City Hall withMunicipalPublic Parking Community Center with MunicipalPublic Parking Pier Ave Palm DrValley DrLoma DrThe StrandBayview DrArdmore AveSunset DrHermosa AveMonterey BlvdManhattan Ave14th St 8th Pl 9th St 11th St 10th St 15th St Bard StOak St 13th St 14th Ct Cypress Ave13th Ct 11th CtBeach Dr15th Ct 9th Ct Pier Plaza 10th Ct 11th Pl Bard StCypress AveLoma Dr10th St 13th St 11th St 11th St Oak St 9th St 11th St Beach Dr± Potential Trolley Service Public Parking and Potential Future Public Parking Potentially Associated with New Hotels Hotel Development Sites Potential Hotel Remodel/Develpment Sites $$$$$$$$$$ Lower Cost ParkingMedium Cost ParkingHigh Cost ParkingVery High Cost Parking Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan 42 Downtown Parking Conceptual Master Plan Notes Lot A Potentially associated with new hotel mixed-use development (retail, hotel, banquet/meeting space, public amenities, and parking for these uses -116 spaces may remain public parking) Lot B Potentially associated with new hotel development 30 spaces to remain public parking (automated valet parking structure) Lot C Current Municipal Public Lot Lot D Current Municipal Public Lot Potential under grounding 1 story & 2 above ground (candidate for automated valet parking) Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Ave general streetscape improvements: 2 lanes, diagonal parking, widen sidewalks, streetscape furnishing City Hall Potential to rebuild large civic center on top of new 3 story underground public parking facility/facilities Community Center Potential to build 3 or 4 stories underground public parking facilities and replace tennis courts, etc. on top of parking facilities 43 Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0507 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 CIP 11-537 SOUTH PARK PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS-PLAYGROUND REMODEL PROJECT UPDATE - CHANGES TO PLAYGROUND (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. Background: In 2009,the City Council approved the South Park Master Plan which included the proposed demolition of the hockey rink and an upgrade to the playground area. On November 12,2013,the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to Moore Iacofano Goltsman Inc.(MIG)to provide design services for the natural playground,for a fee of $65,530.The City Council then reaffirmed this project by making it a high priority in the 2014 Strategic Plan. On October 23,2014,CIP 11-537 South Park Phase I Improvements-Playground Remodel project was advertised for formal competitive bidding.Only one bid was received by the City Clerk by the closing date of November 18,2014,for an amount exceeding the Engineer’s Estimate by over 100%. On December 9,2014,the City Council approved Staff’s recommendation to reject all bids and issue a new “notice inviting bids”. On January 8, 2015, the project was re-advertised for formal competitive bidding, and on March 10, 2015 City Council awarded the construction contact to the lowest bidder, Green Giant Landscape, Inc. for $755,909. Analysis: Construction of the project began on April 20,2015 and is expected to continue until September 2015.The contractor has been performing satisfactorily and has completed approximately 35%of the improvements.The construction operations completed and currently taking place include:clearing and grubbing, site grading, storm drain improvements, construction of concrete sidewalks and walls. During construction,the South Park Design Committee (Committee)provided some comments and suggestions to Staff regarding the adequacy of the playground surfacing material and playground equipment.The Committee pointed out that the improvements shown on the Construction Plans do not include the type of playground surfacing or the play equipment for the playground that was selected during the preparation of the City’s South Park Master Plan.The Committee also expressed Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0507 selected during the preparation of the City’s South Park Master Plan.The Committee also expressed concerns that the Engineered Wood Fiber shown on the Construction Plans as the surfacing material for the play areas is not universally accessible surfacing to persons of all abilities and age groups, including disabled and elderly. The Committee pointed out that the playground equipment selected for construction in the 2-5 year play area does not accommodate children with disabilities,and that there is no play equipment included in a large portion of the 5-12 year play area. The City’s South Park Master Plan, dated April 2014, proposed rubberized play surface on the 2-5 year play area and on portions of the 5-12 play area. These items were later removed from the plans during the design phase and replaced with Engineered Wood Fiber when the project was value engineered to fall within the project budget. The Master Plan also included inclusive playground equipment in all areas, which was also removed when value engineering the project. Staff has studied the possibility of changing the playground Engineered Wood Fiber back to rubberized surfacing material at the locations originally called out in the Master Plan. The estimated cost for the rubberized surfacing material for the selected areas is approximately $100,000. The credit for the unused Engineered Wood Fiber will be used to offset the cost of the rubberized material. The playground equipment for the 2-5 year old area is recommended to be revised to incorporate inclusive play equipment that can be used by children with disabilities,and additional inclusive playground equipment is recommended to be added to the lower portion of the 5-12 play area as well.The estimated cost for the selected equipment is approximately $100,000.The cost for the equipment takes into account the savings for the original pieces of playground equipment not installed. In order to minimize the cost of adding the rubberized surfacing material and play equipment to the playground, Staff recommends performing the changes now while the project is in construction and not postponing it to a future phase. Postponing the changes will bring the construction cost up due to the need to mobilize again, as well as having access constraints to the playground areas due to the new improvements being in the way. Additionally, costs for any Engineered Wood Fibers installed will be wasted if the material is replaced after construction. Fiscal Implications: The cost to install rubberized surfacing and to install accessible inclusive play equipment at the selected play areas of the park is approximately $200,000. The extra needed funds are available from the General Fund in the amount of $79,353, $69,611 from the Park/Recreation Facility Tax Fund, and $51,036 from the Equipment Replacement Fund. At the June 9, 2015 Council Meeting, Council adopted the budget for Fiscal Year 2015/16. An additional $200,000 will be appropriated to the South Park Phase I Improvements project budget per Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0507 the adopted City Budget for Fiscal Year 2015/16 for the purchase and installation of rubberized surfacing and accessible inclusive play equipment. The South Park Design Committee will plan fundraising and obtain donations for future project phases. Any funds raised by the Committee will be used to purchase additional equipment as well as park benches and other amenities in conformance with the Master Plan. Respectfully Submitted by: Lucho Rodriguez, Project Manager Concur: Andrew Brozyna, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0489 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 STRATEGIC PLAN ACTION AGENDA QUARTERLY UPDATE (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (Management Analyst Nico De Anda-Scaia) Recommended Action: That the City Council receive and file the Revised Action Agenda submitted by staff. Background: On April 8th, 2014, the City Council approved the Hermosa Beach Strategic Plan which included an action agenda itemizing the city’s 5-year goals for 2019. Centered on the tenants of a:Commitment to a Safe Community;Financially Sound City Government;High Performing City Providing 1st Class Services;More Livable, Sustainable Beach City; with Enhanced Economic Development Through Revitalized Downtown and Entry Corridors, the action agenda herein outlines policy and management priorities while serving as a status report for ongoing projects. Additionally, a central purpose of this report is to illustrate how the City Council’s 2019 strategic goals are in-line with year 2014/2015 goals and action items identified by staff.This agenda reflects the current status of all projects as of June 1st, 2015. Within the revised Strategic Plan Action Agenda, dark headings denote policy and management priorities identified by council. Below these, a comprehensive list of individual action items are outlined, along with a status report illustrating whether projects are ‘completed’, ‘in-progress’, ‘ongoing’ or have not yet begun [blank]. Important to note, are the ‘revised due dates’ for ongoing projects. Furthermore, revisions in dates may reflect available resources. As this is a living document and a work-in-progress, it would be most-valuable to staff if Council were to focus attention on the Goals in bold. It is the intent of staff to return to council on a quarterly basis with necessary updates and revisions to the action agenda. Attachments: 1. Strategic Plan and Action Agenda Tracking Respectfully Submitted by: Nico De Anda-Scaia, Management Analyst Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Strategic Plan and Action Agenda Tracking 2019 Timeline Strategic Goal # Action Item Primary Assigned Status Initial Due Date Revised Due Date 1 COMMITMENT TO A SAFE COMMUNITY 1 Public Safety Service and Staffing Study Police/Fire Chiefs Council Decision: Police Temporary Positions Funding (including Crime Analyst)Completed Feb-14 Council Presentation: ICMA Report, Direction on Recommendations, Public Participation Completed Mar-14 Dec-13 Council Decision: Police/Fire Building Design Funding in Capital Improvement Plan In Progress May-14 Jun-15 Council Decision: Police Permanent Positions (3), Fire Permanent Positions Completed May-14 Feb-15 Council Report: Quarterly Ongoing Oct-14 N/A 1 Late Night Action Plan: Update, Direction Police Chief/Com Dev Director Council Presentation: 4th of July Action Plan Overview and Contract, Public Communications Completed Apr-14 Council Decision: Restaurant/Bar (50/50) Definition Completed Aug-14 Planning Commission: Conditional Use Permit Review Completed Sep-14 Dec-14 Final Code Changes: Restaurant/Bar (50/50) Definition Completed Mar-15 Follow Up Reports (beyond the 4th of July)Ongoing N/A 1 Code Enforcement Policy, Service Priority and Actions Police/Fire Chiefs /Com Dev Director Meeting with Restaurant & Tavern Owners Association (monthly)Ongoing Jan-14 N/A Initiate Active Code Enforcement for Weekend Ongoing Jan-14 N/A Establish CUP Enforcement Team Completed Jan-14 Jun-14 Council Presentation: Progress Report and CUP Actions Ongoing Apr-14 N/A Council Decision: Service Level and Priority Completed Apr-14 Aug-14 Hire Additional Code Enforcement Officer Completed Apr-14 Jun-14 Council Decision: Budget Decision on Code Enforcement/Fire Marshall In Progress May-14 Jun-15 1 Fire Service Level and Staffing: Direction Fire Chief Develop Fire Staffing Plan w/ Standards/Learning from History with Fire Staff/Performance Measures In Progress Mar-14 Dec-15 Explore Shared Services with Neighboring Fire Department(s)In Progress Apr-14 Jun-15 Finalize Report/Plan with Options and Recommendations In Progress May-14 Jun-15 Council Presentation: Fire Staffing Plan with Recommendations/Standards In Progress May-14 Dec-15 Council Decision: Budget Decision on Fire Position, Standards In Progress May-14 Dec-15 1 Management in Progress 2014-2015 Emergency Operations Center: Mid-Year Report (Next Budget)Fire Chief Pending Feb-14 Jun-15 Conditional Use Permit Enforcement Team: Action Plan PD, FD, CD Ongoing Apr-14 N/A Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan Fire Chief In Progress May-14 Jan-16 Police Officer Recruitment and Hiring Police Chief In Progress Apr-15 Aug-15 Volunteer Police Program Development/Guidelines Police Chief In Progress Jun-14 Jun-15 Emergency Operations Plan: Update and Training Fire Chief In Progress Oct-14 Aug-15 Community Risk Analysis Fire Chief In Progress Jun-15 Dec-15 Downtown Enforcement Unit: Creation Police Chief In Progress Jun-15 Oct-15 2019 Timeline Strategic Goal # Action Item Primary Assigned Status Initial Due Date Revised Due Date 2 FINANCIALLY SOUND CITY GOVERNMENT 2 Oil Ballot Measure For 2014 Com Dev Director Hire Interim Public Information Officer - (Ongoing Information)Completed Jan-14 Release the Draft EIR; Cost Benefit Analysis, Health Impact Reports (3)Completed Feb-14 Conduct Information Meetings (3)Completed Mar-14 Council Decision: Direction on Negotiation Approach Completed Mar-14 Prepare RFQ for Citywide Public Information Service Completed Apr-14 Jul-14 Conduct Public Input Meetings (2)Completed Apr-14 Negotiate/Finalize Development Agreement Completed Jun-14 Oct-14 Council Decision: Contract for Service (Public Information Service)Completed May-14 Oct-14 Council Presentation: EIR Certification Completed Jun-14 Council Presentation: Cost Benefit Analysis, Health Impact Assessment(s)Completed Jun-14 Sep-14 Council Decision: Development Agreement Completed Jun-14 Oct-14 Prepare Ballot Measure Completed Jul-14 Oct-14 Council Decision: Ballot Measure Completed Jul-14 Oct-14 Public Information Packet Completed Aug-14 Dec-14 Council Decision: Simulating Project Impacts Completed Aug-14 Jan-15 Election Completed Nov-14 Mar-15 2 Capital Improvement Program and Policy Pub Works Director Develop Draft CIP Completed Dec-13 Public Works Commission: Review/Approval Completed Jan-14 Council Presentation and Decision: Direction, Funding Approach Completed May-14 Council Decision: Funding for Year 1 Projects Completed Jun-14 2 Sewer Replacement Program and Funding Mechanism Pub Works Director Complete Study Completed Apr-14 Evaluate Options for State Infrastructure Fund Completed Apr-14 Council Workshop: Sewer Fee or Annexation (County)Completed May-14 Council Decision: Direction, Link to Budget Completed May-14 Council Presentation: Fee Study Comparison using H20 Consumption vs. Standard Fees Completed Sep-14 Council Decision: Approval of Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report for Sewer Services Charges and Setting a Majority Protest Hearing for 6/23/2015 Completed Apr-15 Council Decision: Approve Sewer Charge Formula and Financing Completed Apr-15 Public Information Meeting Completed May-15 Protest Hearing Jun-15 Submit Charge Roll to LA County Aug-15 2 Employee Salaries and Benefits Policy Asst to the CM Complete Phase 1: Classification Completed Apr-14 Council Presentation and Decision: Survey City/Approach Compensation Policy Completed May-14 Jun-14 Complete Phase 2: Compensation Completed Aug-14 Mar-15 Council Presentation and Policy Direction Completed Nov-14 Mar-15 2 Stormwater Management Plan Pub Works Director Council Presentation: Update Completed May-14 Develop Enhanced Watershed Management Plan Completed Jun-14 Submit Enhanced Watershed Management Plan to Regional Board Completed Jun-14 Preliminary Storm Drain Fee Study Completed Sep-14 Develop Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (Phase II)In Progress Jun-15 Submit Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (Phase II)In Progress Jun-15 Receive Approval from Regional Board In Progress Dec-14 Dec-15 2 Priority Based Budgeting Development Finance Director Kick-off Priority Based Budgeting Completed Mar-14 Sep-14 Develop Program/Services Inventories Completed Mar-14 Oct-14 Score Services/Programs Completed Apr-14 Jan-15 Develop Program Costing Completed Apr-14 Feb-15 Complete Peer Review Completed Jun-14 Feb-15 Council Presentation: Report Completed Aug-14 May-15 PBB Model (Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool) Updates: Council, Departments Ongoing N/A 2 Citywide Service Level/Performance Benchmark System (Performance Measures)Finance Director Comparison of present tier metrics with past year's measures Completed Jan-15 Submit Data to ICMA Completed Mar-15 Receive Report from ICMA Completed May-15 Council Presentation: Report Completed Jun-14 May-15 Incorporate into Adopted Budget In Progress Aug-14 Jul-15 2 Management in Progress 2014-2015 Phone System: Upgrade Finance Director Completed Mar-14 Website Upgrade on Oil (Ease of Search)Com Dev Director Completed Apr-14 Electronic Patient Care Record and Billing Fire Chief Completed Apr-14 Sep-14 Five Year Financial Plan (2015) Update Finance Director Completed May-14 OPEB Update Report/PERS Review Finance Director Completed May-14 Vehicle Replacement: Update Report Pub Wrks/Finance Completed May-14 Recreation Software Upgrade and Fee Review Asst to the CM Completed Aug-14 Oct-14 National Citizen's Survey Asst to the CM On Hold Jul-14 Nov-15 Land Management System: Upgrade (Permitting, Building Permitting, Asset Management, CRM software, Citizen Access to Information)Com Dev Director In Progress Sep-15 Feb-17 2019 Timeline Strategic Goal # Action Item Primary Assigned Status Initial Due Date Revised Due Date 3 HIGH PERFORMING CITY PROVIDING 1st CLASS SERVICES 3 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan Pub Works Director Council Decision: Funding for Assessment Completed May-14 Prepare RFP - Phase 1: Condition and Needs Assessment Report Completed Jun-14 Oct-14 Council Decision: Award Contract Completed Dec-14 Feb-15 Complete Final Report In Progress May-15 Sep-15 3 Public Information and Communications Plan City Manager Council Presentation: Oil Information Completed Jan-14 Hire Interim Position Completed Jan-14 Prepare RFQ for Citywide Public Information Services Completed Apr-14 Jul-14 Council Decision: Contract Completed May-14 Oct-14 Prepare Communications Plan (including Em. Preparedness, Relations to Schools)Completed Jun-14 Nov-14 Council Presentation: Communications Plan, Direction Completed Jul-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Plan Adoption Completed Aug-14 Feb-15 3 Valuing Employees: Policy Statement City Manager/ Asst to the CM Develop Policy Statement Completed Apr-14 Council Presentation and Decision: Policy Statement Completed Apr-14 3 Management in Progress 2014-2015 Solid Waste Collection: Update Report City Manager Completed Apr-14 Street Paving Program: Review, Update Report Pub Works Director Completed Mar-14 Citizen Complaint Tracking System: Development, Pub. Svs. Requests via Website Mgmt. Analyst Completed Apr-14 Trash Enclosures Temporary Pub Works Director Completed Jun-14 High Performance Organization: Development, Leadership Phil., Dept. Discussion City Manager Ongoing N/A Employee Appreciation Program: Enhancements City Manager Ongoing N/A 2019 Timeline Strategic Goal # Action Item Primary Assigned Status Initial Due Date Revised Due Date 4 MORE LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE BEACH CITY 4 Municipal Carbon Neutral Action Plan City Manager Council Decision: Position Funding for Environmental Programs Coordinator Completed Jan-14 Hire City Position and Explore use of Other Resources Completed Apr-14 Oct-14 Provide Data to SBCCOG Climate Action Plan Consultant Completed May-14 Consultant Hired by SCAG to Prepare Road Map/Targets for Municipal Carbon Neutrality Completed Jun-14 Council Presentation and Acceptance: UCLA Study on Community Choice Aggregation and Other Options for Zero-Emissions Renewable Energy Completed Jun-14 Complete a Comparative Economic Analysis/Report Benefits/Opportunities from 1st Carbon Neutral Municipality vs. Leader in Carbon Neutrality Completed Jun-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Carbon Neutral Municipal Policy Direction Completed Jun-14 Mar-15 Council Decision: Employee Commute Program: Report for Options, Direction, Incentives In Progress Jun-14 Jun-15 Clean Fleet Energy Policy: Implementation, Update Report*In Progress Jul-14 Jun-15 SCE Streetlight Energy Efficiency Program: Update Report*Completed Jul-14 Feb-15 Municipal GHG Emissions Inventory: Update Report (SBCCOG)Completed Sep-14 Feb-15 SCE On-Bill Financing Energy Efficiency Projects Completed Sep-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Solar Report-Early Actions and Overall Direction Completed Oct-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Final SCAG Report: Setting Target, Action Plan, Funding Completed Dec-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Net Zero Carbon Policy for City Facilities and Service Delivery Analysis: 1st for Carbon Neutral or Carbon Neutrality, Steps, Costs, Time Frame, Direction Completed Dec-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Renewable Energy Policy for City Facilities and Service Delivery: Steps/Cost, Time Frame Completed Dec-14 Feb-15 *Interim Actions to Reduce GHG Emissions 4 General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Blueprint for a Low Carbon Future Com Dev Director Establish Working Group (using Community Dialog Group as a Resource)Completed Mar-14 Working Group and Technical Committee: Orientation/Issues Completed Mar-14 Develop and complete Community Education Workshop*Completed Apr-14 Develop Technical Background Report and Issue Papers Completed May-14 Conduct Community Workshop: Visioning Completed May-14 Nov-14 Develop Issue Paper: Existing Conditions/Issues and Integrate Low Carbon Future/Values from Community Dialogue Completed Jun-14 Oct-14 Complete a Comparative Economic Analysis/Report: Benefits and Opportunities from 1st Carbon Neutral Community vs. Leader in Carbon Neutrality Completed Jun-14 Oct-14 Council Decision: Carbon Neutral Community Policy, Direction on Plan Development Completed Jun-14 Mar-15 Develop Alternatives: Future Scenarios Completed Aug-14 Mar-15 Test Alternatives with Working Group and Technical Committee Completed Oct-14 Mar-15 Community Workshops: Alternatives In Progress Dec-14 Jun-15 *Climate Change & Sustainability, Economics & Land Use, Transportation & Public Health 4 South Park: Upgrade Asst to the CM Council Decision: CIP Project Funding for Construction Completed May-14 Complete Playground Design with Construction Documents Completed Jun-14 Aug-14 Determine Location: Permanent Community Garden Completed Jun-14 Aug-14 Bid Project Completed Jul-14 Jan-15 Pursue Outside Grants and Funding Ongoing Aug-14 N/A Construction In Progress Dec-14 Aug-15 4 Schools Strategy and Specific Actions: Support for Top Quality Schools City Manager Meet COMPACT Group Completed Feb-14 Identify Common Goals and Strategy: Facilities, Funding Issues, School Safety, Solar Opportunities, Communications on School Issues to the Community Completed Apr-14 Council Report: Update on Direction Completed Aug-14 Joint Meeting: City - School Completed Nov-14 Oct-14 4 Community Dialog/Decision Making Tools: Implementation City Manager Complete Analysis and Mapping to Decision Making Tool Completed Apr-14 Develop Draft Decision Making Tool Completed Apr-14 Modify with Public Input and Catalyst Tool Completed Apr-14 Release Revised Decision Making Tool Completed Apr-14 Receive Input and Use Community Dialog Information and Decision Making Tool during the Strategic Planning Process Completed Apr-14 Council Decision: Decision Making Tool Adoption, Roles and Responsibilities Definition, Simple Detailed, Implementation Plan, Pilot Project Ongoing Apr-14 Nov-14 Develop Training Plan/Program on Decision Making Tool May-14 Jul-15 a. Elected/Appointed Officials (Mayor, Council, Boards and Commissions)May-14 Jul-15 b. City Departments and Staff May-14 Jul-15 c. Civic Organizations (including Chamber of Commerce)May-14 Jul-15 d. Business Owners May-14 Jul-15 e. General Public May-14 Jul-15 Initiate/Complete Training Program Jun-14 Jul-15 Develop Community Outreach/Awareness Plan and Materials for Decision Making Tool Jun-14 Jul-15 Initiate Community Outreach and Awareness Activities Jul-14 Jul-15 Evaluate/Refine Effectiveness of Community Outreach and Awareness Activities/Plan Ongoing Aug-15 TBD 4 Stable Power Supply: Evaluation, Direction, City Action Plan City Manager Work with COG on Data - Planned/Unplanned Outages Ongoing N/A Council Update Report: Information from Southern California Edison/Utility Commission Apr-14 Aug-15 Work w/ Cities on Unified Approach Southern California Edison Ongoing N/A 4 AES Rebuild City Manager Develop Possible Resolution w/ options to Support the City of Redondo Beach Position Completed May-14 Develop Ordinance, Analysis/Report Intervener Legal Implication, Actions/Benefits/Cost Completed May-14 Council Decision: Resolution, Intervener, Future Development on the Site Completed Jun-14 Staff Participation CA Energy Commission Meeting: Attendance and Summary Ongoing N/A Prepare Background Update Report and Briefing for City Council Completed N/A May-15 Update Website/Communications, including on City Calendar Completed N/A May-15 4 Management in Progress 2014-2015 Charging Station: Development (Parking Structure)Pub Works - MS Completed Jul-14 City Energy Efficiency Update Report Pub Works - MS Completed Jul-14 Sep-14 LED City Lights Pub Works - MS In Progress Jul-14 Jul-15 Preliminary Living Streets Update Reports, Projects Com Dev/Pub Wrks Completed Jul-14 Dec-14 2019 Timeline Strategic Goal # Action Item Primary Assigned Status Initial Due Date Revised Due Date 5 ENHANCED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH REVITALIZED DOWNTOWN AND ENTRY CORRIDORS 5 Downtown Core Development Com Dev Director Council Decision: Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Direction and Implementation Completed Apr-14 Counduct Public Discussion/Hearing: use of City Assets on Residential Dev. Application Completed Apr-14 Council Direction: Roma Study Completed Apr-14 Council Decision: Downtown Parking Strategy Completed Apr-14 Feb-15 Council Decision: Hermosa Avenue/Pier Plaza Improvements Policy Direction Completed Apr-14 Sep-14 Council Decision: Use of City Assets In Progress Jul-14 Jul-15 5 Pacific Coast Highway/Aviation Blvd. Mobility Improvement (Corridor Beautification) Plan Pub Works Director Establish Community Group Completed Mar-14 Complete Conceptual Plan Completed Mar-14 Apr-14 Council Presentation and Decision: Plan Adoption, Direction on Project Phasing Completed Mar-14 Apr-14 Workshop SBCCOG to Develop RFP for Design Eliminated N/A Meeting with Caltrans - (Office of Planning and Public Transportation)Completed May-14 Develop RFP for PSR Completed Jun-14 Meeting with Caltrans - Director of District 7 - facilitate 2015 Call for Project Application In Progress Aug-14 Dec-15 Project Study Report (PSR) by Caltrans Completed Jan-15 Project Assessment Environmental Development (PA/ED) by Caltrans In Progress Jul-17 Pre-Design a. PSR Completed Nov-14 Jan-15 b. PAED In Progress Sep-15 Sep-17 Design Phase 1 a. Complete PSR and 60% Design Sep-17 Nov-18 b. Complete 90% Plans - Phase 1 Oct-18 Apr-19 Begin Construction - Phase 1 Oct-19 Apr-21 5 Cypress Avenue District: Zoning Direction Com Dev Director Council Decision: Direction on Zoning Changes for Manufacturing Uses - Gen Plan Process Completed Aug-14 Jan-15 Planning Commission: Study Issue (General Plan Process)Completed Sep-14 May-15 Planning Commission: Direction (General Plan Process)In Progress Dec-14 Jun-15 5 Business Improvement District (BID) For Pier Plaza: Preparation Econ Dev Officer Initiate Discussion w/ Property Owners Completed Sep-14 Feb-15 Assist in BID Proposal On Hold TBD 5 Undersea Cable (Addition): Policy Direction City Manager Negotiate Terms on Landing Completed Jun-14 Council Decision: Lease Completed Jun-14 Initiate Environment Review Completed Aug-14 Nov-14 Environment Review In Progress Jul-15 Sep-15 5 Management in Progress 2014-2015 Economic Development Position City Manager Completed Apr-14 Mar-14 City Manager's Economic Development Committee: Creation CM/Econ Dev Off.Completed Apr-14 Pier Avenue Street Lights and Trash Pub Works Director Completed May-14 Pilot Parking Program: Evaluation Mgmt. Analyst Completed Mar-15 Phase 1 - Commercial Zone 'Smart' Parking Meter Purchase & Installation Mgmt. Analyst In Progress Jul-15 Phase 2 - Multi-space Meter Trial/Parking Lot Pay Stations PD/Mgmt. Analyst Pending Aug-15 User Guide for 'Doing Business in Hermosa Beach' (Preliminary/Final)Econ Dev Officer Completed Sep-14 Aug-14 Economic Development Welcome Team: Development Econ Dev Officer Completed Mar-14 Jul-14 Hope Chapel Development: w/ Property Owners, Update Report, Policy Direction CM/Econ Dev Off.On Hold TBD Skechers Development: EIR Process CM/CD/ED Off.In Progress Sep-15 Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0477 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSION - PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS TWO TERM EXPIRATIONS ON JUNE 30, 2015 AND ONE UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 (Continued from meeting of June 9, 2015) (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council appoint from among the applicants interviewed this evening to fill (1) two four-year terms ending June 30, 2019; and (2) one unexpired term ending June 30, 2017. Background: At its meeting of May 12, 2015, the City Council (1) directed the City Clerk to advertise for the two term expirations (the unexpired term had been previously advertised); and (2) scheduled all applicant interviews to take place at 5 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 2015. In conformance with standard practice, the notice inviting applications for these seats was placed on the City’s website, posted in the normal Civic Center locations, and published in the Easy Reader, with a filing deadline of 6 p.m. Wednesday, June 3. My staff telephoned and mailed follow-up letters to (1) notify the two members whose terms are expiring of the application filing deadline, and (2) advise all applicants of the date, time and place of the interviews. Attached are the nine applications received. Attachments: Applications: Chris Brown, Joey Farrales, Craig Greely, Maureen Ferguson Lewis, Mark Paaluhi, Jeff Raedy, Isabel Rodriguez, Robert Rosenfeld, and Les Thompson Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ From: Joey Farrales [mailto:joeyfarrales@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:24 PM To: Elaine Doerfling Subject: Parks and Recs Commission Application Withdrawal Dear Ms. Doerfling, I would like to official withdraw my application for the Parks and Recreations Commission. My work schedule has changed and now required more time from me. I will not be able to dedicate the necessary time needed for the commission and it will be unfair for our city. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best, Joey Farrales 310.694.6975 Pardon my errors, this iPhone may act on its own at times. June 17, 2015 Honorable Mayor Peter Tucker and the Hermosa Beach City Council, This letter comes to you regarding your anticipated appointments to the Hermosa Beach Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission. And, as there are many qualified candidates, one submission stands out for several reasons. Isabel Rodriguez, a 33-year resident here in Hermosa Beach, has been a model citizen and one who has always been willing to step up and volunteer for many community and city sponsored organizations and events. But what separates her from all of the other applicants, both now and in her previous years applying for this position, is her advocacy for Senior’s issues. She makes a very good point that Hermosa Beach Seniors have traditionally been under-represented on this particular commission, and that the Seniors in our community want and need more attention than what is currently provided. Certainly “Hermosa 5-0” is a shining example of what we can offer this important and growing segment of our community (for which I officially qualify as I am 63!). But it also tells us how much more we could accomplish in providing the special services and activities desired by our Senior population if we put our minds to it. Having Isabel Rodriguez on this commission would provide a valuable voice to that end. Thank you very much for your consideration of these points as you make your decision! Sincerely, Dency Nelson 2415 Silverstrand Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310-374-4543 From: Randy Balik [mailto:randybalik@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:00 PM To: Hany Fangary Contact Subject: Letter in support of Chris Brown Good evening, Hany. I am writing this letter in strong support of Chris Brown with regards to his seeking a position with the Hermosa Beach parks and recreation commission (I apologize for not knowing the proper name offhand). I have known Chris for nearly 20 years now and I have always been proud to call him a close friend. But it is not my personal friendship that warrants the city council's consideration of Chris, rather it is what I know about him as a result of our friendship and my own accounts and experiences with his various activity-related events and other dealings. I know Chris to be an intelligent, articulate man who is driven by and passionate about outdoor activities around our great city of Hermosa Beach. I also know him to be a person who willingly takes on a lot of responsibility and successfully juggles several different tasks and duties, from his own company, Camp Surf, to his tireless efforts with the CBVA. It only takes one visit to one of his many CBVA volleyball tournaments to see how well-run his events are. And it only takes one lesson with Camp Surf to see how well-run his company is and how much his own employees respect him and his leadership. Chris is a responsible, well-organized, engaging individual who truly understands Hermosa Beach. With a love for our parks and our beach, he truly is part of this city's heartbeat. Many of us have tried to push Chris into our local political arena, and I for one am very happy to see him have a chance to participate in at least this new role. He is made for this position and deserves the opportunity. I urge the city council to strongly consider Chris Brown, and I would be greatly appreciative if you would pass my letter along to your colleagues and include this in your deliberations. Respectfully, Randy Balik 904 Manhattan Ave Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 _____________________ Randy Balik (310) 341-5004 randybalik@yahoo.com Tuesday, June 23, 2015 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Re: Chris Brown's application for Parks and Recreation commission/Commissioner City Council, Other and I who signed my petition are vehemently opposing Chris Brown becoming a commissioner for the Parks and Recreation Commission. Chris Brown has a huge conflict of interest and is totally entrenched in volleyball and runs a professional volleyball tournaments throughout the year for money. This poses a huge conflict of interest and would most likely would force him to recluse himself most of the time. As of recent months his testimony at both the Park and Recreation commission and the City Council in my opinion is not been forth with and truthful. On April 7, 2015, in support of Dave Fulton application for 20 courts, explained to the commission that there was a shortage of courts on weekends at 10 o'clock in the morning and too many events tied up too many courts, this was attempt on his special agenda to get Mr. Fulton’s additional 20 courts. The Park and Recreation commission after testimony from the public was in tune to the lack of support and this unfounded testimony, as noted by the chair. He noted that multiple courts were off-‐line and if they were restored it would be more courts that staff were recommending. Both Brown and Fulton claimed that there was still a shortage of courts and that the additional 6 volleyball courts given to them by the City Council were of badminton quality and no use to them. Additional courts were rejected at that time. Within several weeks both Mr. Brown and Mr. Fulton appeared at the city Council, and attempted again to get six permanent courts, both supporting each other's claim that the events took up too many courts, and that there were no courts on the weekends for local use. Again, Mayor Tucker this time also caught this hidden agenda to seek new courts with no foundation and cited to Mr. Brown that the courts City Council offered were of professional quality like those used by the AVP. These courts were use by Olympians and are no different than the wooden posts courts that they were requesting and of course they could be taken down and again the Council denied both of them the additional courts. Mr. Brown and Mr. Fulton self-‐serving hidden agendas are obvious and goes to the facts as to why Mr. Brown should not become a parks and recreation commissioner. In addition, multiple reports were turned in by myself, Commissioner Kent Allen and personal findings by Mayor Pete Tucker, all the reports noted similar findings that there were no shortages on Saturday and Sunday mornings at the time they both claimed it was impossible to find any court, such blatant misrepresentation of the truth goes to his conflict of interest. Lastly, Chris Brown conducts and produces competitions under the California Beach Volleyball Association for fees, which would be in conflict of any other volleyball event held in our city, and would be a conflict of interest regarding even other non-‐ volleyball event because of the crowded calendar. Please note this conflict of interest when deciding this and make this commission fair and balanced, his appointment would be to the contrary and not beneficial to the beach and the community as a whole. Thanks for your consideration, Sandy Saemann From: Kent Allen [mailto:kentjallen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:20 PM To: Elaine Doerfling; Peter Tucker; Hany Fangary; Nanette Barragan Subject: Chris Brown Parks and Recreation application Please reject Chris Brow's application. Given his intense involvement with Volleyball (which is admirable), he brings an obvious conflict of interest to the commission and those that would like the beach to be something other than wall to wall volleyball courts. I would have no issue with him advising the commission, but to be a member would be too much of a conflict of interest. Thank you Kent Allen Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0532 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE AND COUNCIL COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION - JUNE 2015 (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: Consistent with the City Council policy of an approximate nine and one-half-month rotation of Mayor and Mayor pro tempore, it is recommended that the following appointments be made: 1. Mayor for a term ending Tuesday, April 12, 2016; and 2. Mayor pro tempore for a term ending Tuesday, April 12, 2016. In conformance with State law (attached), after appointing a new Mayor and Mayor pro tempore, the following committee appointments must be made. 1.Mayor to the Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee. Authority in Government Code § 50270. The committee shall consist of the mayor of each city within the county. When the mayor is unable to attend a meeting, the mayor shall designate another member of the City Council to attend and vote at the meeting as the mayor’s representative {Gov’t Code § 50271}. 2.Mayor to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District Board of Directors, and another member of the Council to serve as alternate director. Authority in Health and Safety Code § 4730. The presiding officer of the governing body of each city within the district is a member of the Board of Directors, and another Council member shall be appointed as an alternate director to act as a member of the district board in place of the presiding officer during such person’s absence, inability, or refusal to act. The remaining committee assignments (consistent with the Council policy to maintain permanent representatives whenever possible) may be either handled this evening or postponed to the July 14 meeting. Attached is a list of current committee assignments and a separate document with general Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0532 information about each committee. Please note that a resolution is required for delegate and/or alternate changes to the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) and its Steering Committee. Councilmember DiVirgilio is the current delegate, with Councilmember Fangary serving as alternate. A resolution reflecting any appointment changes will be presented as a consent calendar item for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting. A resolution to change the delegate for the Independent Cities Risk Management Association from former employee Diane Strickfaden to Robert Blackwood, who is currently serving as Interim Assistant to the City Manager, is presented this evening as a separate item on the Consent Calendar. Following the assignments of delegates and alternates, letters will be sent to the appropriate committees, and the list of newly appointed delegates and alternates will be forwarded to the Council. Attachments: 1. List of Current Committee Assignments 2. Committee Information 3. Relevant State Codes re Mayoral Appointments Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE APPOINTMENTS Watershed Advisory Council of Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Delegate Tucker (Meetings at least once a year, as called, usually afternoons at Dockweiler Youth Alternate Fangary Center, 12505 Vista del Mar, Los Angeles) Independent Cities Association Delegate Fangary (Annual winter and summer seminars for delegates) [Board members meet 2nd Thursday Alternate Barragan at 700 N. Alameda St., Los Angeles] Independent Cities Risk Management Association Delegate Strickfaden (Bimonthly - Downey) Alternate Bagnara RESOLUTION NO. 13- 6888 League of California Cities – L.A. County Division Delegate Tucker (1st Thurs. Jan./March/May - 6 p.m., locations vary, but usually Luminarias Restaurant - Monterey Park, Alternate Barragan other League/Division/committee events as called) Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee (Mayor must appoint alternate separately, each time, when unable to attend meeting) Delegate (Mayor)Tucker (as called) Metropolitan Transportation Authority City Selection Committee Delegate Tucker (as called) Alternate Barragan South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Delegate DiVirgilio (4th Thurs., 6 p.m., 20285 Western Ave., Torrance) Alternate Fangary RESOLUTION NO. 15-6935 SBCCOG Steering Committee Delegate/Alternate See above (2nd Mon., 12 p.m., 20285 Western Ave., Torrance) Page 1 of 2 Appointments 11-25-14 Updated 01-27-15 South Bay Cities Sanitation District (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles) Delegate (Mayor)Tucker Alternate Barragan (3rd Wed. - 1:30 p.m., Torrance City Hall) Southern California Association of Governments Delegate Barragan (Annual, as called) West Basin Water Association Delegate Tucker (1st Tues., 11:30 a.m., Carson Community Center) Alternate Barragan Hermosa Beach Sister City Association Delegate DiVirgilio (1st Mon. – 7 p.m., Community Center, Room 9) Alternate Barragan TEMPORARY COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEES Beach Cities Health District Councilmember Tucker City-School District Partnership [Formed 5/28/98] Councilmember Petty Councilmember DiVirgilio Public Communications [Formed 03-13-12] Mayor Tucker Mayor Pro Tempore Barragan Special Olympics Host Town [Formed 01-27-15] Mayor Tucker Mayor Pro Tempore Barragan Page 2 of 2 Appointments 11-25-14 Updated 01-27-15 Page 1 of 3 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE INFORMATION Watershed Advisory Council of Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission was established by the California Legislature in 2002 to monitor, assess, coordinate and advise the activities of state programs, and to oversee funding that affects the beneficial uses, restoration and enhancement of Santa Monica Bay and its watersheds. The Watershed Advisory Council serves as an advisory body to the Governing Board of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. Representatives serving on the Council include local, state and federal elected officials, public agencies responsible for protecting the resources and water quality of the Bay, the business community, along with environmental and other community groups. The Watershed Advisory Council meetings take place in the afternoon (usually 1-4 p.m.) at least once per year, as called (usually February, March or April), at Dockweiler Youth Center, 12505 Vista del Mar, Los Angeles. Independent Cities Association The ICA was established by full-service cities (those with their own police/fire services) to represent their interests – to educate and advocate for member cities in the Los Angeles region on shared issues to preserve and enhance local government. There are two annual seminars for delegates – in 2014, the winter one took place in Santa Barbara in February, and the summer one took place in Rancho Bernardo in July. (Board members typically have evening meetings on the second Thursday of each month at the Metropolitan Water District Building, 700 Alameda Street, Los Angeles) Independent Cities Risk Management Association The ICRMA specializes in loss-preventive risk control programs and opportunities to reduce the costs of municipal risk management. At the last Committee reorganization, the Council appointed staff members to serve as delegate and alternate (as many other member cities have done), since specific risk management expertise is desirable and meetings occur during the day. The Joint Powers Agreement allows but does not require a member of the Council to represent the City on the ICRMA Governing Board. League of California Cities – L.A. County Division The League’s mission is to expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance quality of life for all Californians. The Board of Directors is responsible for the overall supervision, control and direction of the League. Page 2 of 3 The Los Angeles County Division, which provides members with the opportunity to exchange ideas/information and share the advantages of cooperative advocacy, holds general membership meetings on the first Thursday during the months of January, March and May, with a reception at 6 p.m. followed by the program at 6:30 or 6:45 p.m. Locations may vary, but usually take place at Luminarias Restaurant in Monterey Park. Any Division member may also apply for a one-year appointment to one of eight policy committees, meeting a maximum of four times per year, to help set League priorities and policies. Additional events include the League’s annual conference in September. Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee This organization is comprised of mayors of Los Angeles County cities. Its function is to appoint city representatives to Boards/Commission/Agencies (as required by law) such as South Coast Air Quality Management District, LAFCO, L.A. City Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Committee, L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and to nominate for appointment members to the California Coastal Commission. Meetings take place as called. Unlike other committees that have both an assigned delegate and alternate, the mayor must separately appoint an alternate to attend each meeting that he or she is unable to attend. Metropolitan Transportation Authority/City Selection Committee The MTA is charged with conducting hearings and setting fares for established operating organizational units and the approval of transportation zones, final rail corridor selections, and approval of contracts for construction and transit equipment acquisition. The 14-member agency (which meets at 9:30 a.m. on the 4th Thursday of the month at the MTA, One Gateway Plaza, 3rd floor, L.A.) includes four city councilmembers. Each city within four sectors of the County (defined by the League of California Cities, L.A. County Division), may vote to nominate one or more candidates from that particular sector for consideration for appointment to the MTA by the L.A. County City Selection Committee (see above). This committee meets on an “on called” basis. South Bay Cities Council of Governments and Steering Committee The SBCCOG is a joint powers authority of 16 cities and L.A. County of that provides a forum for local government efforts to work collaboratively on programs and studies directed at improving the environment, preserving natural resources, advocating for regional efforts to expand transportation alternatives, and increasing awareness for effective policies for a sustainable community and economic development. Meetings are at 6 p.m. on the 4th Thursday of each month, at 20285 Western Avenue in Torrance. The Steering Committee serves as the executive committee of SBCCOG – its members are the officers and committee chairs, as well as the chairs of the working groups and a Page 3 of 3 representative from the South Bay City Managers’ group. Meetings take place on the 2nd Monday of each month at 12 noon, at the South Bay Environmental Services Center, 20285 S. Western Avenue, Suite 100, Torrance. South Bay Cities Sanitation District (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles) The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles are a partnership of special districts formed to protect public health and the environment through innovated cost-effective wastewater/ solid waste management and to convert waste into resources such as recycled water/ materials and energy. The South Bay Sanitation District board meetings take place at 1:30 p.m. on the 3rd Wednesday of each month at Torrance City Hall. Southern California Associations of Government SCAG is a joint powers authority established to provide a network for members to identify and address common community problems – the region encompasses six counties and 191 cities, covering more than 38,000 square miles. The agency develops long-range regional transportation plans including sustainable community strategy and growth forecast components, transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocation, and a portion of the South Coast Air Quality management plans. A general assembly is convened at least once a year (usually in April or May). West Basin Water Association This Association is concerned the problems associated with the existing deficiency in the supply of groundwater in the West Basin – its purpose is to investigate problems, formulate and disseminate factual and educational data in order to provide the West Basis inhabitants with a dependable supply of water to meet present and future needs. Meetings take place at 11:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday of each month at the Carson Community Center. Sister City Association, Inc. In 1967 the City of Hermosa Beach formed a “sister city” relationship with the City of Loreto, Baja California, Mexico – Council action on 3/21/67 initiated contact with Loreto government officials to establish a Sister City Program. The City Council adopted Resolution N.S. 2744 on 11/7/67, which welcomed Loreto, noted the official visit to Loreto by the Hermosa Beach City Council and Sister City Committee, and stipulated that an elected City official be appointed as a representative to help carry out the Program, which now includes a student exchange and paramedic training. Meetings take place at 7 p.m. on the first Monday of the month in Room 9 of the Community Center. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0535 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 MEMORANDUM REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this memorandum. Background: Due to the continuing heavy workload in the City Clerk’s office, we have no City Council minutes in final form to present for approval at the June 23, 2015 meeting. Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0515 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 CHECK REGISTERS (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommended Action: To ratify the following check registers. Attachments: 1.Check Register 6-4-15 2.Check Register 6-11-15 Approved: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78015 6/4/2015 05817 ACCELA INC 2438 Engage '15 Train Conf/Zeigler & Tambe 001-1550 1,998.00 Total : 1,998.00 78016 6/4/2015 11437 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CO OP 323897 Taxi Voucher Program - Apr15 145-3404-4201 6,604.17 Total : 6,604.17 78017 6/4/2015 04715 ADMINSURE 8616 Work Comp Claim Admin/Jun15 705-1217-4201 5,795.00 705-1209-4201 1,300.00 Total : 7,095.00 78018 6/4/2015 00935 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 0151034-IN RADIOS FOR SEASONAL/PT CSOS 001-3302-4309 943.01 Total : 943.01 78019 6/4/2015 19319 AESCO 200705768 Recommendations/paving repair/Strand 301-8141-4201 1,600.00 Total : 1,600.00 78020 6/4/2015 17647 ANDERSON, MAUREEN 6733 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78021 6/4/2015 09366 AQUA FLO 771538 Irrigation Supplies/May15 001-6101-4309 360.58 Total : 360.58 78022 6/4/2015 19364 BALLARD, JOHN 6680 Citation Refund 001-3302 38.00 Total : 38.00 78023 6/4/2015 00163 BRAUN LINEN SERVICE 1250423 Prisoner Laundry/May15 001-2101-4306 42.60 Total : 42.60 1Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78024 6/4/2015 19366 BROWN, PETER 6677 Citation Refund 001-3302 53.00 Total : 53.00 78025 6/4/2015 09632 CDWG VM21385 City Hall Wireless Network Switches 715-1206-5401 1,045.31 VN29336 City Hall Wireless Switches 715-1206-5401 478.51 VQ18205 Color Printer 715-4201-5402 1,773.20 Total : 3,297.02 78026 6/4/2015 05970 COLLINS, DENNIS 6651 Instruct Pmt/5354,57,60,62,64,66 001-4601-4221 4,536.00 Total : 4,536.00 78027 6/4/2015 00879 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 6701 Inspect Deposit/Permit#PCFL2014D4098 301-8537-4201 2,000.00 Total : 2,000.00 78028 6/4/2015 17703 CULINARY DIMENSIONS 4/1/15-5/31/15 Rest/Bar 50/50 Audits - Apr & May 15 001-1101-4201 1,604.04 Total : 1,604.04 78029 6/4/2015 14171 DAVOODIAN, MICHAEL 110833 Business Card Masters 001-1208-4305 1,741.82 Total : 1,741.82 78030 6/4/2015 12991 DELL MARKETING LP XJP42FFM7 Docking Station 715-1206-5401 167.85 Total : 167.85 78031 6/4/2015 15233 DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 6695 License 03X43X Renewal/Beach ATV 715-2101-4311 52.00 Total : 52.00 78032 6/4/2015 00122 DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES CSBAP000285 Autocite Parking Citations/Apr15 001-1204-4201 4,156.33 2Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 4,156.33 78032 6/4/2015 00122 DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES 78033 6/4/2015 00122 DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES DPT022433 BATTERIES FOR PARKING METERS 001-3302-4309 1,628.93 Total : 1,628.93 78034 6/4/2015 00181 EASY READER ER150521019 Hermosa Five-O Open House Ad 001-4601-4302 550.00 ER150521048 Sewer Service Charge Notice 160-3102-4201 300.00 Total : 850.00 78035 6/4/2015 10668 EXXON MOBIL FLEET GECC 40861135 Gas Card Purchases-4/11/15-5/10/15 715-2101-4310 4,665.92 715-2201-4310 256.05 715-4202-4310 95.22 715-6101-4310 230.11 715-3302-4310 1,602.49 715-3104-4310 665.18 715-4601-4310 92.97 715-2601-4310 300.30 001-1250 127.61 Total : 8,035.85 78036 6/4/2015 19360 FANTASIA FAMILY MUSIC 1001490.003 Theatre Damage Deposit Return 001-2111 500.00 Total : 500.00 78037 6/4/2015 01962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 5-034-15142 Express Mail - May15 001-2101-4305 23.99 Total : 23.99 78038 6/4/2015 06293 FEDEX KINKOS INC 101600008706 Maps for Training 001-2101-4305 5.70 Total : 5.70 78039 6/4/2015 06344 FIRST CALL STAFFING SERVICES 00709-148856 Temp Services/W/E 5/17/15/M. Gutierrez 001-4202-4201 372.00 3Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 372.00 78039 6/4/2015 06344 FIRST CALL STAFFING SERVICES 78040 6/4/2015 00427 GFOA 0121001 Membership #300010453 Renewal/FY1516 001-1550 190.00 Total : 190.00 78041 6/4/2015 19369 GONZALEZ, DAVID 6722 Citation Refund 001-3302 53.00 Total : 53.00 78042 6/4/2015 10836 GRAINGER 9746838573 Corner Guards 001-3104-4309 453.33 Total : 453.33 78043 6/4/2015 19317 GREEN GIANT LANDSCAPE INC 1140-2 CIP 11-537/South Park/May15 121-8537-4201 40,000.00 125-8537-4201 32,741.50 Total : 72,741.50 78044 6/4/2015 14204 HARTZOG AND CRABILL INC 15-0092 Traffic Engineering Services - Feb15 001-3104-4201 5,906.14 15-0245 Traffic Engineering Services - Apr15 001-3104-4201 3,150.00 15-0294 Traffic Engineering Services - Apr15 001-3104-4201 1,110.00 Total : 10,166.14 78045 6/4/2015 13932 HB CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5/21/15 Networking Meeting/May 12th, 2015 001-1201-4317 15.00 Total : 15.00 78046 6/4/2015 15810 HENNIS, LEE A 6706 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78047 6/4/2015 19368 HERMOSA MASSAGE LLC 6690 Refund/Business License Overpayment 001-3115 100.00 4Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 5 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 100.00 78047 6/4/2015 19368 HERMOSA MASSAGE LLC 78048 6/4/2015 18344 HIRSCHMANN, JAMES 6721 Cash Key #121829 Refund 001-2117 14.50 001-3851 36.50 Total : 51.00 78049 6/4/2015 19141 HUB INTERNATIONAL SERVICES 6738 Special Event Insurance/May15 001-3897 146.62 Total : 146.62 78050 6/4/2015 16742 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS IN-000526324 Office Supplies/May15 001-2101-4305 217.92 IN-000526969 Office Supplies/May15 001-1208-4305 27.47 Total : 245.39 78051 6/4/2015 02458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 248816-00 Electrical Supplies - May15 001-8614-4201 493.85 Total : 493.85 78052 6/4/2015 12859 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 25155342 AA & C Batteries 001-2201-4350 203.90 Total : 203.90 78053 6/4/2015 19371 KOGER, ASHLEY TR 421 Airfare/Hotel TR 421/CALEA Conf/Airfare Reimb 001-1550 363.70 Total : 363.70 78054 6/4/2015 00118 LA SUPERIOR COURT - TORRANCE 06612 Citation Surcharges/Apr15 001-3302 57,371.20 Total : 57,371.20 78055 6/4/2015 00167 LEARNED LUMBER B454840 Woodworking Supplies/May15 001-4204-4309 83.77 B455076 Woodworking Supplies/May15 001-4204-4309 68.67 5Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 6 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 152.44 78055 6/4/2015 00167 LEARNED LUMBER 78056 6/4/2015 02175 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1403227 Legal, RE: Personnel Matter/Apr15 001-1203-4201 2,459.50 Total : 2,459.50 78057 6/4/2015 14111 LONNQUIST, GEORGIA 6728 Reimb/Fiesta Hermosa Booth Supplies 001-2101-4201 165.68 Total : 165.68 78058 6/4/2015 19079 LOS ANGELES COUNTY Receipt No. 715847 Spring '15 Museum Excursion 001-4601-4201 535.00 Total : 535.00 78059 6/4/2015 02564 LUNDRIGAN, KAY 6705 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78060 6/4/2015 18274 MAGNUM VENTURE PARTNERS 6656 Instruct Pmt/5246/52475248 001-4601-4221 1,940.40 Total : 1,940.40 78061 6/4/2015 00183 MANHATTAN BEACH, CITY OF 16-02798 Staffing Assistance/3rd Qtr 001-2201-4251 13,675.99 Total : 13,675.99 78062 6/4/2015 18634 MOTWANE, AMAN 6734 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78063 6/4/2015 14723 MOWER, BETTE 6704 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78064 6/4/2015 19370 NATIONAL LIGHTING SOLUTIONS 2011074 Brighter lights in Parking Lot A 001-3301-4309 4,959.00 Total : 4,959.00 6Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 7 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78065 6/4/2015 13114 OFFICE DEPOT 770690173001 Office Supplies/May15 001-4601-4305 77.61 770690313001 Office Supplies/May15 001-4601-4305 15.24 771420497001 Office Supplies/May15 001-4601-4305 77.16 771649947001 Office Supplies/May 15 001-1203-4305 62.84 771873912001 Office Supplies/May15 001-1202-4305 101.34 771919959001 Office Supplies/May15 001-2201-4305 349.56 771920400001 Office Supplies/May15 001-2201-4305 15.69 Total : 699.44 78066 6/4/2015 06334 ORMONDROYD, HAROLD 6735 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78067 6/4/2015 16650 PAYPAL INC 41150727 CCProcess/PrkgStructMtrs/May15 001-3302-4201 289.32 001-3305-4201 900.39 001-3304-4201 996.76 001-3302-4201 860.69 Total : 3,047.16 78068 6/4/2015 19359 PERFORMANCE TRANSMISSIONS 803 Labor to repair transmission on Go4 715-3302-4311 500.00 Total : 500.00 78069 6/4/2015 19361 PETTERSSON, JONAS 1001420.003 Theatre Damage Deposit Return 001-2111 250.00 Total : 250.00 78070 6/4/2015 17676 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 40915735 Uniform Rental/May15 001-4202-4314 43.69 7Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 8 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78070 6/4/2015 (Continued)17676 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 40918411 Mats & Shop Towels 001-2201-4309 27.18 40918412 Mats 001-4204-4309 46.28 40918413 Mats 001-3302-4309 29.78 40918414 Mats 001-4204-4309 33.68 40918415 Shop Towels 715-4206-4309 19.68 40918416 Uniform Rental 001-4202-4314 43.69 40918417 Mats 001-2101-4309 33.08 40918418 Mats & Shop Towels 001-3104-4309 24.18 40920486 Uniform Rental 001-4202-4314 43.69 Total : 344.93 78071 6/4/2015 16925 PUTTIN ON PRODUCTIONS 100875 Theatre Damage Deposit Return 001-2111 500.00 Total : 500.00 78072 6/4/2015 18223 RAIMI AND ASSOCIATES INC 15-0958 SGC/General Plan Maint/Jan & Feb15 150-4104-4201 14,221.25 001-4104-4201 8,843.16 15-0970LCP Coastal Use Plan Prep/Jan & Feb15 150-4107-4201 9,996.25 15-0980 General/Coastal Plan Update/Mar15 150-4104-4201 8,475.00 001-4104-4201 12,068.84 15-0981LCP Coastal Use Plan Prep/Mar15 150-4107-4201 10,278.75 8Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 9 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 63,883.25 78072 6/4/2015 18223 RAIMI AND ASSOCIATES INC 78073 6/4/2015 18530 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES 11795 Class & Comp Study 001-1203-4251 2,025.00 Total : 2,025.00 78074 6/4/2015 13255 REDMOND, GEORGE DAVID 34134 Locksmith Services - May15 001-2101-4305 159.96 Total : 159.96 78075 6/4/2015 19367 SCHAENING, ALI 6685 Citation Refund 001-3302 38.00 Total : 38.00 78076 6/4/2015 17903 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 2330-8 Painting Supplies/May15 001-4204-4309 45.56 Total : 45.56 78077 6/4/2015 02250 SO CAL SHARPSHOOTER INC 33985 Range Fees/Jan15-Apr15 001-2101-4201 520.42 Total : 520.42 78078 6/4/2015 09737 SOLYMOSI, MARIE 588320 Bee Removal/Clark Field Irrigation Box 001-3302-4201 120.00 Total : 120.00 78079 6/4/2015 00146 SPARKLETTS 4472788 043015 Drinking Water - Apr15 001-4601-4305 149.88 Total : 149.88 78080 6/4/2015 15277 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448 30 030 0241673 Comm Res/Internet/Broadband 715-1206-4201 40.00 Total : 40.00 78081 6/4/2015 19362 TONE IT UP 1001472.003 Special Event Security Deposit Return 001-2111 601.00 Total : 601.00 9Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 10 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78082 6/4/2015 18144 TORDELLA, JEAN 6718 2014 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 78083 6/4/2015 11102 TORRANCE WHOLESALE NURSERY 364451 Landscape Materials/Greenbelt 001-6101-4201 495.95 364453 Landscape Materials/Greenbelt 001-6101-4201 495.95 364454 Landscape Materials/Greenbelt 001-6101-4201 495.95 364456 Landscape Materials/Greenbelt 001-6101-4201 495.95 364457 Landscape Materials/Greenbelt 001-6101-4201 265.69 Total : 2,249.49 78084 6/4/2015 00123 TRIANGLE HARDWARE 5/31/15 Statement Hardware Supplies - May15 001-2101-4305 211.78 001-3104-4309 244.22 001-3302-4305 24.13 001-4204-4309 1,134.97 001-6101-4309 751.18 105-2601-4309 109.45 715-4206-4309 34.91 Total : 2,510.64 78085 6/4/2015 19363 TRUBEY, MELISSA 6687 Citation Refund 001-3302 53.00 Total : 53.00 78086 6/4/2015 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 167-1756 PD/Circuit Billing-5/16/15-6/15/15 001-2101-4304 331.15 10Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 11 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78086 6/4/2015 (Continued)00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 197-3683 Phone Charges/May15 715-1206-4304 35.29 001-3302-4304 132.16 001-2101-4304 836.39 001-2201-4304 45.13 001-4601-4304 90.12 001-4202-4304 137.79 001-4201-4304 144.84 001-3304-4304 55.68 001-1204-4304 45.06 001-4204-4321 199.22 310 372-6186 Fax Charges/Apr15 001-1141-4304 48.43 310 376-6984 Phone Charges-5/16/15-6/15/15 001-1121-4304 30.43 001-1132-4304 5.07 001-1141-4304 7.61 001-1201-4304 69.73 001-1202-4304 67.19 001-1203-4304 13.95 001-1208-4304 5.07 001-2101-4304 406.97 001-2201-4304 140.73 001-4101-4304 68.46 001-4201-4304 60.86 001-4202-4304 129.32 001-4601-4304 100.16 001-1204-4304 93.82 001-3302-4304 44.37 715-1206-4304 24.09 310 PL0-0346 PD/Circuit Billing-5/16/15-6/15/15 001-2101-4304 46.05 Total : 3,415.14 78087 6/4/2015 19365 WAGNER, HELEN 6686 Citation Refund 001-3302 38.00 11Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 12 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 38.00 78087 6/4/2015 19365 WAGNER, HELEN 78088 6/4/2015 17569 ZGRAY SPORTS LLC 6528 Instruct Pmt/5289/5295/5297 001-4601-4221 1,176.00 Total : 1,176.00 6032015 6/3/2015 00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 06032015 PAYROLL 5/15/2015 TO 5/31/2015 715-1103 7,159.17 001-1103 692,449.34 105-1103 3,565.50 117-1103 1,903.55 145-1103 107.10 152-1103 114.14 160-1103 4,651.29 705-1103 10,931.33 Total : 720,881.42 280044192 5/8/2015 15230 CALPERS FISCAL SERVICES DIV 100000014509835 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 100000014509892 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 100000014509893 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 100000014509894 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 100000014509895 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 100000014509897 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 100000014509898 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1201-4201 850.00 100000014509899 GASB-68 Reports & Schedules Fees 001-1202-4201 850.00 Total : 6,800.00 460084261 5/27/2015 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 115 404 6900 1 Gas Bill/Apr15 001-4204-4303 29.92 12Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 13 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 29.92 460084261 5/27/2015 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 470137443 5/28/2015 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 011 004 5700 9 Gas Bill/Apr15 001-4204-4303 22.64 Total : 22.64 470137490 5/28/2015 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 139 104 4600 7 Gas Bill/Apr15 001-4204-4303 19.88 Total : 19.88 470137491 5/28/2015 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 141 204 4600 1 Gas Bill/Apr15 001-4204-4303 23.56 Total : 23.56 1563352133 6/3/2015 14691 ADMINSURE AS AGENT FOR THE 06/01/2015 Work Comp Claims Reimb - May15 705-1217-4324 3,366.48 Total : 3,366.48 Bank total : 1,027,871.57 81 Vouchers for bank code :boa 1,027,871.57Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 81 13Page: 06/04/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 14 4:46:11PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount "I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the checks listed on pages 1 to 14 inclusive, of the check register for 6-4-15 are accurate funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to the budget." By Finance Director Date 6-15-15 14Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78089 6/11/2015 00321 A T AND T 248 134-9454 462 8 PD/Computer Hookups/June15 001-2101-4304 27.41 Total : 27.41 78090 6/11/2015 14435 ACCELA PE023497A Accela Implement/Travel Exp/Nov14 715-4201-4201 1,434.53 Total : 1,434.53 78091 6/11/2015 06290 AIR SOURCE INDUSTRIES INC 00646756 Haz Mat & Oxygen Refills 001-2201-4309 401.50 Total : 401.50 78092 6/11/2015 17965 AMGRAPH GROUP, INC 23871 Memorial Day US Flag Install/Remove 001-1101-4319 1,506.00 Total : 1,506.00 78093 6/11/2015 18891 ASCENT ELEVATOR SERVICES, INC 6165 City Hall Elevator Safety Test 001-3104-4201 750.00 6184 CityHall/ParkStruct/ElevateMaint/Jun15 001-3304-4201 136.00 001-4204-4201 136.00 Total : 1,022.00 78094 6/11/2015 17271 BARROWS, PATRICK 06652 Instruct Pmt/5545/5739 001-4601-4221 1,416.10 06707 Instruct Pmt/5466 001-4601-4221 84.00 Total : 1,500.10 78095 6/11/2015 16371 BEACH GIRL PROPERTIES LLC 141 Parking Meters/70 14th St/Jun15 001-3842 650.00 Total : 650.00 78096 6/11/2015 03190 BLUEPRINT SERVICE AND SUPPLY 196918 CIP 14-128/Digital Bond Copies 001-4202-4201 660.98 Total : 660.98 1Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78097 6/11/2015 08482 BOUNDTREE MEDICAL LLC 81798141 Medical Supplies - May15 001-2201-4309 543.81 Total : 543.81 78098 6/11/2015 00163 BRAUN LINEN SERVICE 1251844 Prisoner Laundry/Jun15 001-2101-4306 98.79 1253282 Prisoner Laundry/Jun15 001-2101-4306 44.67 Total : 143.46 78099 6/11/2015 17424 BROWNELLS INC 11321854.00 Range Supplies 001-2101-4201 465.71 Total : 465.71 78100 6/11/2015 00034 BUSINESS SYSTEMS CORP 297619 1000 Building Inspection Cards 001-4201-4305 234.81 297620 1000 Misc Job/Permit Cards 001-4201-4305 149.20 Total : 384.01 78101 6/11/2015 18185 CERTAPRO PAINTERS 128 Bard/Fire Garage/Painting 715-2201-4201 4,763.56 Total : 4,763.56 78102 6/11/2015 00634 CHEVRON AND TEXACO CARD SER 44539322 Gas Card Purchases/May15 715-2101-4310 495.80 Total : 495.80 78103 6/11/2015 09694 CLEAN ENERGY CE11713502 Compressed Natural Gas/Jan15 715-4202-4310 16.52 715-4201-4310 26.67 Total : 43.19 78104 6/11/2015 17623 COLLINS COMPANY 574380 Tennis Net Posts 001-6101-4309 803.50 Total : 803.50 78105 6/11/2015 00642 DAILY BREEZE, THE 0010669386 Sewer Service Ad 2Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78105 6/11/2015 (Continued)00642 DAILY BREEZE, THE 160-3102-4201 332.00 Total : 332.00 78106 6/11/2015 00181 EASY READER ER150528012 Ad/Water Saving Rules 001-4101-4390 450.00 Total : 450.00 78107 6/11/2015 19330 FENCESCREEN INC 32842 Surfer Memorial Fencing 001-4202-4305 3,290.46 Total : 3,290.46 78108 6/11/2015 06344 FIRST CALL STAFFING SERVICES 00709-148875 Temp Srvcs/W/E 5/24/15/Tracie Tolmie 001-4202-4201 558.00 Total : 558.00 78109 6/11/2015 01320 GALLS LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO BC0156220 Honor Guard Uniform Piece 001-2101-4314 10.96 Total : 10.96 78110 6/11/2015 05125 GHASSEMI PETTY CASH, MARIA 06765 Petty Cash Replenishment 001-1201-4305 30.63 001-1203-4201 80.71 001-2101-4305 205.19 001-2201-4305 24.68 001-2201-5401 103.78 001-3302-4305 9.28 001-4101-4305 45.89 001-4601-4305 31.04 001-4601-4328 148.75 170-2105-4201 45.00 715-1206-4305 51.29 715-2201-4311 64.22 715-4202-4311 21.30 001-2201-4314 32.70 Total : 894.46 78111 6/11/2015 07547 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND ASSC 0023988-IN SALES TAX AUDIT SERVICES/4TH QTR 3Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78111 6/11/2015 (Continued)07547 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND ASSC 001-1202-4201 900.00 001-1202-4201 666.13 Total : 1,566.13 78112 6/11/2015 03432 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1022858 Hardware Supplies - May15 001-4204-4309 111.37 Total : 111.37 78113 6/11/2015 16742 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS IN-000528008 Office Supplies/May15 001-3302-4305 85.86 IN-000528541 Office Supplies/May15 001-2101-4305 61.73 IN-000530151 Office Supplies/Jun15 001-1101-4305 115.99 IN-000530318 Office Supplies/Jun15 001-1202-4305 58.73 001-1208-4305 193.46 IN-000530779 Office Supplies/May15 001-1204-4305 8.22 IN-000531084 Office Supplies/Jun15 001-2101-4201 55.06 Total : 579.05 78114 6/11/2015 18289 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SUPPLY 1017617 Gas Mask Filters 001-2101-4305 733.31 Total : 733.31 78115 6/11/2015 17441 INTELLIBRIDGE PARTNERS LLC 209212 Benefits/Fisc Hlth&Budget Mod 001-1202-4201 4,400.00 Total : 4,400.00 78116 6/11/2015 09139 IRON MOUNTAIN LLX0329 Off Site Storage/Jun15 001-1121-4201 156.37 Total : 156.37 78117 6/11/2015 10820 JENKINS AND HOGIN LLP 23239 General City Attorney Services/May15 4Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 5 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78117 6/11/2015 (Continued)10820 JENKINS AND HOGIN LLP 001-1131-4201 21,294.50 23240 Legal Services: Code Enforcement/May15 001-1132-4201 117.00 23241 Land Use Advisory Services/May15 001-1131-4201 2,487.10 Total : 23,898.60 78118 6/11/2015 01165 JOBS AVAILABLE 1510018 Assistant Engineer Job Ad 5/5/15 001-1203-4201 370.50 1512017 Associate Engineer Job Ad 6/2/15 001-1203-4201 468.00 Total : 838.50 78119 6/11/2015 00354 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 71819509 Repair Parts/May15 001-6101-4309 547.94 Total : 547.94 78120 6/11/2015 11503 JOHNSON, BRITT 06742 Refund/Photovoltaic Sys/Permit 001-3204 406.00 Total : 406.00 78121 6/11/2015 18132 JOHNSON, LESLIE 06655 InstructPmt/5404-06,08,10,12,19 001-4601-4221 7,728.00 Total : 7,728.00 78122 6/11/2015 00444 JOHNSON, TEREA 06746 Train/CrisisIntervent/Mental Ill/Meals 001-2101-4313 16.00 Total : 16.00 78123 6/11/2015 00850 L.N. CURTIS & SONS 1349860-00 Blauer Jackets 001-2201-4350 4,695.23 1355231-00 Irons Tools with Shoulder Straps 001-2201-5401 576.85 6048820-00 Wheel Blocks for E11 001-2201-5401 122.63 5Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 6 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 5,394.71 78123 6/11/2015 00850 L.N. CURTIS & SONS 78124 6/11/2015 15782 LA CO METRO TRANSPORTATION 800060923 TAP Cards/Apr15 145-3403-4251 226.00 Total : 226.00 78125 6/11/2015 12190 LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES INC INV-016698 Valley Park Play Structure/Repair Parts 001-6101-4309 286.38 INV-017077 Valley Park/Hand Trolley/Repair Parts 001-6101-4309 101.49 Total : 387.87 78126 6/11/2015 12482 LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC 1114400-20150531 Information Services/May15 001-2101-4201 50.00 Total : 50.00 78127 6/11/2015 19223 MARDER, BONNIE 06664 Instructor Pmt/5415 001-4601-4221 126.00 Total : 126.00 78128 6/11/2015 15912 MARTIN CHEVROLET 714485 Auto Repair Parts/Jun15 715-4206-4311 175.80 Total : 175.80 78129 6/11/2015 18437 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN INC 0040060 CIP 11-537/South Park/Feb15 001-8537-4201 7,325.00 0040429 CIP 11-537/South Park/Mar15 121-8537-4201 1,095.00 Total : 8,420.00 78130 6/11/2015 09715 NEW PIG CORPORATION 21662738-00 Translucent Poly Drums 001-3104-4309 414.89 Total : 414.89 78131 6/11/2015 13114 OFFICE DEPOT 772656034001 Office Supplies/May15 001-4601-4305 28.58 Total : 28.58 6Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 7 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78132 6/11/2015 00608 PEP BOYS 08141033023 Auto Supplies/May15 715-2101-4311 70.59 08141033114 Auto Supplies/May15 715-2101-4311 185.02 08141033359 Auto Supplies/Jun15 715-2101-4311 164.85 08141033360 Auto Supplies/Jun15 715-2101-4311 164.85 Total : 585.31 78133 6/11/2015 15103 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC PD-28127 Repair Tips/Jetter/Pressure Washer 160-3102-4309 85.02 Total : 85.02 78134 6/11/2015 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 149048 IT Support/May15 715-1206-4201 12,659.00 Total : 12,659.00 78135 6/11/2015 01911 PROVIDENCE MEDICAL INSTITUTE GuarantorID600000285 Pre-Employment Physical/Luis Rodriguez 001-1203-4320 100.00 Total : 100.00 78136 6/11/2015 09852 QUANTUM CONSULTING HB15.001 CFP App Srvc/Metro Call For Projects/Jan15 146-8143-4201 39,710.00 HB15.003 FEB15 PCH/Aviation Improve/Proj Mgmt/Feb15 146-8143-4201 12,900.00 HB15.004 MAR15 PCH/Aviation Improve/Proj Mgmt/Mar15 146-8143-4201 12,540.00 HB15.005 APR15 PCH/Aviation Improve/Proj Mgmt/Apr15 146-8143-4201 21,950.00 Total : 87,100.00 78137 6/11/2015 19379 RED HELMET TRAINING 06803 Train/T Surber/Fire Investigation 001-2201-4317 225.00 Total : 225.00 78138 6/11/2015 08837 REDONDO BEACH, CITY OF 558950 Diesel Purchases/Mar15 7Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 8 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78138 6/11/2015 (Continued)08837 REDONDO BEACH, CITY OF 715-2201-4310 431.75 715-3102-4310 545.25 Total : 977.00 78139 6/11/2015 16921 ROUND STAR WEST LLC 06663 Instruct Pmt/5270 001-4601-4221 333.20 Total : 333.20 78140 6/11/2015 16425 SAFEWAY INC VONS 433914-052915-2110 Hermosa Five-O Open House Supplies 001-4601-4328 26.84 726645-052715-2110 Staff Meeting Supplies 001-4601-4305 24.09 Total : 50.93 78141 6/11/2015 03353 SBCU VISA 06537 CC Train/Aoki/Smith/Public Records 001-2101-4317 500.00 06559 CC Paramedic License Renew/Crawford 001-2201-4317 200.00 06560 CC Paramedic License Renew/M. Williams 001-2201-4317 200.00 06587 CC HBCert.org website creation/2 yrs 001-2201-5401 79.00 06674 CC Emergency First Aid Supplies 001-2101-4305 52.98 001-1204-4305 52.98 001-1201-4305 52.98 001-4601-4305 52.98 001-4202-4305 105.96 06674 Order No. 2 CC Emergency First Aid Supplies 001-2101-4305 2.68 001-1204-4305 2.68 001-1201-4305 2.68 001-4601-4305 2.68 001-4202-4305 5.39 8Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 9 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78141 6/11/2015 (Continued)03353 SBCU VISA 06675 CC First Aid Supplies/Iodine Wipes 001-2101-4305 4.47 001-1204-4305 4.47 001-1201-4305 4.47 001-4601-4305 4.47 001-4202-4305 8.94 Conf#501438516 CC Train/Ramirez/Internal Affairs 001-2101-4312 333.45 Inv#1007367 CC SmartDraw Planning/Design Software 001-2201-5401 641.52 Order # 10054933 CC Fire Engineering Magazine Subscription 001-2201-4317 179.00 Order #1300004080 CC CERT Table Cover 001-2201-5401 165.23 Order #4233832 CC Gas Shut-Off Wrenches 001-2201-5401 72.35 Order ID 27610 CC Floor Warden Bags 001-2201-5401 258.58 Order#00109575 CC Ammunition 001-2201-4350 383.84 Receipt # 2694050 CC Train/Aoki/Public Records Act 001-2101-4317 -250.00 Receipt # 3872255 CC Train/McKinnon/Violent Crime Behavior 001-2101-4317 175.00 ResConf#82109096 CC Train/Juarez/Drug Abuse 001-2101-4312 544.31 Total : 3,843.09 78142 6/11/2015 16214 SERRATO & ASSOCIATES 06747 Train/Courtroom Testimony/G. Dove 001-2101-4317 65.00 Total : 65.00 78143 6/11/2015 13061 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 81297125 Fire Alarm Panel Programming 001-4204-4321 871.75 9Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 10 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total : 871.75 78143 6/11/2015 13061 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 78144 6/11/2015 00114 SMART AND FINAL IRIS COMPANY 3220630121534 PARK Program Supplies 001-4601-4308 299.99 3220630121718 Various Supplies 001-4204-4309 151.31 3220630125292 Office Supplies 001-4601-4305 33.76 3220630125294 Senior Center Supplies 001-4601-4328 101.17 3220630125295 Excursion Bag Supplies 001-4601-4308 61.84 3220630131220 Jail Supplies 001-2101-4306 82.78 3220630135501 Office Supplies 001-4601-4305 18.82 3220630135502 Senior Center Supplies 001-4601-4328 137.53 3220630135503 Excursion Bag Supplies 001-4601-4308 44.41 3220630178272 Meeting Refreshments 001-1101-4305 64.11 Total : 995.72 78145 6/11/2015 18895 SOLAR SERVICE CENTER, INC 06740 Refund/Photovoltaic Sys/Permit 001-3204 406.00 06741 Refund/Photovoltaic Sys/Permit 001-3204 406.00 Total : 812.00 78146 6/11/2015 10532 SOUTH BAY FORD 458053 Auto Parts Purchase - May15 715-2101-4311 32.50 Total : 32.50 78147 6/11/2015 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 2-01-414-1071 Electrical Billing - May15 001-4204-4303 2,869.84 10Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 11 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78147 6/11/2015 (Continued)00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 2-01-414-2152 Electrical Billing - May15 001-6101-4303 780.80 2-01-414-3747 Electrical Billing - May15 105-2601-4303 54.01 2-01-414-3994 Electrical Billing - Apr15 160-3102-4303 59.81 2-01-414-4281 Electrical Billing - May15 105-2601-4303 482.16 2-01-414-5106 Electrical Billing - May15 001-3104-4303 494.27 2-23-687-8021 Electrical Billing - May15 001-3104-4303 33.60 2-23-725-4420 Electrical Billing - May15 001-4204-4303 4,137.12 2-29-332-0750 Electrical Billing - 4/22/15-5/21/15 105-2601-4303 170.00 2-36-722-1322 Electrical Billing - May15 105-2601-4303 12.09 Total : 9,093.70 78148 6/11/2015 00146 SPARKLETTS 4472788 052815 Drinking Water - May15 001-4601-4305 98.85 Total : 98.85 78149 6/11/2015 10098 SPRINT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 371554311-163 Cell Phone Usage - May15 001-2201-4304 366.77 Total : 366.77 78150 6/11/2015 15398 SRK PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISING 3128 Fiesta Hermosa PD Booth Posters 001-3302-4305 88.29 Total : 88.29 78151 6/11/2015 09099 STEWART JACKSON SPRINKLERS, IN 53635 Backflow Device Repair 001-6101-4201 1,175.00 11Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 12 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78151 6/11/2015 (Continued)09099 STEWART JACKSON SPRINKLERS, IN 53751 ANNUAL BACKFLOW DEVICE TESTING 001-6101-4201 705.00 105-2601-4201 705.00 Total : 2,585.00 78152 6/11/2015 19082 T MOBILE 946625962 Cell Phone Charges/May15 001-2101-4201 460.36 001-2101-4304 232.96 001-3302-4304 49.92 Total : 743.24 78153 6/11/2015 19214 THE ORIGINAL CAST FOUNDRY 20180 SurfLegendMemorial/BronzeStatue/Pmt2 150-8661-4201 23,604.00 Total : 23,604.00 78154 6/11/2015 15277 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448 30 030 0088884 Cable/Internet/Yard/5/16-6/15 001-4202-4201 146.09 8448 30 030 0340764 FD/Cable/May15 001-2201-4201 280.09 Total : 426.18 78155 6/11/2015 10155 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 32327409 DEEP ROOT FERTILIZATION/PALMS/PIER AVE 001-3301-4201 992.00 32334182 DEEP ROOT FERTILIZATION/PALMS/PIER AVE 105-2601-4201 646.00 Total : 1,638.00 78156 6/11/2015 08207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 520150318 Underground Service Alert/May15 160-3102-4201 85.50 Total : 85.50 78157 6/11/2015 18666 VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES 69461149 VoIP Services/Base3/Apr15 001-3302-4304 88.80 69461150 VoIP Services - Yard/Apr15 001-4202-4304 142.11 12Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 13 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78157 6/11/2015 (Continued)18666 VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES 69461151 VoIP Services - Apr15 001-4601-4304 136.96 69461264 VoIP Services/BARD/Apr15 001-2101-4304 53.28 001-2201-4304 17.75 69461696 VoIP Services - EOC Gym/Apr15 001-2201-4304 60.74 Total : 499.64 78158 6/11/2015 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 318-6379 Phone Charges/5/25 - 6/24 001-1121-4304 5.33 001-1132-4304 2.82 001-1141-4304 1.36 001-1201-4304 4.10 001-1202-4304 17.30 001-1203-4304 17.58 001-1208-4304 0.69 001-2101-4304 132.70 001-2201-4304 78.23 001-4101-4304 11.88 001-4201-4304 20.08 001-4202-4304 62.40 001-4601-4304 30.48 001-1204-4304 18.63 001-3302-4304 1.89 715-1206-4304 5.92 310 PL0-0347 PD/Circuit Billing/5/19-6/18 001-2101-4304 46.05 310 UH0-3618 PD/Circuit Billing/5/22-6/21 001-2101-4304 440.41 310 UH9-9686 PD/Circuit Billing/5/25 - 6/24 001-2101-4304 165.35 310 VM6-6158 PD/Circuit Billing/5/22-6/21 001-2101-4304 43.65 Total : 1,106.85 13Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 14 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 78159 6/11/2015 03209 VERIZON WIRELESS LA 9745750015 PD/Blue Check Devices/5/17-6/16 153-2106-4201 134.68 9745750016 LCM 12 Lead Program/5/17-6/16 001-2201-4304 88.69 9745750017 Cell Phone Usage - 5/17/15 - 6/16/15 001-1201-4304 108.59 9745751344 FD/ElectricPatientCareReport/4/17-5/16 001-2201-4304 152.04 Total : 484.00 78160 6/11/2015 19034 VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT R504002530-1 Beach equip emergency rental 715-3102-4311 261.60 Total : 261.60 78161 6/11/2015 11219 WESTCHESTER MEDICAL GROUP 101633 Biannual Physicals 001-1203-4320 2,220.00 Total : 2,220.00 78162 6/11/2015 13359 WITTMAN ENTERPRISES LLC 1504062 Amb Transport Billing Ser/Apr15 001-1202-4201 2,374.43 Total : 2,374.43 78163 6/11/2015 17822 YALE CHASE EQUIPMENT PSV252454 Emergency Repair/Comm Ctr EOC Generator 715-4601-4311 392.79 Total : 392.79 78164 6/11/2015 16729 ZAPPIA LAW FIRM APC, THE 15-04-30 Legal, RE: Personnel Matters/Apr15 001-1203-4201 8,280.67 Total : 8,280.67 1561725052 6/11/2015 14691 ADMINSURE AS AGENT FOR THE 6/8/15 Worker's Comp Claims Reimb/Jun15 705-1217-4324 13,522.32 Total : 13,522.32 Bank total : 253,193.91 77 Vouchers for bank code :boa 253,193.91Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 77 14Page: 06/11/2015 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 15 4:05:59PM Page:vchlist Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount "I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the checks listed on pages 1 to 15 inclusive, of the check register for 6-11-15 are accurate funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to the budget." By Finance Director Date 6-15-15 15Page: Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0528 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Recommended Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. Attachments: Tentative Future Agenda Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ June 18, 2015 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 23, 2015 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS JULY 14, 2015 PRESENTATIONS RECESS TO MEETING OF PARKING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of Resolution forming the JPA Finance Director RECONVENE REGULAR AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of May 4, 2015 Fire Chief Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of June 2, 2015 Acting Recreation Manager Final Map #72604 for a 2-unit condo Community Development Director Renewal of Rotary Club Lease – Second Amendment City Manager Joint Powers Agreement Between the City and Parking Authority Finance Director Resolution Approving the JPA Finance Director PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 PM Amend the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.76 (Cigarette and Tobacco Retailers) requiring Licensure of Cigarette and Tobacco Retailers to reduce the illegal sale of Tobacco to minors, amending Chapter 8.40 to expand the definition of smoking to include electronic cigarettes, and making violations of Chapter 5.76 subject to administrative penalty procedures (Continued from meeting of April 28, 2015) Community Development Director 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 Community Development Director 53 Pier Ave – Reconsideration of 5/19/15 Planning Commission approval of the Parking Plan Community Development Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS Evaluate and update as necessary the City’s Master Fee Resolution to ensure appropriate fees are designated for specific City services Finance Director Evaluate the City’s notice procedures for public meetings and other activities/events. Evaluate the manner of providing necessary notices, and payment responsibility for such notices. City Clerk / Community Development Director Strand Hotel Update Community Development Director Downtown/Pier Plaza Non Smoking Enforcement Community Development Director Community Risk Analysis Fire Chief Stormwater Management Plan – Receive Approval from Regional Board Public Works Director Public Records Request Process Acting HR Manager / City Clerk Legal Documents Related to the Bond Issuance: Lease Agreement Site Lease Indenture Agreement Assignment Agreement Resolution Authorizing Bonds Preliminary Official Statement Finance Director Certified signatures for Initiative Petition to place on November Ballot a measure to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax City Clerk MEETING OF PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION APPROVING BOND DOCUMENTS 2 JULY 28, 2015 @ 6:00PM STUDY SESSION – PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY JULY 28, 2015 PRESENTATIONS GRADUATES OF THE CERT TRAINING PROGRAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESENTS DONATION CHECK FOR SPECIAL OLYMPICS HOST TOWN CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 2015 Community Development Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS OTO 11th Court Hotel Community Development Director Marketing Plan for Parking Meters Demand Pricing/Free or Reduced Price Parking Management Analyst Updating the City Street Signs as presented by Graphic Solutions to give Hermosa Beach a new updated look Public Works Director Revisit operation Clean sweep to discuss modified standards that permit limited signage and/or approved displays that promote businesses yet do not impede pedestrian traffic Community Development Director City Logo and Name on Council Chambers Wall City Manager MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Update on Installation of Parking Meters in certain 15 minute “Green Zones”Police Chief Update on Sleeping Overnight in a Vehicle on any Public Street or Parking Lot Police Chief PENDING ITEMS Consideration of reduction of business license fee request from Carol G. Weiss, Ph.D.Finance Director Ethics Policy City Manager & Finance Director Food Trucks – Policy Discussion Community Development Director PCH/Aviation Aesthetic Signage Public Works Director Hope Chapel Development City Manager/Economic Dev Officer Strand/Pier EIR Contract (Continued from meeting of November 13, 2014)Community Development Director Business Improvement District (BID) for Pier Plaza – Assist in BID Proposal Economic Development Officer Additional Bike Paths Discussion Public Works Director Award Construction Contract for CIP 13-655 City Facilities ADA Improvements Public Works Director Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans (Continued from meeting of April 14, 2015)Public Works Director AUGUST 25, 2015 Quarterly Update - Strategic Plan Action Agenda Management Analyst Monterey Sharrow Update Public Works Director Quarterly Update – Closed Session Litigation Assistant to the City Manager Homeless Update City Manager SEPTEMBER 2015 Land Management System: Upgrade Community Development Director OCTOBER 2015 Quarterly Update – Closed Session Litigation Assistant to the City Manager Downtown Enforcement Unit: Creation Police Chief NOVEMBER 2015 Installation of Officers – November 24, 2015 City Clerk National Citizen Survey Overview Assistant to the City Manager Quarterly Update - Strategic Plan Action Agenda Management Analyst DECEMBER 8, 2015 PCH/Aviation Blvd. Corridor Beautification Plan – Complete 90% Plans Public Works Director Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0520 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS FOR MAY 2015 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommended Action: To receive and file the May 2015 Financial Reports. Summary: Attached are the May 2015 Revenue and Expenditure reports.The reports provide detail by revenue account and by department for expenditures, with summaries by fund at the back of each report. General Fund revenue is 93%received for 91.7%of the fiscal year.The General Fund revenue, particularly tax revenue,is not received incrementally.Adjusting for tax revenue,the total would be 91.6% General Fund expenditures are 76.1%%expended for 91.7%of the fiscal year.Expenditures do not necessarily occur on an incremental basis. Attachments: 1.Revenue Report 2.Expenditure Report Respectfully Submitted by: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3101 Current Year Secured 10,809,315.00 10,668,164.59 10,668,164.59 141,150.41 98.69 3102 Current Year Unsecured 426,858.00 446,447.69 446,447.69 -19,589.69 104.59 3103 Prior Year Collections 153,137.00 98,321.52 98,321.52 54,815.48 64.20 3104 In-lieu Sales Tax 663,340.00 685,587.22 685,587.22 -22,247.22 103.35 3106 Supplemental Roll SB813 200,000.00 249,360.82 249,360.82 -49,360.82 124.68 3107 Transfer Tax 255,000.00 217,136.77 217,136.77 37,863.23 85.15 3108 Sales Tax 1,990,021.00 1,791,321.76 1,791,321.76 198,699.24 90.02 3109 1/2 Cent Sales Tx Ext 238,715.00 174,778.83 174,778.83 63,936.17 73.22 3110 Time Warner Cable TV Franchise 133,000.00 101,693.99 101,693.99 31,306.01 76.46 3111 Electric Franchise 77,094.00 81,844.24 81,844.24 -4,750.24 106.16 3112 Gas Franchise 49,505.00 50,688.00 50,688.00 -1,183.00 102.39 3113 Refuse Franchise 224,424.00 156,099.70 156,099.70 68,324.30 69.56 3114 Transient Occupancy Tax 2,204,420.00 1,910,217.80 1,910,217.80 294,202.20 86.65 3115 Business License 1,050,834.00 827,354.94 827,354.94 223,479.06 78.73 3120 Utility User Tax 2,443,000.00 2,063,843.50 2,063,843.50 379,156.50 84.48 3122 Property tax In-lieu of Veh Lic Fees 2,008,837.00 2,040,721.00 2,040,721.00 -31,884.00 101.59 3123 Verizon Cable Franchise Fee 312,062.00 232,453.69 232,453.69 79,608.31 74.49 Total Taxes 93.79 23,239,562.00 21,796,036.06 21,796,036.06 1,443,525.94 3200 Licenses And Permits 3202 Dog Licenses 15,000.00 13,886.50 13,886.50 1,113.50 92.58 3204 Building Permits 387,181.00 479,949.74 479,949.74 -92,768.74 123.96 1Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3205 Electric Permits 75,820.00 69,563.00 69,563.00 6,257.00 91.75 3206 Plumbing Permits 63,000.00 58,573.55 58,573.55 4,426.45 92.97 3207 Occupancy Permits 17,619.00 14,009.00 14,009.00 3,610.00 79.51 3208 Grease Trap Permits 8,415.00 7,615.30 7,615.30 799.70 90.50 3209 Garage Sales 300.00 252.00 252.00 48.00 84.00 3211 Banner Permits 5,968.00 4,648.00 4,648.00 1,320.00 77.88 3212 Animal/Fowl Permits 160.00 164.00 164.00 -4.00 102.50 3213 Animal Redemption Fee 1,000.00 1,059.00 1,059.00 -59.00 105.90 3214 Amplified Sound Permit 5,114.00 5,543.00 5,543.00 -429.00 108.39 3215 Temporary Sign Permit 1,376.00 1,388.00 1,388.00 -12.00 100.87 3217 Open Fire Permit 600.00 760.00 760.00 -160.00 126.67 3218 Auto Repair Permit 3,400.00 0.00 0.00 3,400.00 0.00 3219 Newsrack Permits 1,320.00 240.00 240.00 1,080.00 18.18 3225 Taxicab Franchise Fees 176,000.00 74,796.25 74,796.25 101,203.75 42.50 3226 Admin Permit - Limited Outdoor Seating 0.00 262.00 262.00 -262.00 0.00 3227 Mechanical Permits 31,571.00 31,800.20 31,800.20 -229.20 100.73 3228 Concealed Weapons Permit 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 3230 Temporary Minor Special Event Permit 0.00 199.00 199.00 -199.00 0.00 Total Licenses And Permits 96.32 793,944.00 764,708.54 764,708.54 29,235.46 3300 Fines & Forfeitures 3301 Municipal Court Fines 200,000.00 208,560.59 208,560.59 -8,560.59 104.28 3302 Court Fines /Parking 2,545,289.00 2,231,421.05 2,231,421.05 313,867.95 87.67 3305 Administrative Fines 5,500.00 5,850.00 5,850.00 -350.00 106.36 2Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd Total Fines & Forfeitures 88.91 2,750,789.00 2,445,831.64 2,445,831.64 304,957.36 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 128,564.00 108,599.37 108,599.37 19,964.63 84.47 3402 Rents & Concessions 1,400.00 1,224.57 1,224.57 175.43 87.47 3404 Community Center Leases 41,000.00 37,858.60 37,858.60 3,141.40 92.34 3405 Community Center Rentals 200,000.00 166,590.89 166,590.89 33,409.11 83.30 3406 Community Center Theatre 65,000.00 77,160.00 77,160.00 -12,160.00 118.71 3411 Other Facilities 10,000.00 8,412.50 8,412.50 1,587.50 84.13 3412 Tennis Courts 4,000.00 3,166.25 3,166.25 833.75 79.16 3418 Special Events 120,000.00 124,052.42 124,052.42 -4,052.42 103.38 3422 Beach/Plaza Promotions 30,000.00 15,272.00 15,272.00 14,728.00 50.91 3425 Ground Lease 35,816.00 32,831.70 32,831.70 2,984.30 91.67 3427 Cell Site License- Sprint 34,176.00 31,281.55 31,281.55 2,894.45 91.53 3428 Cell Site License - Verizon 29,016.00 26,616.00 26,616.00 2,400.00 91.73 3429 Inmate Phone Services 2,300.00 1,401.03 1,401.03 898.97 60.91 3431 Storage Facility Operating Lease 180,000.00 180,000.00 180,000.00 0.00 100.00 3432 Film Permits 0.00 9,325.00 9,325.00 -9,325.00 0.00 3450 Investment Discount 1,974.00 1,873.10 1,873.10 100.90 94.89 3475 Investment Premium -5,402.00 0.00 0.00 -5,402.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 94.06 877,844.00 825,664.98 825,664.98 52,179.02 3500 Intergovernmental/State 3507 Highway Maintenance 3,100.00 775.06 775.06 2,324.94 25.00 3Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3508 Mandated Costs 31,320.00 37,324.00 37,324.00 -6,004.00 119.17 3509 Homeowner Property Tax Relief 79,784.00 70,426.44 70,426.44 9,357.56 88.27 3510 POST 15,000.00 9,114.68 9,114.68 5,885.32 60.76 3511 STC-Service Officer Training 7,162.00 4,186.00 4,186.00 2,976.00 58.45 3575 VLF Coll Excess of $14m-Rev code 11001.5 8,094.00 8,093.64 8,093.64 0.36 100.00 Total Intergovernmental/State 89.93 144,460.00 129,919.82 129,919.82 14,540.18 3800 Current Service Charges 3801 Residential Inspection 33,048.00 32,778.00 32,778.00 270.00 99.18 3802 Planning Sign Permit/Master Sign Program 16,277.00 11,472.00 11,472.00 4,805.00 70.48 3803 Negative Declaration 9,984.00 6,713.00 6,713.00 3,271.00 67.24 3804 General Plan Maintenance Fees 63,000.00 92,877.00 92,877.00 -29,877.00 147.42 3805 Amendment to Planning Entitlement 17,136.00 11,554.00 11,554.00 5,582.00 67.43 3807 Refuse Lien Fees/Consolidated 0.00 3,471.58 3,471.58 -3,471.58 0.00 3808 Zone Variance Review 3,919.00 0.00 0.00 3,919.00 0.00 3809 Tentative Map Review 36,160.00 25,091.00 25,091.00 11,069.00 69.39 3810 Final Map Review 8,664.00 9,388.00 9,388.00 -724.00 108.36 3811 Zone Change 3,742.00 951.50 951.50 2,790.50 25.43 3812 Conditional Use Permit - Comm/Other 15,789.00 7,390.75 7,390.75 8,398.25 46.81 3813 Plan Check Fees 465,647.00 455,193.90 455,193.90 10,453.10 97.76 3815 Public Works Services 60,000.00 57,010.95 57,010.95 2,989.05 95.02 3816 Utility Trench Service Connect Permit 58,000.00 58,955.00 58,955.00 -955.00 101.65 3817 Address Change Request Fee 2,184.00 2,763.00 2,763.00 -579.00 126.51 3818 Police Services 1,500.00 1,443.00 1,443.00 57.00 96.20 4Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 5 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3819 Jail Services 6,500.00 7,256.00 7,256.00 -756.00 111.63 3821 Daily Permit Lot A/Parking Structure 65,000.00 53,320.00 53,320.00 11,680.00 82.03 3823 Special Event Security/Police 36,000.00 26,577.44 26,577.44 9,422.56 73.83 3824 500' Noticing 16,590.00 11,074.00 11,074.00 5,516.00 66.75 3825 Public Notice Posting 2,544.00 3,326.00 3,326.00 -782.00 130.74 3827 Library Grounds Maintenance 15,243.00 15,242.54 15,242.54 0.46 100.00 3831 Non-Utility Street Excavation Permit 25,000.00 29,019.80 29,019.80 -4,019.80 116.08 3834 Encroachment Permit 260,000.00 195,282.60 195,282.60 64,717.40 75.11 3836 Refund Transaction Fee 450.00 160.00 160.00 290.00 35.56 3837 Returned Check Charge 1,000.00 1,430.00 1,430.00 -430.00 143.00 3839 Photocopy Charges 1,000.00 733.00 733.00 267.00 73.30 3840 Ambulance Transport 476,000.00 437,714.17 437,714.17 38,285.83 91.96 3841 Police Towing 98,000.00 82,251.00 82,251.00 15,749.00 83.93 3842 Parking Meters 1,761,756.00 1,654,360.81 1,654,360.81 107,395.19 93.90 3843 Parking Permits-Annual 430,000.00 419,034.00 419,034.00 10,966.00 97.45 3844 Daily Parking Permits 1,500.00 1,488.00 1,488.00 12.00 99.20 3845 Lot A Revenue 559,057.00 523,227.35 523,227.35 35,829.65 93.59 3846 No Pier Pkg Structure Revenue 702,530.00 569,882.55 569,882.55 132,647.45 81.12 3847 In Lieu Fee / Parking Facility 28,900.00 0.00 0.00 28,900.00 0.00 3848 Driveway Permits 2,500.00 2,880.00 2,880.00 -380.00 115.20 3849 Guest Permits 2,600.00 2,272.00 2,272.00 328.00 87.38 3850 Contractors Permits 28,000.00 25,500.00 25,500.00 2,500.00 91.07 3851 Cash Key Revenue 500.00 325.56 325.56 174.44 65.11 3852 Recreation Program Transaction Fee 40,000.00 44,035.84 44,035.84 -4,035.84 110.09 5Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 6 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3856 500' - 2nd Noticing 1,500.00 746.00 746.00 754.00 49.73 3857 Parking Plan Application 20,916.00 31,484.00 31,484.00 -10,568.00 150.53 3858 Monthly Permit Lot A/Parking Structure 139,252.00 125,674.00 125,674.00 13,578.00 90.25 3860 Car2Go Parking Fee 37,080.00 18,540.49 18,540.49 18,539.51 50.00 3861 Fire Alarm Sys Insp - New Installation 600.00 298.00 298.00 302.00 49.67 3862 Alarm Permit Fee 3,600.00 3,664.00 3,664.00 -64.00 101.78 3863 False Alarm Fee 0.00 343.00 343.00 -343.00 0.00 3865 Lot B Revenue 97,291.00 99,596.80 99,596.80 -2,305.80 102.37 3867 Precise Development Plans 21,645.00 16,211.00 16,211.00 5,434.00 74.89 3868 Public Noticing/300 Ft Radius 9,696.00 7,286.00 7,286.00 2,410.00 75.14 3871 Passport Processing Fee 18,500.00 9,700.00 9,700.00 8,800.00 52.43 3872 Passport Photo Fee 3,000.00 1,140.00 1,140.00 1,860.00 38.00 3876 Spec Fire Protectn Sys Insp-New Install 400.00 586.00 586.00 -186.00 146.50 3878 Fire Re-Inspections 1,000.00 788.00 788.00 212.00 78.80 3882 Special Event Fire Code Permit 4,000.00 1,962.50 1,962.50 2,037.50 49.06 3883 Final/Tentative Map Extension 0.00 1,027.00 1,027.00 -1,027.00 0.00 3884 Lot Line Adjustment 3,591.00 0.00 0.00 3,591.00 0.00 3886 Text Amendment/Private 1,169.00 1,169.00 1,169.00 0.00 100.00 3888 Slope/Grade Height Determination 10,416.00 18,154.50 18,154.50 -7,738.50 174.29 3890 300 Ft Radius Noticing/Appeal to CC 225.00 225.00 225.00 0.00 100.00 3891 Appeal of Plng Comm Action to Council 1,823.00 0.00 0.00 1,823.00 0.00 3893 Contract Recreation Classes 350,000.00 411,873.67 411,873.67 -61,873.67 117.68 3894 Other Recreation Programs 170,000.00 220,792.00 220,792.00 -50,792.00 129.88 3895 Zoning Information Letters 659.00 1,195.00 1,195.00 -536.00 181.34 6Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 7 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3896 Mailing Fee 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 3897 Admin Fee/TULIP Ins Certificate 2,500.00 1,874.83 1,874.83 625.17 74.99 3899 Condo - CUP/PDP 80,145.00 60,119.00 60,119.00 20,026.00 75.01 Total Current Service Charges 93.42 6,334,741.00 5,917,895.13 5,917,895.13 416,845.87 3900 Other Revenue 3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years -69,622.00 -69,622.05 -69,622.05 0.05 100.00 3903 Contributions Non Govt 102,358.00 106,158.00 106,158.00 -3,800.00 103.71 3904 General Miscellaneous 10,865.00 15,855.41 15,855.41 -4,990.41 145.93 3907 Pkg Str Utility Reimb From Beach House 4,000.00 2,316.36 2,316.36 1,683.64 57.91 3908 Hermosa Sr Ctr Donations/Memberships 6,000.00 7,957.20 7,957.20 -1,957.20 132.62 3914 Planning EIR Admin Reimbursement 52,500.00 20,549.02 20,549.02 31,950.98 39.14 3920 BCHD Healthy Cities Fund 21,835.00 12,000.80 12,000.80 9,834.20 54.96 3938 Solid Waste Contract Admin Fee 50,000.00 38,182.50 38,182.50 11,817.50 76.37 3945 In-Serv Firefighter Trng Prog/El Camino 14,275.00 0.00 0.00 14,275.00 0.00 3955 Operating Transfers In 345,641.00 316,833.00 316,833.00 28,808.00 91.67 3960 Verizon PEG Grant 17,248.00 17,925.25 17,925.25 -677.25 103.93 3961 Chamber Funding Econ Dev 24,000.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 0.00 100.00 3962 Election Reimbursement 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 Total Other Revenue 78.23 629,100.00 492,155.49 492,155.49 136,944.51 6800 Current Service Charges Continued 6801 Mural Review 1,263.00 1,263.00 1,263.00 0.00 100.00 6802 Sign Variance 2,813.00 0.00 0.00 2,813.00 0.00 7Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 8 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 6803 General Plan Amendment/ Map or Text 3,260.00 5,606.50 5,606.50 -2,346.50 171.98 6805 Unusual Architectural/Building Rev 0.00 2,214.00 2,214.00 -2,214.00 0.00 6807 Planning Commission Interpretation 1,156.00 0.00 0.00 1,156.00 0.00 6809 Categorical Exemption 2,420.00 2,446.00 2,446.00 -26.00 101.07 6810 Deed Restriction/Covenant Review 6,825.00 5,979.00 5,979.00 846.00 87.60 6811 Landscape Plan Review 9,210.00 10,242.00 10,242.00 -1,032.00 111.21 6813 Preliminary Plan Review 680.00 0.00 0.00 680.00 0.00 6816 Traffic/Special Study Review 8,000.00 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 6822 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 -5,000.00 0.00 6825 Clean Bay Restaurant - NPDES Inspection 8,000.00 2,367.00 2,367.00 5,633.00 29.59 6826 Light Industry - NPDES Inspection 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00 0.00 6828 Public Improvement Plan Check 20,000.00 24,121.00 24,121.00 -4,121.00 120.61 6834 Citation Sign-off 1,470.00 1,190.00 1,190.00 280.00 80.95 6835 Taxicab Inspection 225.00 0.00 0.00 225.00 0.00 6836 Police Business Background Check 221.00 0.00 0.00 221.00 0.00 6837 Deceased Animal Pickup 200.00 101.00 101.00 99.00 50.50 6839 Pet Home Quarantine Review 51.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 6840 Multiple Dog Review 717.00 511.00 511.00 206.00 71.27 6841 Fire Sprinkler System Insp - New Install 7,500.00 17,484.00 17,484.00 -9,984.00 233.12 6847 Document Certification 9.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 6849 Traffic Plan Review 298.00 0.00 0.00 298.00 0.00 6850 Annual Business Fire Inspection 40,000.00 17,458.00 17,458.00 22,542.00 43.65 6851 Busines Licenses State Mandated Fee 1,500.00 2,232.40 2,232.40 -732.40 148.83 6860 Refuse Lien Fees/Athens 0.00 1,958.77 1,958.77 -1,958.77 0.00 8Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 9 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd Total Current Service Charges Continued 83.96 119,318.00 100,173.67 100,173.67 19,144.33 2,417,372.67 32,472,385.33 32,472,385.33 34,889,758.00 93.07Total General Fund 9Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 10 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund105 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3101 Current Year Secured 454,000.00 447,590.78 447,590.78 6,409.22 98.59 3103 Prior Year Collections 7,000.00 6,271.94 6,271.94 728.06 89.60 3105 Assessment Rebates -2,400.00 -1,894.97 -1,894.97 -505.03 78.96 Total Taxes 98.55 458,600.00 451,967.75 451,967.75 6,632.25 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 398.00 173.55 173.55 224.45 43.61 3450 Investment Discount 2.00 1.86 1.86 0.14 93.00 3475 Investment Premium -31.00 0.00 0.00 -31.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 47.54 369.00 175.41 175.41 193.59 3900 Other Revenue 3955 Operating Transfers In 36,111.00 29,644.00 29,644.00 6,467.00 82.09 Total Other Revenue 82.09 36,111.00 29,644.00 29,644.00 6,467.00 13,292.84 481,787.16 481,787.16 495,080.00 97.32Total Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund 10Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 11 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 2,893.00 2,125.25 2,125.25 767.75 73.46 3450 Investment Discount 42.00 38.81 38.81 3.19 92.40 3475 Investment Premium -220.00 0.00 0.00 -220.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 79.71 2,715.00 2,164.06 2,164.06 550.94 3500 Intergovernmental/State 3501 Section 2106 Allocation 73,000.00 56,083.00 56,083.00 16,917.00 76.83 3502 Section 2107 Allocation 164,664.00 108,145.67 108,145.67 56,518.33 65.68 3503 Section 2107.5 Allocation 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 100.00 3512 Section 2105 (Prop 111) 120,607.00 86,501.25 86,501.25 34,105.75 71.72 3513 Sec 2103 Higher Mtr Veh Excise Tax(HUTA) 204,632.00 146,799.50 146,799.50 57,832.50 71.74 Total Intergovernmental/State 70.83 566,903.00 401,529.42 401,529.42 165,373.58 165,924.52 403,693.48 403,693.48 569,618.00 70.87Total State Gas Tax Fund 11Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 12 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 AB939 Fund117 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 11.00 24.30 24.30 -13.30 220.91 3450 Investment Discount 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.42 58.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 207.33 12.00 24.88 24.88 -12.88 3800 Current Service Charges 3860 AB939 Surcharge 61,130.00 45,442.50 45,442.50 15,687.50 74.34 Total Current Service Charges 74.34 61,130.00 45,442.50 45,442.50 15,687.50 3900 Other Revenue Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6800 Current Service Charges Continued Total Current Service Charges Continued 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,674.62 45,467.38 45,467.38 61,142.00 74.36Total AB939 Fund 12Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 13 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Prop A Open Space Fund121 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3600 Intergovernmental/County 3608 Maintenance Allocation 20,557.00 0.00 0.00 20,557.00 0.00 3631 South Park Phase I Improvements Grant 124,553.00 0.00 0.00 124,553.00 0.00 145,110.00 0.00 0.00 145,110.00 0.00Total Prop A Open Space Fund 13Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 14 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 7,024.00 6,935.48 6,935.48 88.52 98.74 3426 Easement Agreement 318,845.00 278,989.48 278,989.48 39,855.52 87.50 3450 Investment Discount 120.00 112.85 112.85 7.15 94.04 3475 Investment Premium -164.00 0.00 0.00 -164.00 0.00 39,787.19 286,037.81 286,037.81 325,825.00 87.79Total Tyco Fund 14Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 15 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Tidelands123 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 32.00 26.54 26.54 5.46 82.94 3450 Investment Discount 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.55 45.00 3475 Investment Premium -5.00 0.00 0.00 -5.00 0.00 1.01 26.99 26.99 28.00 96.39Total Tyco Tidelands 15Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 16 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3116 Parks & Recreation Facility Tax 7,019.00 0.00 0.00 7,019.00 0.00 Total Taxes 0.00 7,019.00 0.00 0.00 7,019.00 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 5,864.00 5,253.81 5,253.81 610.19 89.59 3450 Investment Discount 93.00 86.98 86.98 6.02 93.53 3475 Investment Premium -129.00 0.00 0.00 -129.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 91.64 5,828.00 5,340.79 5,340.79 487.21 3900 Other Revenue 3910 Park/Recreation In Lieu Fee 219,261.00 160,823.00 160,823.00 58,438.00 73.35 Total Other Revenue 73.35 219,261.00 160,823.00 160,823.00 58,438.00 65,944.21 166,163.79 166,163.79 232,108.00 71.59Total Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund 16Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 17 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund135 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 22.00 20.59 20.59 1.41 93.59 Total Use Of Money & Property 93.59 22.00 20.59 20.59 1.41 3900 Other Revenue 3925 Spec Assessment Admin Fees 4,350.00 4,350.00 4,350.00 0.00 100.00 Total Other Revenue 100.00 4,350.00 4,350.00 4,350.00 0.00 1.41 4,370.59 4,370.59 4,372.00 99.97Total Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund 17Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 18 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund136 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3900 Other Revenue 3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 2,600.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 100.00Total Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund 18Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 19 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund137 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 166.00 142.57 142.57 23.43 85.89 Total Use Of Money & Property 85.89 166.00 142.57 142.57 23.43 3900 Other Revenue 3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 0.00 100.00 Total Other Revenue 100.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 0.00 23.43 9,142.57 9,142.57 9,166.00 99.74Total Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund 19Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 20 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund138 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 234.00 200.97 200.97 33.03 85.88 Total Use Of Money & Property 85.88 234.00 200.97 200.97 33.03 3900 Other Revenue 3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 100.00 Total Other Revenue 100.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 33.03 10,200.97 10,200.97 10,234.00 99.68Total Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund 20Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 21 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund139 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 32.00 29.03 29.03 2.97 90.72 Total Use Of Money & Property 90.72 32.00 29.03 29.03 2.97 3900 Other Revenue 3925 Special Assessment Admin Fees 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 100.00 Total Other Revenue 100.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 2.97 3,029.03 3,029.03 3,032.00 99.90Total Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund 21Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 22 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Community Dev Block Grant140 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3700 Intergovernmental/Federal 3720 Americans with Disabilities Act 136,059.00 0.00 0.00 136,059.00 0.00 136,059.00 0.00 0.00 136,059.00 0.00Total Community Dev Block Grant 22Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 23 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3117 Proposition A Transit 344,137.00 315,566.34 315,566.34 28,570.66 91.70 Total Taxes 91.70 344,137.00 315,566.34 315,566.34 28,570.66 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 6,918.00 6,595.50 6,595.50 322.50 95.34 3450 Investment Discount 115.00 106.85 106.85 8.15 92.91 3475 Investment Premium -184.00 0.00 0.00 -184.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 97.86 6,849.00 6,702.35 6,702.35 146.65 3800 Current Service Charges 3853 Dial-A-Taxi Program 5,646.00 5,520.00 5,520.00 126.00 97.77 3855 Bus Passes 1,000.00 1,009.80 1,009.80 -9.80 100.98 Total Current Service Charges 98.25 6,646.00 6,529.80 6,529.80 116.20 28,833.51 328,798.49 328,798.49 357,632.00 91.94Total Proposition A Fund 23Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 24 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition C Fund146 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3118 Proposition C Local Return 285,452.00 261,472.20 261,472.20 23,979.80 91.60 Total Taxes 91.60 285,452.00 261,472.20 261,472.20 23,979.80 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 9,975.00 8,712.21 8,712.21 1,262.79 87.34 3450 Investment Discount 163.00 142.43 142.43 20.57 87.38 3475 Investment Premium -310.00 0.00 0.00 -310.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 90.10 9,828.00 8,854.64 8,854.64 973.36 24,953.16 270,326.84 270,326.84 295,280.00 91.55Total Proposition C Fund 24Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 25 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3119 Measure R Local Return Funds 214,092.00 273,789.06 273,789.06 -59,697.06 127.88 Total Taxes 127.88 214,092.00 273,789.06 273,789.06 -59,697.06 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 4,612.00 4,529.17 4,529.17 82.83 98.20 3450 Investment Discount 78.00 75.31 75.31 2.69 96.55 3475 Investment Premium -213.00 0.00 0.00 -213.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 102.85 4,477.00 4,604.48 4,604.48 -127.48 3900 Other Revenue 3970 Measure R SBCCOG South Bay Highway Progr 190,000.00 190,000.00 190,000.00 0.00 100.00 Total Other Revenue 100.00 190,000.00 190,000.00 190,000.00 0.00 -59,824.54 468,393.54 468,393.54 408,569.00 114.64Total Measure R Fund 25Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 26 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3500 Intergovernmental/State 3558 Beverage Recycling Grant 5,500.00 0.00 0.00 5,500.00 0.00 3562 State Homeland Security Grant Program 5,426.00 74,903.00 74,903.00 -69,477.00 1380.45 3566 Coastal Conservancy Grant 0.00 18,965.49 18,965.49 -18,965.49 0.00 3571 Local Coastal Assistance Grant 95,325.00 63,165.75 63,165.75 32,159.25 66.26 Total Intergovernmental/State 147.80 106,251.00 157,034.24 157,034.24 -50,783.24 3700 Intergovernmental/Federal 3748 Gen Plan/Coastal/Strat Growth Council 223,545.00 139,073.92 139,073.92 84,471.08 62.21 Total Intergovernmental/Federal 62.21 223,545.00 139,073.92 139,073.92 84,471.08 3900 Other Revenue 3966 West Basin WD Grant- Reclaimed Waterline 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 Total Other Revenue 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 73,687.84 296,108.16 296,108.16 369,796.00 80.07Total Grants Fund 26Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 27 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund152 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 147.00 167.07 167.07 -20.07 113.65 3450 Investment Discount 3.00 2.46 2.46 0.54 82.00 3475 Investment Premium -52.00 0.00 0.00 -52.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 172.99 98.00 169.53 169.53 -71.53 3500 Intergovernmental/State 3538 AQMD Emission Control AB2766 22,500.00 18,074.23 18,074.23 4,425.77 80.33 Total Intergovernmental/State 80.33 22,500.00 18,074.23 18,074.23 4,425.77 4,354.24 18,243.76 18,243.76 22,598.00 80.73Total Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund 27Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 28 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF)153 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3100 Taxes 3135 C.O.P.S. Allocation 100,000.00 114,530.00 114,530.00 -14,530.00 114.53 Total Taxes 114.53 100,000.00 114,530.00 114,530.00 -14,530.00 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 2,240.00 1,665.10 1,665.10 574.90 74.33 3450 Investment Discount 34.00 28.45 28.45 5.55 83.68 3475 Investment Premium -74.00 0.00 0.00 -74.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 76.98 2,200.00 1,693.55 1,693.55 506.45 -14,023.55 116,223.55 116,223.55 102,200.00 113.72Total Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF) 28Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 29 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 11,769.00 12,111.55 12,111.55 -342.55 102.91 3450 Investment Discount 171.00 188.73 188.73 -17.73 110.37 3475 Investment Premium -548.00 0.00 0.00 -548.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 107.97 11,392.00 12,300.28 12,300.28 -908.28 3500 Intergovernmental/State 3550 CA Waste Oil Recycling Grant 5,422.00 5,641.00 5,641.00 -219.00 104.04 Total Intergovernmental/State 104.04 5,422.00 5,641.00 5,641.00 -219.00 3600 Intergovernmental/County 3602 Beach Outlet Maintenance 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 Total Intergovernmental/County 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 3800 Current Service Charges 3828 Sewer Connection Fee 21,000.00 59,086.35 59,086.35 -38,086.35 281.36 3829 Sewer Demolition Fee 3,000.00 3,510.00 3,510.00 -510.00 117.00 3832 Sewer Lateral Installation 7,500.00 10,887.00 10,887.00 -3,387.00 145.16 Total Current Service Charges 233.28 31,500.00 73,483.35 73,483.35 -41,983.35 3900 Other Revenue 3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 -40,000.00 0.00 3955 Operating Transfers In 3,914,256.00 3,843,396.00 3,843,396.00 70,860.00 98.19 Total Other Revenue 99.21 3,914,256.00 3,883,396.00 3,883,396.00 30,860.00 29Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 -2,250.63 3,974,820.63 3,974,820.63 3,972,570.00 100.06Total Sewer Fund Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3300 Fines & Forfeitures 3307 Department of Justice Forfeited Funds 36,000.00 42,784.43 42,784.43 -6,784.43 118.85 3308 Department of Treasury Forfeited Funds 1,000.00 2,568.75 2,568.75 -1,568.75 256.88 Total Fines & Forfeitures 122.58 37,000.00 45,353.18 45,353.18 -8,353.18 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 3,941.00 3,066.79 3,066.79 874.21 77.82 3450 Investment Discount 64.00 54.63 54.63 9.37 85.36 3475 Investment Premium -158.00 0.00 0.00 -158.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 81.14 3,847.00 3,121.42 3,121.42 725.58 3900 Other Revenue Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7,627.60 48,474.60 48,474.60 40,847.00 118.67Total Asset Seizure/Forft Fund 30Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 31 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Fire Protection Fund180 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 402.00 398.32 398.32 3.68 99.08 3450 Investment Discount 7.00 6.70 6.70 0.30 95.71 3475 Investment Premium -15.00 0.00 0.00 -15.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 102.80 394.00 405.02 405.02 -11.02 3900 Other Revenue 3912 Fire Flow Fee 10,500.00 16,009.30 16,009.30 -5,509.30 152.47 Total Other Revenue 152.47 10,500.00 16,009.30 16,009.30 -5,509.30 -5,520.32 16,414.32 16,414.32 10,894.00 150.67Total Fire Protection Fund 31Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 32 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 8,739.00 15,530.11 15,530.11 -6,791.11 177.71 3450 Investment Discount 349.00 263.90 263.90 85.10 75.62 3475 Investment Premium -395.00 0.00 0.00 -395.00 0.00 Total Use Of Money & Property 181.69 8,693.00 15,794.01 15,794.01 -7,101.01 3900 Other Revenue Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7,101.01 15,794.01 15,794.01 8,693.00 181.69Total Capital Improvement Fund 32Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 33 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Artesia Blvd Relinquishment302 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 129.00 16.36 16.36 112.64 12.68 3450 Investment Discount 0.00 0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.00 112.60 16.40 16.40 129.00 12.71Total Artesia Blvd Relinquishment 33Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 34 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Bayview Dr Redemption Fund 2004-2609 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 1,333.00 1,114.03 1,114.03 218.97 83.57 218.97 1,114.03 1,114.03 1,333.00 83.57Total Bayview Dr Redemption Fund 2004-2 34Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 35 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lwr Pier Dist Redemption Fund610 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 304.00 250.21 250.21 53.79 82.31 53.79 250.21 250.21 304.00 82.31Total Lwr Pier Dist Redemption Fund 35Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 36 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Beach Dr Assessment Dist Redemption Fund611 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 690.00 583.85 583.85 106.15 84.62 106.15 583.85 583.85 690.00 84.62Total Beach Dr Assessment Dist Redemption Fund 36Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 37 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Beach Dr Assessment Dist Reserve Fund612 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 51.00 42.74 42.74 8.26 83.80 8.26 42.74 42.74 51.00 83.80Total Beach Dr Assessment Dist Reserve Fund 37Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 38 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Myrtle Ave Assessment Fund617 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 907.00 775.37 775.37 131.63 85.49 131.63 775.37 775.37 907.00 85.49Total Myrtle Ave Assessment Fund 38Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 39 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Loma Drive Assessment Fund618 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 1,131.00 972.10 972.10 158.90 85.95 158.90 972.10 972.10 1,131.00 85.95Total Loma Drive Assessment Fund 39Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 40 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Bayview Dr Reserve Fund 2004-2619 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income 169.00 140.34 140.34 28.66 83.04 28.66 140.34 140.34 169.00 83.04Total Bayview Dr Reserve Fund 2004-2 40Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 41 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3800 Current Service Charges 3880 Insurance Service Charges 2,782,847.00 2,550,944.00 2,550,944.00 231,903.00 91.67 Total Current Service Charges 91.67 2,782,847.00 2,550,944.00 2,550,944.00 231,903.00 3900 Other Revenue 3902 Refunds/Reimb Previous Years 0.00 10,921.00 10,921.00 -10,921.00 0.00 3904 General Miscellaneous 0.00 189,429.74 189,429.74 -189,429.74 0.00 Total Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 200,350.74 200,350.74 -200,350.74 31,552.26 2,751,294.74 2,751,294.74 2,782,847.00 98.87Total Insurance Fund 41Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 42 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3800 Current Service Charges 3822 Building Maintenance Service Charges 101,555.00 93,093.00 93,093.00 8,462.00 91.67 3885 Comm Equip/Business Mach Charges 542,998.00 497,750.00 497,750.00 45,248.00 91.67 3889 Vehicle/Equip Replacement Charges 874,311.00 801,453.24 801,453.24 72,857.76 91.67 Total Current Service Charges 91.67 1,518,864.00 1,392,296.24 1,392,296.24 126,567.76 3900 Other Revenue 3901 Sale of Real/Personal Property 0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 -3,000.00 0.00 3903 Contributions Non Govt 0.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 -2,250.00 0.00 3955 Operating Transfers In 1,324,690.00 1,324,690.00 1,324,690.00 0.00 100.00 3962 SCE Reimbursement 426,077.00 0.00 0.00 426,077.00 0.00 Total Other Revenue 75.96 1,750,767.00 1,329,940.00 1,329,940.00 420,827.00 547,394.76 2,722,236.24 2,722,236.24 3,269,631.00 83.26Total Equipment Replacement Fund 42Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 43 4:39PM Page:revstat.rpt Revenue Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Investment Fund900 Account Number Adjusted Estimate Revenues Year-to-date Revenues Balance Prct Rcvd 3400 Use Of Money & Property 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total Investment Fund Grand Total 48,530,403.00 44,915,929.02 44,915,929.02 3,614,473.98 92.55 43Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Council1101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1101-4100 Personal Services 30,964.00 27,195.07 27,195.07 87.831101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 3,768.93 0.00 235.31 235.31 0.001101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -235.31 3,265.00 1,505.63 1,505.63 46.111101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,759.37 31,800.00 26,500.00 26,500.00 83.331101-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 5,300.00 8,419.00 7,445.99 7,445.99 88.441101-4180 Retirement 0.00 973.01 0.00 41.38 41.38 0.001101-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -41.38 30,116.00 23,797.62 23,797.62 79.021101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 6,318.38 910.00 803.61 803.61 88.311101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 106.39 4,645.00 4,257.00 4,257.00 91.651101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 388.00 Total Personal Services 110,119.00 91,781.61 91,781.61 0.00 18,337.39 83.35 1101-4200 Contract Services 67,010.00 33,411.66 33,411.66 49.861101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 33,598.34 Total Contract Services 67,010.00 33,411.66 33,411.66 0.00 33,598.34 49.86 1101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 50.00 478.72 478.72 957.441101-4304 Telephone 0.00 -428.72 12,821.00 14,832.22 14,832.22 115.691101-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -2,011.22 24,000.00 21,806.78 21,806.78 90.861101-4315 Membership 0.00 2,193.22 15,000.00 6,139.99 6,139.99 40.931101-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 8,860.01 35,800.00 20,025.22 20,025.22 55.941101-4319 Special Events 0.00 15,774.78 3,620.00 3,322.00 3,322.00 91.771101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 298.00 4,431.00 4,059.00 4,059.00 91.601101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 372.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 95,722.00 70,663.93 70,663.93 0.00 25,058.07 73.82 1101-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1101-5600 Buildings/Improvements 1Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Council1101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total City Council 272,851.00 195,857.20 195,857.20 0.00 76,993.80 71.78 2Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Clerk1121 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1121-4100 Personal Services 120,735.50 97,587.00 97,587.00 80.831121-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 23,148.50 13,872.00 6,404.33 6,404.33 46.171121-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 7,467.67 59,973.00 55,698.50 55,698.50 92.871121-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 4,274.50 24,509.00 25,389.82 25,389.82 103.591121-4180 Retirement 0.00 -880.82 41,032.00 32,188.74 32,188.74 78.451121-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 8,843.26 2,239.00 2,316.48 2,316.48 103.461121-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 -77.48 13,510.00 12,386.00 12,386.00 91.681121-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 1,124.00 Total Personal Services 275,870.50 231,970.87 231,970.87 0.00 43,899.63 84.09 1121-4200 Contract Services 8,669.00 1,272.84 1,272.84 14.681121-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 7,396.16 52,000.00 10,579.06 10,579.06 20.341121-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 41,420.94 Total Contract Services 60,669.00 11,851.90 11,851.90 0.00 48,817.10 19.54 1121-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 785.00 995.10 995.10 126.761121-4304 Telephone 0.00 -210.10 5,175.00 3,802.91 3,802.91 73.491121-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 1,372.09 565.00 611.99 611.99 108.321121-4315 Membership 0.00 -46.99 3,350.00 1,321.35 1,321.35 39.441121-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 2,028.65 13,450.00 8,319.71 8,319.71 61.861121-4323 Public Noticing 0.00 5,130.29 5,667.00 5,192.00 5,192.00 91.621121-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 475.00 612.00 561.00 561.00 91.671121-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 51.00 9,939.00 9,108.00 9,108.00 91.641121-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 831.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 39,543.00 29,912.06 29,912.06 0.00 9,630.94 75.64 1121-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total City Clerk 376,082.50 273,734.83 273,734.83 0.00 102,347.67 72.79 3Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Attorney1131 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1131-4200 Contract Services 200,272.00 252,855.07 252,855.07 126.261131-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -52,583.07 Total City Attorney 200,272.00 252,855.07 252,855.07 0.00 -52,583.07 126.26 4Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 5 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Prosecutor1132 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1132-4200 Contract Services 237,399.00 205,584.50 205,584.50 86.601132-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 31,814.50 Total Contract Services 237,399.00 205,584.50 205,584.50 0.00 31,814.50 86.60 1132-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 200.00 225.35 225.35 112.681132-4304 Telephone 0.00 -25.35 50.00 82.31 82.31 164.621132-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -32.31 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 250.00 307.66 307.66 0.00 -57.66 123.06 Total City Prosecutor 237,649.00 205,892.16 205,892.16 0.00 31,756.84 86.64 5Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 6 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Treasurer1141 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1141-4100 Personal Services 969.00 0.00 0.00 0.001141-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 969.00 6,360.00 5,300.00 5,300.00 83.331141-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 1,060.00 397.00 331.20 331.20 83.431141-4180 Retirement 0.00 65.80 11,150.00 8,726.00 8,726.00 78.261141-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 2,424.00 92.00 76.80 76.80 83.481141-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 15.20 471.00 429.00 429.00 91.081141-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 42.00 Total Personal Services 19,439.00 14,863.00 14,863.00 0.00 4,576.00 76.46 1141-4200 Contract Services 3,550.00 2,655.26 2,655.26 74.801141-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 894.74 Total Contract Services 3,550.00 2,655.26 2,655.26 0.00 894.74 74.80 1141-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 300.00 596.93 596.93 198.981141-4304 Telephone 0.00 -296.93 3,000.00 2,047.47 2,047.47 68.251141-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 952.53 105.00 65.00 65.00 61.901141-4315 Membership 0.00 40.00 2,405.00 1,335.92 1,335.92 55.551141-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 1,069.08 2,954.00 2,706.00 2,706.00 91.601141-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 248.00 609.00 561.00 561.00 92.121141-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 48.00 2,954.00 2,706.00 2,706.00 91.601141-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 248.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 12,327.00 10,018.32 10,018.32 0.00 2,308.68 81.27 1141-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total City Treasurer 35,316.00 27,536.58 27,536.58 0.00 7,779.42 77.97 6Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 7 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Manager1201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1201-4100 Personal Services 302,224.00 245,509.86 245,509.86 81.231201-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 56,714.14 0.00 2,097.77 2,097.77 0.001201-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -2,097.77 36,517.00 1,204.50 1,204.50 3.301201-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 35,312.50 133,788.00 68,893.33 68,893.33 51.491201-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 64,894.67 39,873.00 24,470.85 24,470.85 61.371201-4180 Retirement 0.00 15,402.15 0.00 211.72 211.72 0.001201-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -211.72 55,161.00 32,438.15 32,438.15 58.811201-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 22,722.85 6,530.00 4,768.24 4,768.24 73.021201-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,761.76 25,808.00 23,661.00 23,661.00 91.681201-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 2,147.00 Total Personal Services 599,901.00 403,255.42 403,255.42 0.00 196,645.58 67.22 1201-4200 Contract Services 161,124.27 92,402.90 92,402.90 57.351201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 68,721.37 Total Contract Services 161,124.27 92,402.90 92,402.90 0.00 68,721.37 57.35 1201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,500.00 2,666.19 2,666.19 177.751201-4304 Telephone 0.00 -1,166.19 3,602.00 4,308.07 4,308.07 119.601201-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -706.07 1,800.00 1,053.46 1,053.46 58.531201-4315 Membership 0.00 746.54 6,400.00 7,847.62 7,847.62 122.621201-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 -1,447.62 6,959.00 6,380.00 6,380.00 91.681201-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 579.00 3,406.00 3,124.00 3,124.00 91.721201-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 282.00 16,485.00 15,114.00 15,114.00 91.681201-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 1,371.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 40,152.00 40,493.34 40,493.34 0.00 -341.34 100.85 1201-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1201-5400 Equipment/Furniture 7Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 8 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Manager1201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 0.00 1,843.74 1,843.74 0.001201-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 -1,843.74 1,627.77 1,627.77 1,627.77 100.001201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 0.00 Total Equipment/Furniture 1,627.77 3,471.51 3,471.51 0.00 -1,843.74 213.27 Total City Manager 802,805.04 539,623.17 539,623.17 0.00 263,181.87 67.22 8Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 9 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Finance Administration1202 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1202-4100 Personal Services 417,206.00 336,746.23 336,746.23 80.711202-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 80,459.77 550.00 235.93 235.93 42.901202-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 314.07 30,626.00 16,888.71 16,888.71 55.151202-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 13,737.29 71,557.00 57,721.10 57,721.10 80.661202-4180 Retirement 0.00 13,835.90 0.00 74.95 74.95 0.001202-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -74.95 67,617.00 58,601.19 58,601.19 86.671202-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 9,015.81 4,440.00 3,477.81 3,477.81 78.331202-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 962.19 42,836.00 39,270.00 39,270.00 91.681202-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 3,566.00 Total Personal Services 634,832.00 513,015.92 513,015.92 0.00 121,816.08 80.81 1202-4200 Contract Services 227,698.00 201,855.08 201,855.08 92.041202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 7,725.00 18,117.92 Total Contract Services 227,698.00 201,855.08 201,855.08 7,725.00 18,117.92 92.04 1202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 2,000.00 1,720.05 1,720.05 86.001202-4304 Telephone 0.00 279.95 8,650.00 10,548.37 10,548.37 121.951202-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -1,898.37 600.00 575.00 575.00 95.831202-4315 Membership 0.00 25.00 7,860.00 2,595.23 2,595.23 33.021202-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 5,264.77 15,431.00 14,146.00 14,146.00 91.671202-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 1,285.00 2,113.00 1,936.00 1,936.00 91.621202-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 177.00 27,483.00 25,190.00 25,190.00 91.661202-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 2,293.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 64,137.00 56,710.65 56,710.65 0.00 7,426.35 88.42 1202-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Finance Administration 926,667.00 771,581.65 771,581.65 7,725.00 147,360.35 84.10 9Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 10 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Human Resources1203 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1203-4100 Personal Services 77,344.00 63,955.28 63,955.28 82.691203-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 13,388.72 2,826.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 2,826.00 10,135.00 8,769.59 8,769.59 86.531203-4180 Retirement 0.00 1,365.41 74,559.00 67,086.98 67,086.98 89.981203-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 7,472.02 1,046.00 980.60 980.60 93.751203-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 65.40 7,408.00 6,787.00 6,787.00 91.621203-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 621.00 Total Personal Services 173,318.00 147,579.45 147,579.45 0.00 25,738.55 85.15 1203-4200 Contract Services 269,074.00 132,996.15 132,996.15 49.431203-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 136,077.85 11,000.00 2,429.50 2,429.50 22.091203-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 8,570.50 Total Contract Services 280,074.00 135,425.65 135,425.65 0.00 144,648.35 48.35 1203-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,500.00 1,403.05 1,403.05 93.541203-4304 Telephone 0.00 96.95 3,000.00 4,949.15 4,949.15 164.971203-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -1,949.15 1,075.00 0.00 0.00 0.001203-4315 Membership 0.00 1,075.00 13,500.00 13,286.31 13,286.31 98.421203-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 213.69 12,000.00 12,445.00 12,445.00 103.711203-4320 Medical Exams 0.00 -445.00 5,388.00 4,939.00 4,939.00 91.671203-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 449.00 612.00 561.00 561.00 91.671203-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 51.00 4,767.00 4,367.00 4,367.00 91.611203-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 400.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 41,842.00 41,950.51 41,950.51 0.00 -108.51 100.26 1203-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Human Resources 495,234.00 324,955.61 324,955.61 0.00 170,278.39 65.62 10Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 11 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Finance Cashier1204 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1204-4100 Personal Services 295,499.00 228,493.03 228,493.03 77.321204-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 67,005.97 3,120.00 3,316.41 3,316.41 106.301204-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -196.41 10,347.00 1,405.58 1,405.58 13.581204-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 8,941.42 23,499.00 36,153.29 36,153.29 153.851204-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -12,654.29 37,717.00 28,150.81 28,150.81 74.641204-4180 Retirement 0.00 9,566.19 0.00 190.30 190.30 0.001204-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -190.30 88,685.00 62,545.15 62,545.15 70.531204-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 26,139.85 2,707.00 2,829.42 2,829.42 104.521204-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 -122.42 22,688.00 20,801.00 20,801.00 91.681204-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 1,887.00 Total Personal Services 484,262.00 383,884.99 383,884.99 0.00 100,377.01 79.27 1204-4200 Contract Services 128,008.00 102,953.75 102,953.75 81.601204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 1,500.00 23,554.25 Total Contract Services 128,008.00 102,953.75 102,953.75 1,500.00 23,554.25 81.60 1204-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,809.00 2,998.24 2,998.24 78.711204-4304 Telephone 0.00 810.76 48,064.00 36,490.46 36,490.46 75.921204-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 11,573.54 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.001204-4315 Membership 0.00 220.00 3,189.00 0.00 0.00 0.001204-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 3,189.00 18,214.00 16,698.00 16,698.00 91.681204-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 1,516.00 1,826.00 1,672.00 1,672.00 91.571204-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 154.00 20,456.00 18,755.00 18,755.00 91.681204-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 1,701.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 95,778.00 76,613.70 76,613.70 0.00 19,164.30 79.99 Total Finance Cashier 708,048.00 563,452.44 563,452.44 1,500.00 143,095.56 79.79 11Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 12 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 General Appropriations1208 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1208-4100 Personal Services 52,602.00 44,970.00 44,970.00 85.491208-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 7,632.00 1,497.00 1,037.76 1,037.76 69.321208-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 459.24 4,437.00 3,793.20 3,793.20 85.491208-4180 Retirement 0.00 643.80 21,063.00 16,516.54 16,516.54 78.411208-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 4,546.46 763.00 667.07 667.07 87.431208-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 95.93 5,997.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 91.711208-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 497.00 Total Personal Services 86,359.00 72,484.57 72,484.57 0.00 13,874.43 83.93 1208-4200 Contract Services 17.00 15.13 15.13 89.001208-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1.87 Total Contract Services 17.00 15.13 15.13 0.00 1.87 89.00 1208-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 115.00 153.94 153.94 133.861208-4304 Telephone 0.00 -38.94 -13,649.00 -13,210.68 -13,210.68 96.791208-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -438.32 13,241.00 12,133.00 12,133.00 91.631208-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 1,108.00 306.00 275.00 275.00 89.871208-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 31.00 3,358.00 3,080.00 3,080.00 91.721208-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 278.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 3,371.00 2,431.26 2,431.26 0.00 939.74 72.12 1208-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total General Appropriations 89,747.00 74,930.96 74,930.96 0.00 14,816.04 83.49 12Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 13 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Prospective Expenditures1214 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1214-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 28,177.02 631.93 631.93 2.241214-4322 Unclassified 0.00 27,545.09 Total Prospective Expenditures 28,177.02 631.93 631.93 0.00 27,545.09 2.24 13Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 14 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 886,464.00 809,137.00 809,137.00 91.281299-4399 OperatingTransfers Out 0.00 77,327.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 886,464.00 809,137.00 809,137.00 0.00 77,327.00 91.28 14Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 15 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Police2101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2101-4100 Personal Services 4,130,629.00 3,165,516.26 3,165,516.26 76.642101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 965,112.74 63,504.00 54,782.05 54,782.05 86.272101-4105 Special Duty Pay 0.00 8,721.95 315,285.00 271,227.29 271,227.29 86.032101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 44,057.71 890,198.00 606,550.20 606,550.20 68.142101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 283,647.80 0.00 11,893.18 11,893.18 0.002101-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -11,893.18 6,000.00 3,166.09 3,166.09 52.772101-4117 Shift Differential 0.00 2,833.91 7,000.00 4,327.52 4,327.52 61.822101-4118 Training Officer 0.00 2,672.48 2,085,459.00 1,743,938.92 1,743,938.92 83.622101-4180 Retirement 0.00 341,520.08 27,624.00 24,014.25 24,014.25 86.932101-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 3,609.75 879,590.00 609,588.99 609,588.99 69.302101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 270,001.01 58,200.00 59,271.22 59,271.22 101.842101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 -1,071.22 386,081.00 353,903.00 353,903.00 91.672101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 32,178.00 Total Personal Services 8,849,570.00 6,908,178.97 6,908,178.97 0.00 1,941,391.03 78.06 2101-4200 Contract Services 97,455.00 71,594.73 71,594.73 75.322101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 1,810.60 24,049.67 641,628.00 622,780.32 622,780.32 97.062101-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 18,847.68 Total Contract Services 739,083.00 694,375.05 694,375.05 1,810.60 42,897.35 94.20 2101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 51,000.00 43,995.52 43,995.52 86.272101-4304 Telephone 0.00 7,004.48 55,000.00 50,058.34 50,058.34 91.022101-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 4,941.66 13,000.00 10,548.62 10,548.62 81.142101-4306 Prisoner Maintenance 0.00 2,451.38 3,000.00 1,815.21 1,815.21 60.512101-4307 Radio Maintenance 0.00 1,184.79 6,500.00 5,916.87 5,916.87 91.032101-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 583.13 15,000.00 9,536.57 9,536.57 63.582101-4312 Travel Expense , POST 0.00 5,463.43 7,162.00 1,428.34 1,428.34 19.942101-4313 Travel Expense, STC 0.00 5,733.66 25,600.00 18,197.06 18,197.06 71.082101-4314 Uniforms 0.00 7,402.94 3,749.00 2,290.00 2,290.00 61.082101-4315 Membership 0.00 1,459.00 48,496.00 41,315.61 41,315.61 85.192101-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 7,180.39 15Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 16 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Police2101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 254,864.00 233,618.00 233,618.00 91.662101-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 21,246.00 6,925.00 6,347.00 6,347.00 91.652101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 578.00 342,628.00 314,076.13 314,076.13 91.672101-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 28,551.87 1,329,858.00 1,219,042.44 1,219,042.44 91.672101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 110,815.56 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,162,782.00 1,958,185.71 1,958,185.71 0.00 204,596.29 90.54 2101-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2101-5400 Equipment/Furniture 2,798.00 2,409.61 2,409.61 86.122101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 388.39 8,925.00 6,973.69 6,973.69 78.142101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 1,951.31 57,584.44 20,452.69 20,452.69 71.042101-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 20,452.69 16,679.06 Total Equipment/Furniture 69,307.44 29,835.99 29,835.99 20,452.69 19,018.76 72.56 2101-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Police 11,820,742.44 9,590,575.72 9,590,575.72 22,263.29 2,207,903.43 81.32 16Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 17 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Crossing Guard2102 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2102-4200 Contract Services 98,982.00 82,658.71 82,658.71 83.512102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 16,323.29 Total Crossing Guard 98,982.00 82,658.71 82,658.71 0.00 16,323.29 83.51 17Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 18 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Fire2201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2201-4100 Personal Services 1,868,380.00 1,409,887.65 1,409,887.65 75.462201-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 458,492.35 315,550.00 340,305.64 340,305.64 107.852201-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -24,755.64 172,800.00 178,309.84 178,309.84 103.192201-4108 FLSA Overtime 0.00 -5,509.84 272,870.00 84,880.29 84,880.29 31.112201-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 187,989.71 148,447.00 55,245.50 55,245.50 37.222201-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 93,201.50 5,600.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 42.862201-4119 Fitness Incentive 0.00 3,200.00 801,843.00 642,214.52 642,214.52 80.092201-4180 Retirement 0.00 159,628.48 3,309.00 469.62 469.62 14.192201-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 2,839.38 9,600.00 7,125.00 7,125.00 74.222201-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 2,475.00 218,584.00 173,702.98 173,702.98 79.472201-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 44,881.02 26,242.00 28,700.82 28,700.82 109.372201-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 -2,458.82 114,193.00 104,676.00 104,676.00 91.672201-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 9,517.00 Total Personal Services 3,957,418.00 3,027,917.86 3,027,917.86 0.00 929,500.14 76.51 2201-4200 Contract Services 171,699.00 76,556.40 76,556.40 45.252201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 1,137.90 94,004.70 102,164.00 102,101.25 102,101.25 99.942201-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 62.75 Total Contract Services 273,863.00 178,657.65 178,657.65 1,137.90 94,067.45 65.65 2201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 19,168.00 15,823.01 15,823.01 82.552201-4304 Telephone 0.00 3,344.99 13,484.00 12,516.90 12,516.90 92.832201-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 967.10 37,407.00 29,870.91 29,870.91 79.852201-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 7,536.09 2,475.00 1,507.17 1,507.17 60.902201-4314 Uniforms 0.00 967.83 4,885.00 4,879.72 4,879.72 99.892201-4315 Membership 0.00 5.28 57,500.00 48,036.04 48,036.04 83.542201-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 9,463.96 82,525.00 40,307.00 40,307.00 48.842201-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 42,218.00 31,951.00 29,293.00 29,293.00 91.682201-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 2,658.00 4,325.00 3,960.00 3,960.00 91.562201-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 365.00 213,237.00 195,467.50 195,467.50 91.672201-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 17,769.50 18Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 19 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Fire2201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 607,904.00 557,249.22 557,249.22 91.672201-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 50,654.78 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 1,074,861.00 938,910.47 938,910.47 0.00 135,950.53 87.35 2201-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2201-5400 Equipment/Furniture 27,322.00 13,212.52 13,212.52 54.452201-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 1,664.91 12,444.57 14,533.00 1,867.07 1,867.07 23.622201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 1,566.06 11,099.87 59,737.00 30,620.70 30,620.70 72.242201-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 12,531.00 16,585.30 Total Equipment/Furniture 101,592.00 45,700.29 45,700.29 15,761.97 40,129.74 60.50 2201-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fire 5,407,734.00 4,191,186.27 4,191,186.27 16,899.87 1,199,647.86 77.82 19Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 20 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Sewers/Storm Drains3102 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3102-4900 Depreciation Total Sewers/Storm Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 21 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Street Maint/Traffic Safety3104 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3104-4100 Personal Services 273,734.00 212,135.29 212,135.29 77.503104-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 61,598.71 9,718.00 8,329.51 8,329.51 85.713104-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,388.49 12,903.00 15,088.27 15,088.27 116.943104-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -2,185.27 56,681.00 43,109.22 43,109.22 76.063104-4180 Retirement 0.00 13,571.78 67,666.00 48,159.04 48,159.04 71.173104-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 19,506.96 1,318.00 917.70 917.70 69.633104-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 400.30 31,224.00 28,622.00 28,622.00 91.673104-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 2,602.00 Total Personal Services 453,244.00 356,361.03 356,361.03 0.00 96,882.97 78.62 3104-4200 Contract Services 253,612.00 208,523.46 208,523.46 93.843104-4201 Contract Serv/Private 29,460.29 15,628.25 6,657.00 5,464.43 5,464.43 82.093104-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 1,192.57 Total Contract Services 260,269.00 213,987.89 213,987.89 29,460.29 16,820.82 93.54 3104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 8,501.00 5,893.48 5,893.48 69.333104-4303 Utilities 0.00 2,607.52 60,238.00 57,900.81 57,900.81 96.123104-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 2,337.19 666.00 605.00 605.00 90.843104-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 61.00 34,573.00 31,691.80 31,691.80 91.673104-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 2,881.20 125,054.00 114,631.00 114,631.00 91.673104-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 10,423.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 229,032.00 210,722.09 210,722.09 0.00 18,309.91 92.01 3104-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Street Maint/Traffic Safety 942,545.00 781,071.01 781,071.01 29,460.29 132,013.70 85.99 21Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 22 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Downtown Enhancement3301 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3301-4100 Personal Services 41,990.00 28,994.33 28,994.33 69.053301-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 12,995.67 1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.003301-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,200.00 5,843.00 4,581.70 4,581.70 78.413301-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,261.30 8,421.00 5,317.08 5,317.08 63.143301-4180 Retirement 0.00 3,103.92 7,173.00 4,856.23 4,856.23 67.703301-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 2,316.77 623.00 494.58 494.58 79.393301-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 128.42 2,790.00 2,563.00 2,563.00 91.863301-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits/OPEB 0.00 227.00 Total Personal Services 68,040.00 46,806.92 46,806.92 0.00 21,233.08 68.79 3301-4200 Contract Services 163,138.00 113,474.51 113,474.51 98.143301-4201 Contract Serv/Private 46,627.32 3,036.17 Total Contract Services 163,138.00 113,474.51 113,474.51 46,627.32 3,036.17 98.14 3301-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 360.00 -26.01 -26.01 7.233301-4303 Utilities 0.00 386.01 15,143.00 5,253.65 5,253.65 34.693301-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 9,889.35 221.00 198.00 198.00 89.593301-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 23.00 433.00 396.80 396.80 91.643301-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 36.20 24,960.00 22,880.00 22,880.00 91.673301-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 2,080.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 41,117.00 28,702.44 28,702.44 0.00 12,414.56 69.81 3301-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3301-5400 Equipment/Furniture 14,810.00 8,223.20 8,223.20 55.523301-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 6,586.80 Total Equipment/Furniture 14,810.00 8,223.20 8,223.20 0.00 6,586.80 55.52 Total Downtown Enhancement 287,105.00 197,207.07 197,207.07 46,627.32 43,270.61 84.93 22Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 23 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Services3302 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3302-4100 Personal Services 975,455.00 789,069.14 789,069.14 80.893302-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 186,385.86 50,000.00 38,306.84 38,306.84 76.613302-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 11,693.16 64,784.00 48,405.06 48,405.06 74.723302-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 16,378.94 28,242.00 24,267.40 24,267.40 85.933302-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 3,974.60 7,525.00 5,194.72 5,194.72 69.033302-4117 Shift Differential 0.00 2,330.28 600.00 100.00 100.00 16.673302-4118 Field Training Officer 0.00 500.00 239,709.00 198,567.31 198,567.31 82.843302-4180 Retirement 0.00 41,141.69 0.00 158.52 158.52 0.003302-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -158.52 6,360.00 5,323.53 5,323.53 83.703302-4187 Uniform Allowance 0.00 1,036.47 268,065.00 212,398.09 212,398.09 79.233302-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 55,666.91 13,468.00 12,391.83 12,391.83 92.013302-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,076.17 94,818.00 86,922.00 86,922.00 91.673302-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 7,896.00 Total Personal Services 1,749,026.00 1,421,104.44 1,421,104.44 0.00 327,921.56 81.25 3302-4200 Contract Services 80,754.00 71,994.85 71,994.85 89.153302-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 8,759.15 70,156.00 65,695.07 65,695.07 93.643302-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 4,460.93 Total Contract Services 150,910.00 137,689.92 137,689.92 0.00 13,220.08 91.24 3302-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 6,500.00 4,747.47 4,747.47 73.043302-4304 Telephone 0.00 1,752.53 23,000.00 19,312.70 19,312.70 83.973302-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 3,687.30 1,000.00 196.17 196.17 19.623302-4307 Radio Maintenance 0.00 803.83 15,000.00 5,129.34 5,129.34 51.173302-4309 Maintenance Materials 2,546.26 7,324.40 3,500.00 48.76 48.76 1.393302-4314 Uniforms 0.00 3,451.24 405.00 405.00 405.00 100.003302-4315 Membership 0.00 0.00 5,889.00 1,700.84 1,700.84 28.883302-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 4,188.16 62,299.00 57,112.00 57,112.00 91.673302-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 5,187.00 7,088.00 6,512.00 6,512.00 91.873302-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 576.00 83,397.00 76,447.50 76,447.50 91.673302-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 6,949.50 23Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 24 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Services3302 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 152,479.00 139,777.00 139,777.00 91.673302-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 12,702.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 360,557.00 311,388.78 311,388.78 2,546.26 46,621.96 87.07 3302-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3302-5400 Equipment/Furniture 29,500.00 250.82 250.82 0.853302-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 29,249.18 Total Equipment/Furniture 29,500.00 250.82 250.82 0.00 29,249.18 0.85 3302-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Community Services 2,289,993.00 1,870,433.96 1,870,433.96 2,546.26 417,012.78 81.79 24Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 25 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 North Pier Parking Structure3304 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3304-4200 Contract Services 113,534.00 85,595.06 85,595.06 86.433304-4201 Contract Serv/Private 12,535.08 15,403.86 225.00 225.00 225.00 100.003304-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 0.00 Total Contract Services 113,759.00 85,820.06 85,820.06 12,535.08 15,403.86 86.46 3304-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 20,282.00 15,860.40 15,860.40 78.203304-4303 Utilities 0.00 4,421.60 543.00 490.55 490.55 90.343304-4304 Telephone 0.00 52.45 13,452.00 16,469.93 16,469.93 122.433304-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 -3,017.93 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 34,277.00 32,820.88 32,820.88 0.00 1,456.12 95.75 3304-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total North Pier Parking Structure 148,036.00 118,640.94 118,640.94 12,535.08 16,859.98 88.61 25Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 26 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Downtown Parking Lot A3305 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3305-4200 Contract Services 66,263.00 40,276.48 40,276.48 60.783305-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 25,986.52 Total Contract Services 66,263.00 40,276.48 40,276.48 0.00 25,986.52 60.78 3305-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 2,000.00 1,080.95 1,080.95 54.053305-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 919.05 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,000.00 1,080.95 1,080.95 0.00 919.05 54.05 3305-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Downtown Parking Lot A 68,263.00 41,357.43 41,357.43 0.00 26,905.57 60.59 26Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 27 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Co. Share Pkg Structure Rev.3306 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3306-4200 Contract Services 341,989.00 0.00 0.00 0.003306-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 341,989.00 Total Co. Share Pkg Structure Rev. 341,989.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 341,989.00 0.00 27Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 28 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Dev/Planning4101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4101-4100 Personal Services 393,612.00 356,524.38 356,524.38 90.584101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 37,087.62 16,834.00 26,207.00 26,207.00 155.684101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -9,373.00 75,414.00 64,541.11 64,541.11 85.584101-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 10,872.89 76,665.00 69,618.97 69,618.97 90.814101-4180 Retirement 0.00 7,046.03 6,381.00 325.96 325.96 5.114101-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 6,055.04 83,331.00 62,104.59 62,104.59 74.534101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 21,226.41 6,859.00 6,712.79 6,712.79 97.874101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 146.21 31,320.00 28,710.00 28,710.00 91.674101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 2,610.00 Total Personal Services 690,416.00 614,744.80 614,744.80 0.00 75,671.20 89.04 4101-4200 Contract Services 65,779.00 25,933.31 25,933.31 39.424101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 39,845.69 Total Contract Services 65,779.00 25,933.31 25,933.31 0.00 39,845.69 39.42 4101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,300.00 2,014.87 2,014.87 154.994101-4304 Telephone 0.00 -714.87 4,817.00 5,365.73 5,365.73 111.394101-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -548.73 2,273.00 2,096.75 2,096.75 92.254101-4315 Membership 0.00 176.25 4,000.00 2,958.48 2,958.48 73.964101-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 1,041.52 9,788.00 8,976.00 8,976.00 91.704101-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 812.00 2,234.00 2,046.00 2,046.00 91.584101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 188.00 29,135.00 26,708.00 26,708.00 91.674101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 2,427.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 53,547.00 50,165.83 50,165.83 0.00 3,381.17 93.69 Total Community Dev/Planning 809,742.00 690,843.94 690,843.94 0.00 118,898.06 85.32 28Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 29 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Coastal Permit Auth Grant4104 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4104-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4104-4200 Contract Services 422,713.00 29,727.92 29,727.92 8.454104-4201 Contract Serv/Private 6,000.00 386,985.08 Total Contract Services 422,713.00 29,727.92 29,727.92 6,000.00 386,985.08 8.45 4104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,000.00 5,653.77 5,653.77 188.464104-4305 Office Operating Supplies 0.00 -2,653.77 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 3,000.00 5,653.77 5,653.77 0.00 -2,653.77 188.46 Total Coastal Permit Auth Grant 425,713.00 35,381.69 35,381.69 6,000.00 384,331.31 9.72 29Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Dev/Building4201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4201-4100 Personal Services 310,558.00 242,630.68 242,630.68 78.134201-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 67,927.32 15,391.00 14,786.93 14,786.93 96.084201-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 604.07 30,894.00 23,983.26 23,983.26 77.634201-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 6,910.74 51,970.00 42,306.57 42,306.57 81.414201-4180 Retirement 0.00 9,663.43 4,912.00 191.08 191.08 3.894201-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 4,720.92 61,978.00 41,352.17 41,352.17 66.724201-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 20,625.83 5,825.00 4,187.84 4,187.84 71.894201-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 1,637.16 27,547.00 25,256.00 25,256.00 91.684201-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 2,291.00 Total Personal Services 509,075.00 394,694.53 394,694.53 0.00 114,380.47 77.53 4201-4200 Contract Services 104,375.00 141,631.29 141,631.29 135.694201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -37,256.29 Total Contract Services 104,375.00 141,631.29 141,631.29 0.00 -37,256.29 135.69 4201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 4,000.00 4,735.54 4,735.54 118.394201-4304 Telephone 0.00 -735.54 4,000.00 2,577.33 2,577.33 64.434201-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 1,422.67 1,300.00 565.00 565.00 43.464201-4315 Membership 0.00 735.00 1,500.00 1,105.00 1,105.00 73.674201-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 395.00 13,847.00 12,694.00 12,694.00 91.674201-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 1,153.00 1,409.00 1,287.00 1,287.00 91.344201-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 122.00 28,636.00 26,249.30 26,249.30 91.674201-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 2,386.70 32,987.00 30,239.00 30,239.00 91.674201-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 2,748.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 87,679.00 79,452.17 79,452.17 0.00 8,226.83 90.62 4201-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4201-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 31 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Dev/Building4201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number Total Community Dev/Building 701,129.00 615,777.99 615,777.99 0.00 85,351.01 87.83 31Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 32 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Public Works Administration4202 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4202-4100 Personal Services 364,769.00 278,724.25 278,724.25 76.414202-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 86,044.75 2,000.00 436.64 436.64 21.834202-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,563.36 16,650.00 20,083.51 20,083.51 120.624202-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -3,433.51 37,302.00 14,968.14 14,968.14 40.134202-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 22,333.86 64,359.00 48,048.01 48,048.01 74.664202-4180 Retirement 0.00 16,310.99 57,250.00 43,172.51 43,172.51 75.414202-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 14,077.49 5,564.00 4,777.39 4,777.39 85.864202-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 786.61 22,956.00 21,043.00 21,043.00 91.674202-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 1,913.00 Total Personal Services 570,850.00 431,253.45 431,253.45 0.00 139,596.55 75.55 4202-4200 Contract Services 207,337.00 194,868.30 194,868.30 95.584202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 3,297.50 9,171.20 0.00 18,860.00 18,860.00 0.004202-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 -18,860.00 Total Contract Services 207,337.00 213,728.30 213,728.30 3,297.50 -9,688.80 104.67 4202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 19,094.00 15,213.54 15,213.54 79.684202-4304 Telephone 0.00 3,880.46 9,640.00 10,818.34 10,818.34 112.224202-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 -1,178.34 6,678.00 3,349.96 3,349.96 50.164202-4314 Uniforms 0.00 3,328.04 950.00 1,918.00 1,918.00 201.894202-4315 Membership 0.00 -968.00 10,167.00 4,155.46 4,155.46 40.874202-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 6,011.54 52,415.00 48,048.00 48,048.00 91.674202-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 4,367.00 6,478.00 5,940.00 5,940.00 91.694202-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 538.00 22,750.00 20,854.30 20,854.30 91.674202-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 1,895.70 52,813.00 48,411.00 48,411.00 91.664202-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 4,402.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 180,985.00 158,708.60 158,708.60 0.00 22,276.40 87.69 4202-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 33 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Public Works Administration4202 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4202-5400 Equipment/Furniture 0.00 2,149.67 2,149.67 0.004202-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 -2,149.67 2,850.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 2,850.00 Total Equipment/Furniture 2,850.00 2,149.67 2,149.67 0.00 700.33 75.43 4202-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Public Works Administration 962,022.00 805,840.02 805,840.02 3,297.50 152,884.48 84.11 33Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 34 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Building Maintenance4204 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4204-4100 Personal Services 210,106.00 136,962.81 136,962.81 65.194204-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 73,143.19 9,000.00 7,927.65 7,927.65 88.094204-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 1,072.35 11,113.00 15,403.36 15,403.36 138.614204-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -4,290.36 0.00 35,626.27 35,626.27 0.004204-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -35,626.27 43,506.00 27,787.21 27,787.21 63.874204-4180 Retirement 0.00 15,718.79 0.00 239.53 239.53 0.004204-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -239.53 63,996.00 45,672.69 45,672.69 71.374204-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 18,323.31 2,917.00 2,716.47 2,716.47 93.134204-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 200.53 20,113.00 18,436.00 18,436.00 91.664204-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 1,677.00 Total Personal Services 360,751.00 290,771.99 290,771.99 0.00 69,979.01 80.60 4204-4200 Contract Services 182,279.00 101,083.53 101,083.53 81.944204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 48,276.00 32,919.47 225.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 225.00 Total Contract Services 182,504.00 101,083.53 101,083.53 48,276.00 33,144.47 81.84 4204-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 162,662.00 128,545.33 128,545.33 79.034204-4303 Utilities 0.00 34,116.67 32,382.00 33,358.51 33,358.51 103.024204-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 -976.51 6,000.00 4,627.95 4,627.95 77.134204-4321 Building Sfty/Security 0.00 1,372.05 22,545.00 20,669.00 20,669.00 91.684204-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 1,876.00 667.00 616.00 616.00 92.354204-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 51.00 11,153.00 10,224.20 10,224.20 91.674204-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 928.80 64,032.00 58,696.00 58,696.00 91.674204-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 5,336.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 299,441.00 256,736.99 256,736.99 0.00 42,704.01 85.74 4204-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4204-5400 Equipment/Furniture 34Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 35 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Building Maintenance4204 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 0.00 874.79 874.79 0.004204-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 -874.79 Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 874.79 874.79 0.00 -874.79 0.00 4204-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Building Maintenance 842,696.00 649,467.30 649,467.30 48,276.00 144,952.70 82.80 35Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 36 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Affordable Hous/Marineland Mobile H Loan4401 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4401-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4401-4400 Grants Total Affordable Hous/Marineland Mobile H Loan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 37 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Affordable Hous/Marineland Mobil / Grant4402 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4402-4200 Contract Services Total Affordable Hous/Marineland Mobil / Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 38 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Resources4601 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4601-4100 Personal Services 241,501.00 193,384.78 193,384.78 80.084601-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 48,116.22 3,000.00 3,406.71 3,406.71 113.564601-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -406.71 9,930.00 529.25 529.25 5.334601-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 9,400.75 298,000.00 224,554.92 224,554.92 75.354601-4112 Part Time/Temporary 0.00 73,445.08 41,481.00 49,342.54 49,342.54 118.954601-4180 Retirement 0.00 -7,861.54 0.00 796.94 796.94 0.004601-4185 Alternative Retirement System-Parttime 0.00 -796.94 59,327.00 36,137.37 36,137.37 60.914601-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 23,189.63 3,643.00 6,219.25 6,219.25 170.724601-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 -2,576.25 21,917.00 20,086.00 20,086.00 91.654601-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 1,831.00 Total Personal Services 678,799.00 534,457.76 534,457.76 0.00 144,341.24 78.74 4601-4200 Contract Services 52,000.00 39,263.68 39,263.68 75.514601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 12,736.32 245,000.00 226,709.35 226,709.35 92.534601-4221 Contract Rec Classes/Programs 0.00 18,290.65 Total Contract Services 297,000.00 265,973.03 265,973.03 0.00 31,026.97 89.55 4601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 14,000.00 17,426.03 17,426.03 131.264601-4302 Advertising 950.00 -4,376.03 5,000.00 4,197.27 4,197.27 83.954601-4304 Telephone 0.00 802.73 13,000.00 8,091.94 8,091.94 62.254601-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 4,908.06 20,525.00 15,496.91 15,496.91 75.504601-4308 Program Materials 0.00 5,028.09 2,000.00 1,588.00 1,588.00 79.404601-4315 Membership 0.00 412.00 15,500.00 535.00 535.00 3.454601-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 14,965.00 6,000.00 3,889.93 3,889.93 64.834601-4328 Hermosa Senior Center Programs 0.00 2,110.07 27,438.00 25,146.00 25,146.00 91.654601-4390 Communications Equipment Chrgs 0.00 2,292.00 35,235.00 32,296.00 32,296.00 91.664601-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 2,939.00 15,371.00 14,090.20 14,090.20 91.674601-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 1,280.80 91,190.00 83,589.00 83,589.00 91.664601-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 7,601.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 245,259.00 206,346.28 206,346.28 950.00 37,962.72 84.52 38Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 39 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Resources4601 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4601-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4601-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4601-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Community Resources 1,221,058.00 1,006,777.07 1,006,777.07 950.00 213,330.93 82.53 39Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 40 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Parks6101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 6101-4100 Personal Services 191,117.00 90,760.91 90,760.91 47.496101-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 100,356.09 500.00 1,932.87 1,932.87 386.576101-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -1,432.87 8,388.00 32,942.49 32,942.49 392.736101-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -24,554.49 28,008.00 13,467.08 13,467.08 48.086101-4180 Retirement 0.00 14,540.92 36,957.00 27,660.33 27,660.33 74.846101-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 9,296.67 1,861.00 1,269.40 1,269.40 68.216101-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 591.60 17,199.00 15,763.00 15,763.00 91.656101-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 1,436.00 Total Personal Services 284,030.00 183,796.08 183,796.08 0.00 100,233.92 64.71 6101-4200 Contract Services 222,233.00 181,418.13 181,418.13 130.586101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 108,763.29 -67,948.42 160.00 198.00 198.00 123.756101-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 -38.00 Total Contract Services 222,393.00 181,616.13 181,616.13 108,763.29 -67,986.42 130.57 6101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 246,095.00 165,192.48 165,192.48 67.136101-4303 Utilities 0.00 80,902.52 0.00 422.00 422.00 0.006101-4304 Telephone 0.00 -422.00 22,658.00 26,404.46 26,404.46 117.786101-4309 Maintenance Materials 281.91 -4,028.37 21,867.00 20,042.00 20,042.00 91.656101-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 1,825.00 32,815.00 30,080.80 30,080.80 91.676101-4395 Equip Replacement Chrgs 0.00 2,734.20 67,515.00 61,886.00 61,886.00 91.666101-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 5,629.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 390,950.00 304,027.74 304,027.74 281.91 86,640.35 77.84 6101-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture 0.00 1,595.01 1,595.01 0.006101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 -1,595.01 0.00 2,120.03 2,120.03 0.006101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 -2,120.03 Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 3,715.04 3,715.04 0.00 -3,715.04 0.00 40Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 41 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Parks6101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 6101-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Parks 897,373.00 673,154.99 673,154.99 109,045.20 115,172.81 87.17 41Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 42 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH8116 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8116-4200 Contract Services 47,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008116-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 47,000.00 Total Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH 47,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47,000.00 0.00 42Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 43 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Street Improvements- Various Locations8127 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8127-4200 Contract Services 325,199.00 325,159.61 325,159.61 99.998127-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 39.39 Total Street Improvements- Various Locations 325,199.00 325,159.61 325,159.61 0.00 39.39 99.99 43Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 44 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Str Improvements/Various Locations8128 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8128-4200 Contract Services 230,000.00 48,822.00 48,822.00 21.238128-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 181,178.00 Total Str Improvements/Various Locations 230,000.00 48,822.00 48,822.00 0.00 181,178.00 21.23 44Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 45 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore8129 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8129-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 46 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services 192,905.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 192,905.00 Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 192,905.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192,905.00 0.00 46Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 47 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Fire Station Traffic Signal8153 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8153-4200 Contract Services 78,616.00 64,119.91 64,119.91 82.298153-4201 Contract Serv/Private 575.00 13,921.09 Total Fire Station Traffic Signal 78,616.00 64,119.91 64,119.91 575.00 13,921.09 82.29 47Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 48 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 15th St Improv/Herm Ave-Bch Dr8154 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8154-4200 Contract Services Total 15th St Improv/Herm Ave-Bch Dr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 49 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Protective Bollards Along the Strand8163 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8163-4200 Contract Services 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008163-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 25,000.00 Total Protective Bollards Along the Strand 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 49Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 50 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Valley Drive Sharrows8168 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8168-4200 Contract Services 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008168-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 20,000.00 Total Valley Drive Sharrows 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 50Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 51 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Sewer Improvements- Various Locations8402 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8402-4200 Contract Services 149,381.00 27.22 27.22 0.028402-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 149,353.78 Total Sewer Improvements- Various Locations 149,381.00 27.22 27.22 0.00 149,353.78 0.02 51Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 52 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 South Park Phase I Improvements8537 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8537-4200 Contract Services 210,890.00 6,909.00 6,909.00 3.288537-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 203,981.00 Total South Park Phase I Improvements 210,890.00 6,909.00 6,909.00 0.00 203,981.00 3.28 52Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 53 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Citywide Park Master Plan8538 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8538-4200 Contract Services 83,592.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 83,592.00 Total Citywide Park Master Plan 83,592.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83,592.00 0.00 53Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 54 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Clark Field Energy Upgrades Ph II8541 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8541-4200 Contract Services 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008541-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 100,000.00 Total Clark Field Energy Upgrades Ph II 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 54Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 55 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Clark Field Electrical8602 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8602-4200 Contract Services Total Clark Field Electrical 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 56 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Fire Station Renovation & Upgrades8606 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8606-4200 Contract Services 23,178.00 12,660.62 12,660.62 54.628606-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 10,517.38 Total Fire Station Renovation & Upgrades 23,178.00 12,660.62 12,660.62 0.00 10,517.38 54.62 56Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 57 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Fire Station Renovations & Upgrades8607 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8607-4200 Contract Services Total Fire Station Renovations & Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 58 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Civic Center Strategic Plan8609 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8609-4200 Contract Services 217,415.00 9,207.22 9,207.22 6.708609-4201 Contract Serv/Private 5,361.22 202,846.56 Total Civic Center Strategic Plan 217,415.00 9,207.22 9,207.22 5,361.22 202,846.56 6.70 58Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 59 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Yard Roof8613 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8613-4200 Contract Services Total City Yard Roof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 60 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Police Facilities Impovements8614 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8614-4200 Contract Services 93,800.00 4,234.94 4,234.94 4.518614-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 89,565.06 Total Police Facilities Impovements 93,800.00 4,234.94 4,234.94 0.00 89,565.06 4.51 60Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 61 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Yard Renovations8615 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8615-4200 Contract Services Total City Yard Renovations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 62 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Police Facility Improvements8619 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8619-4200 Contract Services Total Police Facility Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 63 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Pier Architectural Upgrades8621 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8621-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Pier Architectural Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 64 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Fire Department Tower Demolition8632 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8632-4200 Contract Services 220,000.00 13,605.43 13,605.43 6.188632-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 206,394.57 Total Fire Department Tower Demolition 220,000.00 13,605.43 13,605.43 0.00 206,394.57 6.18 64Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 65 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Municipal Solar Facility Plan/Install8634 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8634-4200 Contract Services Total Municipal Solar Facility Plan/Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 66 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Center Gen Improvements Ph. II8649 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8649-4200 Contract Services 52,600.00 52,599.60 52,599.60 100.008649-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.40 Total Community Center Gen Improvements Ph. II 52,600.00 52,599.60 52,599.60 0.00 0.40 100.00 66Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 67 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Center Gen Improvement Phase 38650 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8650-4200 Contract Services Total Community Center Gen Improvement Phase 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 68 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Lot A Trash Enclosure8651 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8651-4200 Contract Services 7,778.00 15,790.50 15,790.50 231.008651-4201 Contract Serv/Private 2,177.00 -10,189.50 Total Lot A Trash Enclosure 7,778.00 15,790.50 15,790.50 2,177.00 -10,189.50 231.00 68Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 69 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8656-4200 Contract Services 40,946.00 0.00 0.00 0.008656-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 40,946.00 Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 40,946.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,946.00 0.00 69Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 70 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Lawn Bowling Lighting8657 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8657-4200 Contract Services Total Lawn Bowling Lighting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 71 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Ph.II8659 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8659-4200 Contract Services 10,716.00 0.00 0.00 0.008659-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 10,716.00 Total Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Ph.II 10,716.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,716.00 0.00 71Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 72 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Hermosa Beach Surfing Memorial8661 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8661-4200 Contract Services 87,691.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 71.278661-4201 Contract Serv/Private 42,500.00 25,191.00 Total Hermosa Beach Surfing Memorial 87,691.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 42,500.00 25,191.00 71.27 72Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 73 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Parking Structure Repairs8663 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8663-4200 Contract Services 0.00 3,013.73 3,013.73 0.008663-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -3,013.73 Total Parking Structure Repairs 0.00 3,013.73 3,013.73 0.00 -3,013.73 0.00 73Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 74 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp8664 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8664-4200 Contract Services 155,739.00 108,167.00 108,167.00 69.458664-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 47,572.00 Total City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp 155,739.00 108,167.00 108,167.00 0.00 47,572.00 69.45 74Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 75 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 LED Lights for Lot D8665 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8665-4200 Contract Services Total LED Lights for Lot D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 76 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Lot C Lighting Upgrades8666 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8666-4200 Contract Services Total Lot C Lighting Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 77 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 General Fund001 Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv8667 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8667-4200 Contract Services Total Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total General Fund 34,696,881.00 26,074,879.49 26,074,879.49 357,739.03 8,264,262.48 76.18 77Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 78 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund105 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 8,345.00 7,645.00 7,645.00 91.611299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 700.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 8,345.00 7,645.00 7,645.00 0.00 700.00 91.61 78Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 79 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund105 Lighting/Landscaping/Medians2601 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2601-4100 Personal Services 83,445.00 64,922.72 64,922.72 77.802601-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 18,522.28 1,000.00 1,414.25 1,414.25 141.432601-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -414.25 4,972.00 6,457.30 6,457.30 129.872601-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -1,485.30 17,136.00 13,109.46 13,109.46 76.502601-4180 Retirement 0.00 4,026.54 25,343.00 15,730.12 15,730.12 62.072601-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 9,612.88 1,217.00 1,059.33 1,059.33 87.042601-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 157.67 8,227.00 7,546.00 7,546.00 91.722601-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 681.00 Total Personal Services 141,340.00 110,239.18 110,239.18 0.00 31,100.82 78.00 2601-4200 Contract Services 44,492.00 40,538.00 40,538.00 138.632601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 21,142.00 -17,188.00 31,290.00 11,192.76 11,192.76 35.772601-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 20,097.24 Total Contract Services 75,782.00 51,730.76 51,730.76 21,142.00 2,909.24 96.16 2601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 225,803.00 183,822.37 183,822.37 81.412601-4303 Utilities 0.00 41,980.63 28,300.00 32,812.70 32,812.70 115.952601-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 -4,512.70 667.00 616.00 616.00 92.352601-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 51.00 41,204.00 37,770.70 37,770.70 91.672601-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 3,433.30 33,626.00 30,822.00 30,822.00 91.662601-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 2,804.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 329,600.00 285,843.77 285,843.77 0.00 43,756.23 86.72 Total Lighting/Landscaping/Medians 546,722.00 447,813.71 447,813.71 21,142.00 77,766.29 85.78 Total Lightg/Landscapg Dist Fund 555,067.00 455,458.71 455,458.71 21,142.00 78,466.29 85.86 79Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 80 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Downtown Enhancement Fund109 North Pier Parking Structure3304 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3304-4200 Contract Services Total Downtown Enhancement Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 81 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 297,972.00 273,141.00 273,141.00 91.671299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 24,831.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 297,972.00 273,141.00 273,141.00 0.00 24,831.00 91.67 81Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 82 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 Citywide St Impr/Various Locations8127 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8127-4100 Personal Services 19,787.00 15,987.96 15,987.96 80.808127-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 3,799.04 0.00 1,973.98 1,973.98 0.008127-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -1,973.98 1,237.00 999.20 999.20 80.788127-4180 Retirement 0.00 237.80 2,102.00 1,924.64 1,924.64 91.568127-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 177.36 287.00 261.34 261.34 91.068127-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 25.66 Total Personal Services 23,413.00 21,147.12 21,147.12 0.00 2,265.88 90.32 8127-4200 Contract Services 261,714.00 261,714.00 261,714.00 100.008127-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00 Total Contract Services 261,714.00 261,714.00 261,714.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Total Citywide St Impr/Various Locations 285,127.00 282,861.12 282,861.12 0.00 2,265.88 99.21 82Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 83 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 Str Improvements/Various Locations8128 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8128-4200 Contract Services 215,958.00 10,800.00 10,800.00 5.008128-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 205,158.00 Total Str Improvements/Various Locations 215,958.00 10,800.00 10,800.00 0.00 205,158.00 5.00 83Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 84 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore8129 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8129-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 85 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 Valley Ardmore8137 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8137-4200 Contract Services Total Valley Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 86 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 State Gas Tax Fund115 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services 34,581.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 34,581.00 Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 34,581.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,581.00 0.00 Total State Gas Tax Fund 833,638.00 566,802.12 566,802.12 0.00 266,835.88 67.99 86Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 87 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 AB939 Fund117 Source Redctn/Recycle Element5301 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 5301-4100 Personal Services 21,870.00 42,164.53 42,164.53 192.805301-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 -20,294.53 0.00 47.06 47.06 0.005301-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -47.06 5,713.00 1,929.72 1,929.72 33.785301-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 3,783.28 0.00 127.50 127.50 0.005301-4112 Part Time Temporary 0.00 -127.50 4,323.00 6,549.70 6,549.70 151.515301-4180 Retirement 0.00 -2,226.70 3,138.00 5,118.31 5,118.31 163.115301-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 -1,980.31 328.00 659.12 659.12 200.955301-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 -331.12 Total Personal Services 35,372.00 56,595.94 56,595.94 0.00 -21,223.94 160.00 5301-4200 Contract Services 19,500.00 763.00 763.00 3.915301-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 18,737.00 Total Contract Services 19,500.00 763.00 763.00 0.00 18,737.00 3.91 5301-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,000.00 2,026.71 2,026.71 67.565301-4315 Membership 0.00 973.29 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.005301-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 1,500.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 4,500.00 2,026.71 2,026.71 0.00 2,473.29 45.04 Total AB939 Fund 59,372.00 59,385.65 59,385.65 0.00 -13.65 100.02 87Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 88 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Prop A Open Space Fund121 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 20,557.00 18,843.00 18,843.00 91.661299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 1,714.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 20,557.00 18,843.00 18,843.00 0.00 1,714.00 91.66 88Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 89 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Prop A Open Space Fund121 South Park Phase I Improvements8537 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8537-4200 Contract Services 127,957.00 86,064.28 86,064.28 67.268537-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 41,892.72 Total South Park Phase I Improvements 127,957.00 86,064.28 86,064.28 0.00 41,892.72 67.26 89Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 90 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Prop A Open Space Fund121 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation8631 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8631-4200 Contract Services Total 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 91 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Prop A Open Space Fund121 Pier Structural Repairs FY128652 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8652-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Structural Repairs FY12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 92 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Prop A Open Space Fund121 Hermosa Senior Activity Center8653 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8653-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Hermosa Senior Activity Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Prop A Open Space Fund 148,514.00 104,907.28 104,907.28 0.00 43,606.72 70.64 92Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 93 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Street Improvements- Various Locations8128 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8128-4200 Contract Services 228,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008128-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 228,000.00 Total Street Improvements- Various Locations 228,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 228,000.00 0.00 93Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 94 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore8129 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8129-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 95 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 8th Street- Safe Route to School Project8173 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8173-4200 Contract Services 71,434.00 0.00 0.00 0.008173-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 71,434.00 Total 8th Street- Safe Route to School Project 71,434.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71,434.00 0.00 95Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 96 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Sewer Improvements- Various Locations8402 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8402-4200 Contract Services 83,532.00 0.00 0.00 0.008402-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 83,532.00 Total Sewer Improvements- Various Locations 83,532.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83,532.00 0.00 96Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 97 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation8631 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8631-4200 Contract Services 24,805.00 4,563.10 4,563.10 18.408631-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 20,241.90 Total 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation 24,805.00 4,563.10 4,563.10 0.00 20,241.90 18.40 97Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 98 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Pier Structural Repairs FY128652 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8652-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Structural Repairs FY12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 99 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 City Fac. ADA Transition Plan & Improv.8655 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8655-4200 Contract Services 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008655-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 20,000.00 Total City Fac. ADA Transition Plan & Improv. 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 99Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 100 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Ph.II8659 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8659-4200 Contract Services 316,504.00 162,584.96 162,584.96 52.668659-4201 Contract Serv/Private 4,080.00 149,839.04 Total Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Ph.II 316,504.00 162,584.96 162,584.96 4,080.00 149,839.04 52.66 100Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 101 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Fund122 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Phase38660 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8660-4200 Contract Services Total Municipal Pier Structural Repairs Phase3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Tyco Fund 744,275.00 167,148.06 167,148.06 4,080.00 573,046.94 23.01 101Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 102 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Tidelands123 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation8631 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8631-4200 Contract Services Total 14Th. St. Beach Restroom Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 102Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 103 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Tyco Tidelands123 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs II8659 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8659-4200 Contract Services 3,318.00 0.00 0.00 0.008659-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,318.00 Total Tyco Tidelands 3,318.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,318.00 0.00 103Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 104 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Parks6101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 6101-4200 Contract Services 46,993.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 46,993.00 Total Contract Services 46,993.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46,993.00 0.00 6101-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Parks 46,993.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46,993.00 0.00 104Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 105 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 South Park Phase I Improvements8537 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8537-4200 Contract Services 317,140.00 61,228.25 61,228.25 19.318537-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 255,911.75 Total South Park Phase I Improvements 317,140.00 61,228.25 61,228.25 0.00 255,911.75 19.31 105Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 106 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Citywide Park Master Plan8538 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8538-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8538-4200 Contract Services 60,261.00 0.00 0.00 0.008538-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 60,261.00 Total Citywide Park Master Plan 60,261.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,261.00 0.00 106Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 107 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Valley Park Playground Surface Reno8539 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8539-4200 Contract Services 21,128.00 0.00 0.00 0.008539-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 21,128.00 Total Valley Park Playground Surface Reno 21,128.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,128.00 0.00 107Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 108 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Clark Field Energy Efficient Upgrades II8541 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8541-4200 Contract Services 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008541-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 100,000.00 Total Clark Field Energy Efficient Upgrades II 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 108Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 109 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Clark Field Electrical8602 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8602-4200 Contract Services 76,990.00 23,925.31 23,925.31 31.088602-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 53,064.69 Total Clark Field Electrical 76,990.00 23,925.31 23,925.31 0.00 53,064.69 31.08 109Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 110 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Comm Ctr General Improvements8649 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8649-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8649-4200 Contract Services 75,377.00 46,780.01 46,780.01 62.068649-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 28,596.99 Total Comm Ctr General Improvements 75,377.00 46,780.01 46,780.01 0.00 28,596.99 62.06 110Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 111 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8656-4200 Contract Services 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008656-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 25,000.00 Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 111Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 112 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Lawn Bowling Lighting8657 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8657-4200 Contract Services Total Lawn Bowling Lighting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 113 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund125 Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv8667 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8667-4200 Contract Services Total Community Center, Plaza, and Park Improv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund 722,889.00 131,933.57 131,933.57 0.00 590,955.43 18.25 113Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 114 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund135 Administrative Charges1219 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1219-4200 Contract Services 2,528.00 1,171.39 1,171.39 46.341219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,356.61 Total Administrative Charges 2,528.00 1,171.39 1,171.39 0.00 1,356.61 46.34 114Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 115 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund135 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,653.00 3,344.00 3,344.00 91.541299-4399 Operating Trsfr Out 0.00 309.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 3,653.00 3,344.00 3,344.00 0.00 309.00 91.54 Total Bayview Dr Dist Admin Exp Fund 6,181.00 4,515.39 4,515.39 0.00 1,665.61 73.05 115Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 116 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund136 Administrative Charges1219 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1219-4200 Contract Services 1,813.00 970.08 970.08 53.511219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 842.92 Total Administrative Charges 1,813.00 970.08 970.08 0.00 842.92 53.51 116Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 117 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund136 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 2,249.00 2,057.00 2,057.00 91.461299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 192.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 2,249.00 2,057.00 2,057.00 0.00 192.00 91.46 Total Lower Pier Admin Exp Fund 4,062.00 3,027.08 3,027.08 0.00 1,034.92 74.52 117Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 118 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund137 Administrative Charges1219 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1219-4200 Contract Services 6,760.00 5,170.42 5,170.42 76.491219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,589.58 Total Administrative Charges 6,760.00 5,170.42 5,170.42 0.00 1,589.58 76.49 118Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 119 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund137 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 5,264.00 4,829.00 4,829.00 91.741299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 435.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 5,264.00 4,829.00 4,829.00 0.00 435.00 91.74 Total Myrtle Dist Admin Exp Fund 12,024.00 9,999.42 9,999.42 0.00 2,024.58 83.16 119Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 120 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund138 Administrative Charges1219 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1219-4200 Contract Services 7,621.00 5,381.26 5,381.26 70.611219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,239.74 Total Administrative Charges 7,621.00 5,381.26 5,381.26 0.00 2,239.74 70.61 120Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 121 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund138 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 5,710.00 5,236.00 5,236.00 91.701299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 474.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 5,710.00 5,236.00 5,236.00 0.00 474.00 91.70 Total Loma Dist Admin Exp Fund 13,331.00 10,617.26 10,617.26 0.00 2,713.74 79.64 121Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 122 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund139 Administrative Charges1219 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1219-4200 Contract Services 2,275.00 1,100.43 1,100.43 48.371219-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 1,174.57 Total Administrative Charges 2,275.00 1,100.43 1,100.43 0.00 1,174.57 48.37 122Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 123 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund139 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,891.00 1,738.00 1,738.00 91.911299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 153.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 1,891.00 1,738.00 1,738.00 0.00 153.00 91.91 Total Beach Dr Assmnt Dist Admin Exp Fund 4,166.00 2,838.43 2,838.43 0.00 1,327.57 68.13 123Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 124 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Community Dev Block Grant140 CDBG Program General Admin4707 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4707-4200 Contract Services Total CDBG Program General Admin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 124Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 125 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Community Dev Block Grant140 Public Service Agencies4708 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4708-4200 Contract Services 9,900.00 0.00 0.00 0.004708-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 9,900.00 Total Public Service Agencies 9,900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,900.00 0.00 125Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 126 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Community Dev Block Grant140 City Fac. ADA Transition Plan & Improv.8655 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8655-4200 Contract Services 126,159.00 0.00 0.00 0.008655-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 126,159.00 Total City Fac. ADA Transition Plan & Improv. 126,159.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126,159.00 0.00 126Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 127 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Community Dev Block Grant140 City Right of Way ADA Improvements8657 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8657-4200 Contract Services Total City Right of Way ADA Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Community Dev Block Grant 136,059.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 136,059.00 0.00 127Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 128 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Interfund Transfers Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 129 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Bus Pass Subsidy3403 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3403-4200 Contract Services 3,300.00 2,058.50 2,058.50 62.383403-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 1,241.50 Total Bus Pass Subsidy 3,300.00 2,058.50 2,058.50 0.00 1,241.50 62.38 129Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 130 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Dial-A-Taxi Program3404 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3404-4200 Contract Services 69,000.00 51,957.07 51,957.07 126.973404-4201 Contract Serv/Private 35,650.65 -18,607.72 Total Dial-A-Taxi Program 69,000.00 51,957.07 51,957.07 35,650.65 -18,607.72 126.97 130Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 131 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Commuter Express3408 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3408-4100 Personal Services 2,203.00 1,595.26 1,595.26 72.413408-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 607.74 Total Personal Services 2,203.00 1,595.26 1,595.26 0.00 607.74 72.41 3408-4200 Contract Services 14,688.00 0.00 0.00 0.003408-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 14,688.00 Total Contract Services 14,688.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,688.00 0.00 Total Commuter Express 16,891.00 1,595.26 1,595.26 0.00 15,295.74 9.44 131Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 132 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Recreation Transportation3409 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3409-4200 Contract Services 40,000.00 28,912.37 28,912.37 72.283409-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 11,087.63 Total Recreation Transportation 40,000.00 28,912.37 28,912.37 0.00 11,087.63 72.28 132Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 133 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Special Event Shuttle3410 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3410-4200 Contract Services 6,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 100.003410-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00 Total Special Event Shuttle 6,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 133Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 134 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 After School Program Shuttle3411 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3411-4200 Contract Services 41,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.003411-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 41,400.00 Total After School Program Shuttle 41,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,400.00 0.00 134Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 135 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 Beach Cities Transit Line 1093412 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3412-4200 Contract Services 7,433.00 5,574.00 5,574.00 74.993412-4251 Contract Services/Gov't 0.00 1,859.00 Total Beach Cities Transit Line 109 7,433.00 5,574.00 5,574.00 0.00 1,859.00 74.99 135Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 136 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition A Fund145 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services 274,892.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 274,892.00 Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 274,892.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 274,892.00 0.00 Total Proposition A Fund 458,916.00 96,097.20 96,097.20 35,650.65 327,168.15 28.71 136Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 137 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition C Fund146 Pavement Management Study4208 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4208-4200 Contract Services 47,978.00 1,859.00 1,859.00 3.874208-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 46,119.00 Total Pavement Management Study 47,978.00 1,859.00 1,859.00 0.00 46,119.00 3.87 137Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 138 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition C Fund146 Protective Bollards at Pier Plaza8139 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8139-4200 Contract Services Total Protective Bollards at Pier Plaza 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 139 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Proposition C Fund146 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services 533,326.00 190,000.00 190,000.00 35.638143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 343,326.00 Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 533,326.00 190,000.00 190,000.00 0.00 343,326.00 35.63 Total Proposition C Fund 581,304.00 191,859.00 191,859.00 0.00 389,445.00 33.00 139Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 140 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 Citywide St Impr/Various Locations8127 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8127-4100 Personal Services 0.00 15,987.95 15,987.95 0.008127-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 -15,987.95 0.00 1,973.99 1,973.99 0.008127-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -1,973.99 1,237.00 999.20 999.20 80.788127-4180 Retirement 0.00 237.80 2,102.00 1,924.64 1,924.64 91.568127-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 177.36 287.00 261.34 261.34 91.068127-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 25.66 Total Personal Services 3,626.00 21,147.12 21,147.12 0.00 -17,521.12 583.21 8127-4200 Contract Services 4,947.00 4,947.00 4,947.00 100.008127-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00 Total Contract Services 4,947.00 4,947.00 4,947.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Total Citywide St Impr/Various Locations 8,573.00 26,094.12 26,094.12 0.00 -17,521.12 304.38 140Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 141 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 Str Improvements/Various Locations8128 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8128-4200 Contract Services 341,999.00 0.00 0.00 0.008128-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 341,999.00 Total Str Improvements/Various Locations 341,999.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 341,999.00 0.00 141Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 142 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore8129 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8129-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 142Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 143 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 Protective Bollards at Pier Plaza8139 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8139-4200 Contract Services Total Protective Bollards at Pier Plaza 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 144 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services 190,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008143-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 190,000.00 Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 190,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190,000.00 0.00 144Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 145 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 PCH Traffic Improvements8160 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8160-4200 Contract Services 209,322.00 55,773.65 55,773.65 29.978160-4201 Contract Serv/Private 6,959.38 146,588.97 Total PCH Traffic Improvements 209,322.00 55,773.65 55,773.65 6,959.38 146,588.97 29.97 145Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 146 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Measure R Fund147 Herm View Elem Safe Rte to School Grant8179 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8179-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8179-4200 Contract Services Total Herm View Elem Safe Rte to School Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Measure R Fund 749,894.00 81,867.77 81,867.77 6,959.38 661,066.85 11.85 146Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 147 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Bulletproof Vest Partnership2111 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2111-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Bulletproof Vest Partnership 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 147Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 148 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Fire Department (OJP Equip Grant)2201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2201-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Fire Department (OJP Equip Grant) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 149 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 State Homeland Sec Grant/Fire2203 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2203-4100 Personal Services 5,426.00 0.00 0.00 0.002203-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 5,426.00 Total Personal Services 5,426.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,426.00 0.00 2203-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2203-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total State Homeland Sec Grant/Fire 5,426.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,426.00 0.00 149Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 150 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Fireman's Fund Emerg Prep Prog Grant2225 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2225-4200 Contract Services Total Fireman's Fund Emerg Prep Prog Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 151 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Beverage Recycle Grant3102 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3102-4200 Contract Services 15,915.00 2,822.15 2,822.15 49.473102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 5,051.75 8,041.10 Total Beverage Recycle Grant 15,915.00 2,822.15 2,822.15 5,051.75 8,041.10 49.47 151Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 152 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Sea Level Rise Study/Coastal Conservancy3106 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3106-4200 Contract Services 0.00 31,095.54 31,095.54 0.003106-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -31,095.54 Total Sea Level Rise Study/Coastal Conservancy 0.00 31,095.54 31,095.54 0.00 -31,095.54 0.00 152Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 153 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Coastal Permit Auth Grant4104 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4104-4200 Contract Services 223,545.00 58,369.39 58,369.39 100.034104-4201 Contract Serv/Private 165,238.41 -62.80 Total Contract Services 223,545.00 58,369.39 58,369.39 165,238.41 -62.80 100.03 4104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Coastal Permit Auth Grant 223,545.00 58,369.39 58,369.39 165,238.41 -62.80 100.03 153Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 154 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Local Coastal Assistance Grant4107 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4107-4200 Contract Services 95,425.00 58,490.75 58,490.75 61.294107-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 36,934.25 Total Local Coastal Assistance Grant 95,425.00 58,490.75 58,490.75 0.00 36,934.25 61.29 154Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 155 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH8116 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8116-4200 Contract Services 137,208.00 0.00 0.00 0.008116-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 137,208.00 Total Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH 137,208.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 137,208.00 0.00 155Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 156 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 157 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 PCH Traffic Improvements8160 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8160-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8160-4200 Contract Services 95,261.00 0.00 0.00 0.008160-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 95,261.00 Total PCH Traffic Improvements 95,261.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95,261.00 0.00 157Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 158 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Herm View Elem Safe Rte to School Grant8179 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8179-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8179-4200 Contract Services Total Herm View Elem Safe Rte to School Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 158Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 159 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Sewer Impr Various Locations 20128401 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8401-4200 Contract Services 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008401-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 40,000.00 Total Sewer Impr Various Locations 2012 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 159Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 160 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Herm Strand Infiltration Trench-Prop 508420 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8420-4200 Contract Services Total Herm Strand Infiltration Trench-Prop 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 161 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8656-4200 Contract Services Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 161Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 162 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Hermosa Beach Surfing Memorial8661 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8661-4200 Contract Services 0.00 83,914.50 83,914.50 0.008661-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 -83,914.50 Total Hermosa Beach Surfing Memorial 0.00 83,914.50 83,914.50 0.00 -83,914.50 0.00 162Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 163 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Grants Fund150 Energy Eff & Conserv Block Grant (ARRA)8662 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8662-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Energy Eff & Conserv Block Grant (ARRA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Grants Fund 612,780.00 234,692.33 234,692.33 170,290.16 207,797.51 66.09 163Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 164 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund152 Emission Control3701 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3701-4200 Contract Services 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003701-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 30,000.00 Total Contract Services 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 3701-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,600.00 2,040.00 2,040.00 56.673701-4327 AQMD Incentives 0.00 1,560.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 3,600.00 2,040.00 2,040.00 0.00 1,560.00 56.67 3701-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3701-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emission Control 33,600.00 2,040.00 2,040.00 0.00 31,560.00 6.07 164Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 165 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund152 *** Title Not Found ***8615 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8615-4200 Contract Services Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Air Quality Mgmt Dist Fund 33,600.00 2,040.00 2,040.00 0.00 31,560.00 6.07 165Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 166 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF)153 C.O.P.S. Program2106 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2106-4200 Contract Services 64,320.00 59,924.49 59,924.49 93.172106-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 4,395.51 Total Contract Services 64,320.00 59,924.49 59,924.49 0.00 4,395.51 93.17 2106-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2106-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2106-5400 Equipment/Furniture 235,501.00 157,870.16 157,870.16 78.462106-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 26,901.39 50,729.45 Total Equipment/Furniture 235,501.00 157,870.16 157,870.16 26,901.39 50,729.45 78.46 2106-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supp Law Enf Serv Fund (SLESF) 299,821.00 217,794.65 217,794.65 26,901.39 55,124.96 81.61 166Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 167 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Sewers/Storm Drains3102 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3102-4100 Personal Services 82,604.00 56,065.77 56,065.77 67.873102-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 26,538.23 0.00 401.21 401.21 0.003102-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 -401.21 7,205.00 6,767.48 6,767.48 93.933102-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 437.52 15,205.00 10,244.40 10,244.40 67.383102-4180 Retirement 0.00 4,960.60 19,452.00 13,304.88 13,304.88 68.403102-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 6,147.12 1,211.00 924.59 924.59 76.353102-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 286.41 6,213.00 5,698.00 5,698.00 91.713102-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 515.00 Total Personal Services 131,890.00 93,406.33 93,406.33 0.00 38,483.67 70.82 3102-4200 Contract Services 613,799.00 273,504.03 273,504.03 53.993102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 57,860.55 282,434.42 37,756.00 38,532.00 38,532.00 102.063102-4251 Contract Service/Govt 0.00 -776.00 Total Contract Services 651,555.00 312,036.03 312,036.03 57,860.55 281,658.42 56.77 3102-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 994.00 774.11 774.11 77.883102-4303 Utilities 0.00 219.89 19,000.00 6,906.23 6,906.23 36.353102-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 12,093.77 667.00 616.00 616.00 92.353102-4394 Building Maintenance Charges 0.00 51.00 48,114.00 44,104.01 44,104.01 91.673102-4395 Equip Replacement Charges 0.00 4,009.99 42,459.00 38,918.00 38,918.00 91.663102-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 3,541.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 111,234.00 91,318.35 91,318.35 0.00 19,915.65 82.10 3102-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3102-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Sewers/Storm Drains 894,679.00 496,760.71 496,760.71 57,860.55 340,057.74 61.99 167Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 168 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Used Oil Block Grant3105 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3105-4200 Contract Services 8,127.00 4,590.50 4,590.50 56.483105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,536.50 Total Used Oil Block Grant 8,127.00 4,590.50 4,590.50 0.00 3,536.50 56.48 168Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 169 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Sewer Impr Various Locations 20128401 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8401-4100 Personal Services 59,362.00 47,963.84 47,963.84 80.808401-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 11,398.16 0.00 5,921.95 5,921.95 0.008401-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 -5,921.95 3,710.00 2,997.86 2,997.86 80.808401-4180 Retirement 0.00 712.14 6,305.00 5,773.44 5,773.44 91.578401-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 531.56 861.00 783.47 783.47 91.008401-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 77.53 Total Personal Services 70,238.00 63,440.56 63,440.56 0.00 6,797.44 90.32 8401-4200 Contract Services 185,012.00 143,030.00 143,030.00 77.318401-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 41,982.00 Total Contract Services 185,012.00 143,030.00 143,030.00 0.00 41,982.00 77.31 Total Sewer Impr Various Locations 2012 255,250.00 206,470.56 206,470.56 0.00 48,779.44 80.89 169Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 170 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Sewer Improvements- Various Locations8402 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8402-4200 Contract Services 262,454.00 0.00 0.00 0.008402-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 262,454.00 Total Sewer Improvements- Various Locations 262,454.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 262,454.00 0.00 170Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 171 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Sewer Improvements Various Locations8403 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8403-4200 Contract Services Total Sewer Improvements Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 171Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 172 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Sewer Improvements 20068419 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8419-4900 Depreciation Total Sewer Improvements 2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 173 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Sewer Fund160 Storm Drain Impr/Various Locations8426 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8426-4200 Contract Services Total Storm Drain Impr/Various Locations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Sewer Fund 1,420,510.00 707,821.77 707,821.77 57,860.55 654,827.68 53.90 173Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 174 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Storm Drains161 Storm Drains3109 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3109-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3109-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3109-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Storm Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 174Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 175 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170 Special Investigations2103 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2103-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2103-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2103-5400 Equipment/Furniture 355,960.00 176,326.28 176,326.28 89.832103-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 143,435.92 36,197.80 Total Special Investigations 355,960.00 176,326.28 176,326.28 143,435.92 36,197.80 89.83 175Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 176 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170 Police K-9 Program2105 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2105-4200 Contract Services 2,500.00 233.64 233.64 9.352105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 2,266.36 Total Contract Services 2,500.00 233.64 233.64 0.00 2,266.36 9.35 2105-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,200.00 1,081.03 1,081.03 90.092105-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 118.97 3,000.00 1,101.25 1,101.25 36.712105-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 1,898.75 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 4,200.00 2,182.28 2,182.28 0.00 2,017.72 51.96 2105-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2105-5400 Equipment/Furniture 600.00 339.75 339.75 56.632105-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 260.25 Total Equipment/Furniture 600.00 339.75 339.75 0.00 260.25 56.63 Total Police K-9 Program 7,300.00 2,755.67 2,755.67 0.00 4,544.33 37.75 176Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 177 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Asset Seizure/Forft Fund170 Mounted Patrol Unit2116 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2116-4200 Contract Services Total Mounted Patrol Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Asset Seizure/Forft Fund 363,260.00 179,081.95 179,081.95 143,435.92 40,742.13 88.78 177Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 178 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Fire Protection Fund180 Fire Station Renovation & Upgrades8606 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8606-4200 Contract Services Total Fire Protection Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 179 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,324,690.00 1,324,690.00 1,324,690.00 100.001299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 0.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 1,324,690.00 1,324,690.00 1,324,690.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 179Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 180 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 CIP Administration4203 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4203-4100 Personal Services Total Personal Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4203-4200 Contract Services Total CIP Administration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 181 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH8116 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8116-4200 Contract Services 19,466.00 0.00 0.00 0.008116-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 19,466.00 Total Pier Ave/Hermosa Ave to PCH 19,466.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,466.00 0.00 181Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 182 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Citywide St Impr/Various Locations8127 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8127-4200 Contract Services 25,664.00 25,664.00 25,664.00 100.008127-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 0.00 Total Citywide St Impr/Various Locations 25,664.00 25,664.00 25,664.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 182Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 183 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Street Improvements- Various Locations8128 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8128-4200 Contract Services 16,843.00 0.00 0.00 0.008128-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 16,843.00 Total Street Improvements- Various Locations 16,843.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,843.00 0.00 183Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 184 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore8129 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8129-4200 Contract Services Total Pier Avenue/PCH to Ardmore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 184Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 185 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Gould Avenue Street Improvements8141 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8141-4200 Contract Services 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008141-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 75,000.00 Total Gould Avenue Street Improvements 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75,000.00 0.00 185Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 186 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 PCH-Aviation Beautification Project8143 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8143-4200 Contract Services Total PCH-Aviation Beautification Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 186Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 187 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Sewer Impr Various Locations 20128401 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8401-4200 Contract Services 182,861.00 1,980.00 1,980.00 1.088401-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 180,881.00 Total Sewer Impr Various Locations 2012 182,861.00 1,980.00 1,980.00 0.00 180,881.00 1.08 187Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 188 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Sewer Improvements- Various Locations8402 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8402-4200 Contract Services 24,148.00 0.00 0.00 0.008402-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 24,148.00 Total Sewer Improvements- Various Locations 24,148.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,148.00 0.00 188Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 189 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Herm Strand Infiltration Trench-Prop 508420 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8420-4200 Contract Services Total Herm Strand Infiltration Trench-Prop 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 189Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 190 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Clark Field & Comm Center Tennis Light8502 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8502-4200 Contract Services 121,792.00 0.00 0.00 0.008502-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 121,792.00 Total Clark Field & Comm Center Tennis Light 121,792.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121,792.00 0.00 190Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 191 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Lawn Bowling Green Comple Lighting8503 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8503-4200 Contract Services 60,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008503-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 60,000.00 Total Lawn Bowling Green Comple Lighting 60,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 0.00 191Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 192 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 South Park Phase I Improvements8537 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8537-4200 Contract Services 228,259.00 0.00 0.00 0.008537-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 228,259.00 Total South Park Phase I Improvements 228,259.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 228,259.00 0.00 192Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 193 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 *** Title Not Found ***8541 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8541-4200 Contract Services 27,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.008541-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 27,000.00 Total *** Title Not Found *** 27,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,000.00 0.00 193Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 194 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Comm Ctr General Improvements8649 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8649-4200 Contract Services 19,562.00 7,600.00 7,600.00 43.968649-4201 Contract Serv/Private 1,000.00 10,962.00 Total Comm Ctr General Improvements 19,562.00 7,600.00 7,600.00 1,000.00 10,962.00 43.96 194Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 195 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Lot A Trash Enclosure8651 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8651-4200 Contract Services 8,013.00 0.00 0.00 0.008651-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 8,013.00 Total Lot A Trash Enclosure 8,013.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,013.00 0.00 195Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 196 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Hermosa Senior Activity Center8653 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8653-4200 Contract Services Total Hermosa Senior Activity Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 197 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Fire Station Seismic Upgrade8660 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8660-4200 Contract Services Total Fire Station Seismic Upgrade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 197Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 198 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 Parking Structure Repairs8663 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8663-4200 Contract Services 3,014.00 0.00 0.00 0.008663-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,014.00 Total Parking Structure Repairs 3,014.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,014.00 0.00 198Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 199 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Capital Improvement Fund301 City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp8664 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8664-4200 Contract Services 67,897.00 0.00 0.00 0.008664-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 67,897.00 Total City Fac. Condition Assessm.& Asbesto Rp 67,897.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67,897.00 0.00 Total Capital Improvement Fund 2,204,209.00 1,359,934.00 1,359,934.00 1,000.00 843,275.00 61.74 199Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 200 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Artesia Blvd Relinquishment302 Street Maint/Traffic Safety3104 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3104-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Artesia Blvd Relinquishment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 201 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Liability Insurance1209 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1209-4100 Personal Services 33,624.00 29,494.11 29,494.11 87.721209-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 4,129.89 1,891.00 0.00 0.00 0.001209-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,891.00 5,068.00 4,384.75 4,384.75 86.521209-4180 Retirement 0.00 683.25 7,483.00 6,015.43 6,015.43 80.391209-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 1,467.57 523.00 457.19 457.19 87.421209-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 65.81 Total Personal Services 48,589.00 40,351.48 40,351.48 0.00 8,237.52 83.05 1209-4200 Contract Services 574,908.00 6,566,401.50 6,566,401.50 1,143.301209-4201 Contract Serv/Private 6,500.00 -5,997,993.50 Total Contract Services 574,908.00 6,566,401.50 6,566,401.50 6,500.00 -5,997,993.50 1,143.30 1209-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 200.00 1.92 1.92 0.961209-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 198.08 360.00 0.00 0.00 0.001209-4315 Membership 0.00 360.00 600,000.00 312,131.00 312,131.00 52.021209-4324 Claims/Settlements 0.00 287,869.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 600,560.00 312,132.92 312,132.92 0.00 288,427.08 51.97 Total Liability Insurance 1,224,057.00 6,918,885.90 6,918,885.90 6,500.00 -5,701,328.90 565.77 201Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 202 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Auto/Property/Bonds1210 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1210-4200 Contract Services 59,026.00 36,764.00 36,764.00 62.281210-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 22,262.00 Total Contract Services 59,026.00 36,764.00 36,764.00 0.00 22,262.00 62.28 1210-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001210-4324 Claims/Settlements 0.00 10,000.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 Total Auto/Property/Bonds 69,026.00 36,764.00 36,764.00 0.00 32,262.00 53.26 202Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 203 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Unemployment1215 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1215-4100 Personal Services 10,000.00 6,506.50 6,506.50 65.071215-4186 Unemployment Claims 0.00 3,493.50 Total Unemployment 10,000.00 6,506.50 6,506.50 0.00 3,493.50 65.07 203Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 204 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Workers' Compensation1217 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1217-4100 Personal Services 33,624.00 29,494.53 29,494.53 87.721217-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 4,129.47 1,728.00 0.00 0.00 0.001217-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 1,728.00 5,068.00 4,384.82 4,384.82 86.521217-4180 Retirement 0.00 683.18 7,483.00 6,015.67 6,015.67 80.391217-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 1,467.33 523.00 457.26 457.26 87.431217-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 65.74 Total Personal Services 48,426.00 40,352.28 40,352.28 0.00 8,073.72 83.33 1217-4200 Contract Services 309,296.39 261,569.25 261,569.25 84.571217-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 47,727.14 Total Contract Services 309,296.39 261,569.25 261,569.25 0.00 47,727.14 84.57 1217-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 100.00 14.37 14.37 14.371217-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 85.63 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001217-4317 Conference/Training 0.00 1,000.00 1,111,789.61 1,104,279.04 1,104,279.04 99.321217-4324 Claims/Settlements 0.00 7,510.57 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 1,112,889.61 1,104,293.41 1,104,293.41 0.00 8,596.20 99.23 Total Workers' Compensation 1,470,612.00 1,406,214.94 1,406,214.94 0.00 64,397.06 95.62 204Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 205 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Interfund Transfers Out1299 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1299-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,063,903.00 3,063,903.00 3,063,903.00 100.001299-4399 Operating Transfers Out 0.00 0.00 Total Interfund Transfers Out 3,063,903.00 3,063,903.00 3,063,903.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 205Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 206 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Benefit & Cost Analysis/Oil Project4105 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4105-4200 Contract Services 91,991.88 66,574.69 66,574.69 72.374105-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 25,417.19 Total Benefit & Cost Analysis/Oil Project 91,991.88 66,574.69 66,574.69 0.00 25,417.19 72.37 206Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 207 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Insurance Fund705 Community Dialogue4106 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4106-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4106-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Community Dialogue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Insurance Fund 5,929,589.88 11,498,849.03 11,498,849.03 6,500.00 -5,575,759.15 194.03 207Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 208 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 City Council1101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1101-4900 Depreciation 15,611.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 15,611.00 5,437.00 0.00 0.00 0.001101-4903 Depreciation/Bldgs 0.00 5,437.00 Total Depreciation 21,048.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,048.00 0.00 1101-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1101-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total City Council 21,048.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,048.00 0.00 208Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 209 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 City Clerk1121 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1121-4200 Contract Services Total City Clerk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 209Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 210 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 City Manager1201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1201-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total City Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 210Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 211 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Finance Cashier1204 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1204-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1204-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Finance Cashier 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 212 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Information Technology1206 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1206-4200 Contract Services 564,725.00 421,770.73 421,770.73 74.691206-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 142,954.27 Total Contract Services 564,725.00 421,770.73 421,770.73 0.00 142,954.27 74.69 1206-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,232.00 2,558.15 2,558.15 79.151206-4304 Telephone 0.00 673.85 17,000.00 10,686.40 10,686.40 62.861206-4305 Office Oper Supplies 0.00 6,313.60 103.00 99.00 99.00 96.121206-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 4.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 20,335.00 13,343.55 13,343.55 0.00 6,991.45 65.62 1206-4900 Depreciation 49,861.00 0.00 0.00 0.001206-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 49,861.00 Total Depreciation 49,861.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49,861.00 0.00 1206-5400 Equipment/Furniture 49,407.00 23,285.82 23,285.82 47.131206-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 26,121.18 33,968.00 25,148.31 25,148.31 74.041206-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 8,819.69 56,197.00 21,209.50 21,209.50 37.741206-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 34,987.50 Total Equipment/Furniture 139,572.00 69,643.63 69,643.63 0.00 69,928.37 49.90 Total Information Technology 774,493.00 504,757.91 504,757.91 0.00 269,735.09 65.17 212Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 213 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 General Appropriations1208 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1208-4200 Contract Services 9,000.00 8,257.24 8,257.24 91.751208-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 742.76 Total Contract Services 9,000.00 8,257.24 8,257.24 0.00 742.76 91.75 1208-4900 Depreciation 6,956.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 6,956.00 Total Depreciation 6,956.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,956.00 0.00 1208-5400 Equipment/Furniture 29,056.00 0.00 0.00 0.001208-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 29,056.00 Total Equipment/Furniture 29,056.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,056.00 0.00 Total General Appropriations 45,012.00 8,257.24 8,257.24 0.00 36,754.76 18.34 213Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 214 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Police2101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2101-4200 Contract Services 26,932.00 26,712.55 26,712.55 99.192101-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 219.45 Total Contract Services 26,932.00 26,712.55 26,712.55 0.00 219.45 99.19 2101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 81,402.00 48,842.98 48,842.98 60.002101-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 32,559.02 52,000.00 32,674.81 32,674.81 62.842101-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 19,325.19 50,233.00 50,302.21 50,302.21 100.142101-4350 Safety Gear 0.00 -69.21 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 183,635.00 131,820.00 131,820.00 0.00 51,815.00 71.78 2101-4900 Depreciation 82,821.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 82,821.00 125,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 125,932.00 Total Depreciation 208,753.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 208,753.00 0.00 2101-5400 Equipment/Furniture 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.002101-5401 Equip-Less Than $1,000 0.00 2,000.00 7,642.00 752.10 752.10 9.842101-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 6,889.90 186,288.00 121,818.90 121,818.90 65.392101-5403 Vehicles 0.00 64,469.10 43,275.00 12,365.58 12,365.58 28.572101-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 30,909.42 Total Equipment/Furniture 239,205.00 134,936.58 134,936.58 0.00 104,268.42 56.41 2101-5600 Buildings/Improvements Total Buildings/Improvements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Police 658,525.00 293,469.13 293,469.13 0.00 365,055.87 44.56 214Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 215 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Fire2201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2201-4200 Contract Services 30,840.00 18,126.58 18,126.58 58.782201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 12,713.42 Total Contract Services 30,840.00 18,126.58 18,126.58 0.00 12,713.42 58.78 2201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 20,847.00 10,820.00 10,820.00 51.902201-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 10,027.00 14,858.00 10,561.61 10,561.61 71.082201-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 4,296.39 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 35,705.00 21,381.61 21,381.61 0.00 14,323.39 59.88 2201-4900 Depreciation 5,291.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 5,291.00 95,067.00 0.00 0.00 0.002201-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 95,067.00 Total Depreciation 100,358.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,358.00 0.00 2201-5400 Equipment/Furniture 11,250.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 124.292201-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 9,483.00 -2,733.00 242,547.00 200,304.92 200,304.92 82.582201-5403 Vehicles 0.00 42,242.08 81,255.00 78,844.00 78,844.00 97.032201-5405 Equipment more than $5,000 0.00 2,411.00 Total Equipment/Furniture 335,052.00 283,648.92 283,648.92 9,483.00 41,920.08 87.49 Total Fire 501,955.00 323,157.11 323,157.11 9,483.00 169,314.89 66.27 215Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 216 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Lighting/Landscaping/Medians2601 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 2601-4200 Contract Services 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 5,400.00 Total Contract Services 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 0.00 2601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 6,700.00 2,915.76 2,915.76 43.522601-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 3,784.24 1,300.00 223.07 223.07 17.162601-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 1,076.93 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 8,000.00 3,138.83 3,138.83 0.00 4,861.17 39.24 2601-4900 Depreciation 12,811.00 0.00 0.00 0.002601-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 12,811.00 Total Depreciation 12,811.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,811.00 0.00 2601-5400 Equipment/Furniture 41,420.00 0.00 0.00 71.182601-5403 Vehicles 29,483.91 11,936.09 Total Equipment/Furniture 41,420.00 0.00 0.00 29,483.91 11,936.09 71.18 Total Lighting/Landscaping/Medians 67,631.00 3,138.83 3,138.83 29,483.91 35,008.26 48.24 216Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 217 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Sewers/Storm Drains3102 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3102-4200 Contract Services 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 5,000.00 Total Contract Services 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 3102-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 1,000.00 5,825.00 2,653.09 2,653.09 45.553102-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 3,171.91 2,384.00 2,565.55 2,565.55 107.623102-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 -181.55 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 9,209.00 5,218.64 5,218.64 0.00 3,990.36 56.67 3102-4900 Depreciation 2,032.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 2,032.00 27,137.00 0.00 0.00 0.003102-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 27,137.00 Total Depreciation 29,169.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,169.00 0.00 3102-5400 Equipment/Furniture 242,564.00 0.00 0.00 94.973102-5403 Vehicles 230,360.13 12,203.87 Total Equipment/Furniture 242,564.00 0.00 0.00 230,360.13 12,203.87 94.97 Total Sewers/Storm Drains 285,942.00 5,218.64 5,218.64 230,360.13 50,363.23 82.39 217Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 218 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Street Maint/Traffic Safety3104 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3104-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 9,520.00 4,528.17 4,528.17 47.563104-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 4,991.83 2,977.00 2,219.77 2,219.77 74.563104-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 757.23 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 12,497.00 6,747.94 6,747.94 0.00 5,749.06 54.00 3104-4900 Depreciation 4,427.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 4,427.00 14,882.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 14,882.00 Total Depreciation 19,309.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,309.00 0.00 3104-5400 Equipment/Furniture 1,675.00 1,735.28 1,735.28 103.603104-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 -60.28 91,375.00 0.00 0.00 0.003104-5403 Vehicles 0.00 91,375.00 Total Equipment/Furniture 93,050.00 1,735.28 1,735.28 0.00 91,314.72 1.86 Total Street Maint/Traffic Safety 124,856.00 8,483.22 8,483.22 0.00 116,372.78 6.79 218Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 219 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Storm Drains3109 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3109-4200 Contract Services Total Contract Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3109-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Materials/Supplies/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3109-4900 Depreciation Total Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3109-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Storm Drains 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 219Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 220 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Downtown Enhancement3301 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3301-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Downtown Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 220Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 221 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Community Services3302 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 3302-4200 Contract Services 228,279.00 2,340.40 2,340.40 1.033302-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 225,938.60 Total Contract Services 228,279.00 2,340.40 2,340.40 0.00 225,938.60 1.03 3302-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 22,592.00 15,344.84 15,344.84 67.923302-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 7,247.16 8,000.00 12,448.94 12,448.94 155.613302-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 -4,448.94 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 30,592.00 27,793.78 27,793.78 0.00 2,798.22 90.85 3302-4900 Depreciation 11,942.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 11,942.00 25,601.00 0.00 0.00 0.003302-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 25,601.00 Total Depreciation 37,543.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,543.00 0.00 3302-5400 Equipment/Furniture 4,624.00 1,128.15 1,128.15 24.403302-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 3,495.85 71,667.00 33,569.07 33,569.07 46.843302-5403 Vehicles 0.00 38,097.93 Total Equipment/Furniture 76,291.00 34,697.22 34,697.22 0.00 41,593.78 45.48 Total Community Services 372,705.00 64,831.40 64,831.40 0.00 307,873.60 17.39 221Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 222 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Community Dev/Building4201 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4201-4200 Contract Services 620,376.00 235,966.01 235,966.01 38.044201-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 384,409.99 Total Contract Services 620,376.00 235,966.01 235,966.01 0.00 384,409.99 38.04 4201-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 2,805.00 242.12 242.12 8.634201-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 2,562.88 838.00 340.17 340.17 40.594201-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 497.83 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 3,643.00 582.29 582.29 0.00 3,060.71 15.98 4201-4900 Depreciation 4,970.00 0.00 0.00 0.004201-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 4,970.00 Total Depreciation 4,970.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,970.00 0.00 4201-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Community Dev/Building 628,989.00 236,548.30 236,548.30 0.00 392,440.70 37.61 222Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 223 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Public Works Administration4202 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4202-4200 Contract Services 530.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 530.00 Total Contract Services 530.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 530.00 0.00 4202-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,795.00 2,024.09 2,024.09 53.344202-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 1,770.91 7,904.00 561.55 561.55 7.104202-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 7,342.45 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 11,699.00 2,585.64 2,585.64 0.00 9,113.36 22.10 4202-4900 Depreciation 1,066.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 1,066.00 3,757.00 0.00 0.00 0.004202-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 3,757.00 Total Depreciation 4,823.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,823.00 0.00 4202-5400 Equipment/Furniture 0.00 3,535.38 3,535.38 0.004202-5403 Vehicles 0.00 -3,535.38 Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 3,535.38 3,535.38 0.00 -3,535.38 0.00 Total Public Works Administration 17,052.00 6,121.02 6,121.02 0.00 10,930.98 35.90 223Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 224 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Building Maintenance4204 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4204-4200 Contract Services 237,964.00 15,462.69 15,462.69 6.504204-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 222,501.31 Total Contract Services 237,964.00 15,462.69 15,462.69 0.00 222,501.31 6.50 4204-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 690.00 242.94 242.94 35.214204-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 447.06 4,047.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 4,047.00 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 4,737.00 242.94 242.94 0.00 4,494.06 5.13 4204-4900 Depreciation 2,042.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 2,042.00 1,739.00 0.00 0.00 0.004204-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 1,739.00 Total Depreciation 3,781.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,781.00 0.00 4204-5400 Equipment/Furniture 163,780.00 4,515.09 4,515.09 2.764204-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 159,264.91 Total Equipment/Furniture 163,780.00 4,515.09 4,515.09 0.00 159,264.91 2.76 4204-5600 Buildings/Improvements 9,800.00 3,126.75 3,126.75 31.914204-5602 Imprvmnts Other Than Bldgs 0.00 6,673.25 Total Buildings/Improvements 9,800.00 3,126.75 3,126.75 0.00 6,673.25 31.91 Total Building Maintenance 420,062.00 23,347.47 23,347.47 0.00 396,714.53 5.56 224Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 225 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Equipment Service4206 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4206-4100 Personal Services 123,500.00 97,613.67 97,613.67 79.044206-4102 Regular Salaries 0.00 25,886.33 3,000.00 717.64 717.64 23.924206-4106 Regular Overtime 0.00 2,282.36 8,213.00 1,539.55 1,539.55 18.754206-4111 Accrual Cash In 0.00 6,673.45 18,845.00 13,988.18 13,988.18 74.234206-4180 Retirement 0.00 4,856.82 40,424.00 31,618.71 31,618.71 78.224206-4188 Employee Benefits 0.00 8,805.29 1,797.00 1,453.88 1,453.88 80.914206-4189 Medicare Benefits 0.00 343.12 11,963.00 10,967.00 10,967.00 91.674206-4190 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 0.00 996.00 Total Personal Services 207,742.00 157,898.63 157,898.63 0.00 49,843.37 76.01 4206-4200 Contract Services 6,900.00 2,969.66 2,969.66 43.044206-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 3,930.34 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-4251 Contract Services/Govt 0.00 500.00 Total Contract Services 7,400.00 2,969.66 2,969.66 0.00 4,430.34 40.13 4206-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 3,500.00 2,224.26 2,224.26 63.554206-4309 Maintenance Materials 0.00 1,275.74 2,300.00 1,591.06 1,591.06 69.184206-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 708.94 1,300.00 2,627.94 2,627.94 202.154206-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 -1,327.94 38,859.00 35,617.34 35,617.34 91.664206-4396 Insurance User Charges 0.00 3,241.66 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 45,959.00 42,060.60 42,060.60 0.00 3,898.40 91.52 4206-4900 Depreciation 791.00 0.00 0.00 0.004206-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 791.00 Total Depreciation 791.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 791.00 0.00 4206-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Equipment Service 261,892.00 202,928.89 202,928.89 0.00 58,963.11 77.49 225Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 226 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Community Resources4601 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4601-4200 Contract Services 780.00 2.48 2.48 0.324601-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 777.52 Total Contract Services 780.00 2.48 2.48 0.00 777.52 0.32 4601-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 2,200.00 1,386.58 1,386.58 63.034601-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 813.42 500.00 152.46 152.46 128.284601-4311 Auto Maintenance 488.94 -141.40 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 2,700.00 1,539.04 1,539.04 488.94 672.02 75.11 4601-4900 Depreciation 2,138.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4901 Depreciation/Mach/Equipment 0.00 2,138.00 2,352.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 2,352.00 Total Depreciation 4,490.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,490.00 0.00 4601-5400 Equipment/Furniture 2,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.004601-5402 Equip-More Than $1,000 0.00 2,800.00 Total Equipment/Furniture 2,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,800.00 0.00 Total Community Resources 10,770.00 1,541.52 1,541.52 488.94 8,739.54 18.85 226Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 227 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Parks6101 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 6101-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other 4,000.00 3,850.63 3,850.63 96.276101-4310 Motor Fuels And Lubes 0.00 149.37 1,300.00 2,424.57 2,424.57 186.516101-4311 Auto Maintenance 0.00 -1,124.57 Total Materials/Supplies/Other 5,300.00 6,275.20 6,275.20 0.00 -975.20 118.40 6101-4900 Depreciation 4,455.00 0.00 0.00 0.006101-4902 Depreciation/Vehicles 0.00 4,455.00 Total Depreciation 4,455.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,455.00 0.00 6101-5400 Equipment/Furniture Total Equipment/Furniture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Parks 9,755.00 6,275.20 6,275.20 0.00 3,479.80 64.33 227Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 228 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Civic Center Strategic Plan8609 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8609-4200 Contract Services Total Civic Center Strategic Plan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 228Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 229 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Public Works Yard Renovation8612 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8612-4200 Contract Services Total Public Works Yard Renovation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 229Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 230 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Equipment Replacement Fund715 Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades8656 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 8656-4200 Contract Services 639,456.00 0.00 0.00 0.008656-4201 Contract Serv/Private 0.00 639,456.00 Total Citywide Energy Conservation Upgrades 639,456.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 639,456.00 0.00 Total Equipment Replacement Fund 4,840,143.00 1,688,075.88 1,688,075.88 269,815.98 2,882,251.14 40.45 230Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 231 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Gen Fixed Assets Account Group905 Sale Of Fixed Assets1291 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 1291-4300 Materials/Supplies/Other Total Sale Of Fixed Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 231Page: 06/16/2015 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 232 4:46PM Page:expstat.rpt Expenditure Status Report 7/1/2014 through 5/31/2015 Periods: 1 through 11 Gen Fixed Assets Account Group905 Infrastructure Purchases4209 Prct UsedBalance Year-to-date Encumbrances Year-to-date ExpendituresExpenditures Adjusted AppropriationAccount Number 4209-9000 Infrastructure Total Infrastructure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9100 *** Title Not Found *** Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9200 *** Title Not Found *** Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9300 *** Title Not Found *** Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9400 *** Title Not Found *** Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9500 *** Title Not Found *** Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9700 *** Title Not Found *** Total *** Title Not Found *** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4209-9900 *** Title Not Found *** Total Gen Fixed Assets Account Group 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 55,433,803.88 43,849,626.04 43,849,626.04 81.09 1,101,375.06 10,482,802.78 232Page: Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0513 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT (City Treasurer Karen Nowicki) Recommended Action: To receive and file the May, 2015 City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report. Summary: Investments in the report meet the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach’s adopted investment policy. Attached is a report of all inactive Public Deposits for the month of May,2015.This is the most current available investment information. Attachments: 1.City Treasurer’s Report 2.Cash Balance Report Respectfully Submitted by: Karen Nowicki, City Treasurer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ TREASURER'S REPORT MAY 2015 INSTITUTIONS RATE YELD DATE OF DATE OF ORIGINAL MARKET *COST/MARKET FACE/PAR OF TO %WEIGHTED INVESTMENT TYPE/INSTITUTION CUSIP #BOOK VALUE INVESTMENT MATURITY COST VALUE DIFFERENCE VALUE INTEREST MATURITY TOTAL YIELD POOLED INVESTMENTS LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund)$2,232,087.78 $2,232,087.78 0.270%6.403% LACPIF (Los Angeles County Pooled Investment Funds)$28,701,759.85 $28,701,759.85 0.640%82.374% Pooled Investments % of Total Investment 88.780%$30,933,847.63 CHECKING ACCOUNT - EVERTRUST BANK 0.003%$1,000.00 0.003% CORPORATE NOTES General Electric Capital Corporation 36962G6R0 $500,000.00 8/16/2013 1/8/2016 $500,452.78 $501,770.00 $1,317.22 $500,000.00 1.000%1.000%1.435%1.435% Corporate Notes % of Total Investment 1.435%$500,000.00 AGENCIES Federal Farm Credit Bank - Continuously Callable - Next Call 5/08/15 3133EDL75 CALLED 5/8/2014 5/8/2018 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 3137EADK2 $489,400.32 8/1/2014 8/1/2019 $487,250.00 $496,950.00 $9,700.00 $500,000.00 1.250%1.785%1.405%2.508% Agencies % of Total Investment 1.405%$489,400.32 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT EverTrust Bank $248,000.00 5/13/2014 6/15/2015 $248,000.00 $248,000.00 $0.00 $248,000.00 1.000%1.000%0.712%0.712% Certificate of Deposit % of Total Investment 0.712%$248,000.00 NEGOTIABLE CDS BMW Bank of Northern America 05568PW29 $248,000.00 4/13/2012 4/13/2016 $247,032.80 $249,675.78 $2,642.98 $248,000.00 1.250%1.350%0.712%0.961% Goldman Sachs Bank 38143AQB4 $247,000.00 4/18/2012 4/18/2017 $247,000.00 $251,912.37 $4,912.37 $247,000.00 1.850%1.850%0.709%1.312% Banco Bilbao 059457UM1 $248,776.48 4/20/2012 4/20/2016 $248,004.00 $250,833.44 $2,829.44 $249,000.00 1.300%1.403%0.714%1.002% Cit Bank 17284AYT9 $193,230.00 7/29/2013 9/21/2015 $194,312.74 $190,830.48 ($3,482.26)$193,230.00 0.800%0.800%0.555%0.444% Farmers and Merchants 308862DA6 $248,000.00 9/20/2013 9/20/2016 $248,000.00 $249,254.31 $1,254.31 $248,000.00 1.000%1.000%0.712%0.712% First Merchant Bank 32082BCY3 $248,000.00 3/21/2014 9/21/2017 $248,000.00 $248,366.68 $366.68 $248,000.00 1.000%1.000%0.712%0.712% Ally Bank 02006LEH2 $248,000.00 5/7/2014 5/8/2017 $248,000.00 $249,311.46 $1,311.46 $248,000.00 1.100%1.100%0.712%0.783% Sallie Mae Bank 795450UB9 $248,000.00 10/22/2014 10/22/2019 $248,000.00 $254,942.68 $6,942.68 $248,000.00 2.150%2.150%0.712%1.531% American Express Bank 02587CCC2 $247,000.00 10/23/2014 10/23/2019 $247,000.00 $254,450.48 $7,450.48 $247,000.00 2.200%2.200%0.709%1.560% Peoples UTD Bank 71270QLM6 $247,000.00 1/21/2015 1/21/2020 $247,000.00 $250,354.21 $3,354.21 $247,000.00 1.850%1.850%0.709%1.312% Private Bank and Trust 74267GUU9 $248,000.00 1/23/2015 1/23/2020 $248,000.00 $251,934.00 $3,934.00 $248,000.00 1.900%1.900%0.712%1.353% Negotiable CD % of Total Investment 7.666%$2,671,006.48 100.000% TOTAL ALL INVESTMENTS $34,843,254.43 $3,906,052.32 $3,948,585.89 $42,533.57 $34,853,077.63 Average Rate of Interest 1.285% Average Yield to Maturity 1.456% In compliance with the California Code Section 53646, the Treasurer of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby certifies that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the City's budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months.Investments in the report meet the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach's adopted investment policy. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, KAREN NOWICKI CITY TREASURER CASH BALANCE REPORT MAY 2015 GENERAL ACCOUNTFUND 5/1/2015 5/31/2015NUMBERFUND NAME BALANCE CASH ADJUSTMENTS CHECKS ADJUSTMENTS BALANCE 001 GENERAL $12,506,887.05 $4,679,992.35 $151,710.30 ($1,825,293.71)($902,226.05)$14,611,069.94 105 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING $67,773.71 $58,506.06 $6,534.35 ($31,928.84)(8,375.65)$92,509.63 115 STATE GAS TAX $232,815.59 $237.92 ($3,280.83)($24,977.64)$204,795.04 117 AB939 $1,834.77 $0.03 ($6,681.78)(795.39)($5,642.37)121 PROP A OPEN SPACE ($43,637.02)(39,000.00)(1,713.00)($84,350.02)122 TYCO $720,613.63 $39,855.64 $736.41 (142,642.46)$618,563.22123TYCO TIDELANDS $2,557.08 $2.61 $2,559.69125PARK REC FAC TAX $522,060.33 $62,753.00 $533.51 (64,774.05)$520,572.79 135 BAYVIEW DRIVE DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $1,962.53 $1.98 (304.00)$1,660.51 136 LOWER PIER DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $4,562.44 (187.00)$4,375.44 137 MYRTLE DRIVE DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $13,392.81 $13.51 (439.00)$12,967.32 138 LOMA DRIVE DISTRICT ADMIN EXPENSE $19,198.58 $19.36 (476.00)$18,741.94 139 BEACH DRIVE ASSESSMENT ADMIN EXP $2,829.31 $2.85 (158.00)$2,674.16145PROPOSITION A $718,316.25 $30,151.84 $734.06 (8,892.51)(13.11)$740,296.53146PROPOSITION C $803,178.20 $24,574.58 $820.78 $828,573.56147MEASURE R $667,934.61 $69,026.57 $682.58 (6,960.34)(2,678.98)$728,004.44150GRANTS$79,923.95 $37,400.15 (7,306.50)$110,017.60 152 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT $23,261.45 $6,342.33 $23.77 (197.80)(12.20)$29,417.55 153 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES $84,698.88 $8,300.00 $86.56 (438.96)$92,646.48 160 SEWER MAINTENANCE $3,952,474.22 $18,909.85 $70,863.00 (54,226.30)(9,674.55)$3,978,346.22 170 ASSET SEIZURE $189,051.61 $193.19 $189,244.80180FIRE PROTECTION $44,294.39 $4,011.18 $45.26 $48,350.83301CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $1,502,008.25 $20.05 $1,502,028.30302ARTESIA BLVD RELINQUISHMENT FUND $5,474.37 $5.52 $5,479.89609BAYVIEW DRIVE DISTRICT REDEMPTION $130,404.27 $9,402.19 $131.52 $139,937.98 610 LOWER PIER DISTRICT REDEMPTION $40,556.24 $4,533.68 $40.90 $45,130.82 611 BEACH DRIVE DISTRICT REDEMPTION $68,157.88 $5,289.23 $68.74 $73,515.85 612 BEACH DRIVE DISTRICT RESERVE $4,116.92 $4.15 $4,121.07 617 MYRTLE DRIVE DISTRICT REDEMPTION $113,743.97 $12,324.01 $114.72 $126,182.70 618 LOMA DRIVE DISTRICT REDEMPTION $135,697.16 $13,577.84 $136.86 $149,411.86619BAYVIEW DRIVE DISTRICT RESERVE $13,518.75 $13.64 $13,532.39705INSURANCE $9,910,708.09 $231,904.00 (88,129.94)(1,227.16)$10,053,254.99715EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $5,352,726.75 $126,572.25 (89,034.65)(4,366.20)$5,385,898.15900INVESTMENT $0.00 $5,686.34 $24,223.38 (29,909.72)$0.00 TOTAL GENERAL ACCOUNT $37,893,097.02 $5,090,636.84 $616,477.76 ($2,368,788.67)($987,533.65)$40,243,889.30 TRUST BALANCE BALANCEACCOUNTS5/1/2015 DEPOSITS CHARGES 5/31/2015 PAYROLL $11,213.32 $1,219,486.69 ($1,219,388.94)$11,311.07 CABLE TV DEPOSIT $16,568.95 $16,568.95 $27,782.27 $27,880.02 TOTAL ALL ACCOUNTS $40,271,769.32 $34,843,254.43 BANK BALANCES INVESTMENTS GENERAL $12,140,719.67TRUST ACCOUNTS $36,819.83$180,202.28 $12,177,539.50OUTSTANDING CHECKS ($6,749,024.61) INTEREST COLLECTED $5,428,514.89 TO DATE FOR FY 14/15 INVESTMENTS $34,843,254.43BALANCE$40,271,769.32 KAREN NOWICKI, CITY TREASURER Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0524 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 ACTION SHEET OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2015 Recommended Action: To receive and file the action sheet of the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2015. Attachments: Planning Commission Action Sheet of June 16, 2015 Approved:Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 1 ACTION SHEET AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 June 16, 2015 8:00 P.M. (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING DOES NOT START AT THE REGULAR TIME OF 7:00 P.M.) Michael Flaherty, Chairman Sam Perrotti, Vice Chairman Ron Pizer Peter Hoffman Kent Allen 1.Pledge of Allegiance 2.Roll Call. ALL PRESENT. 3.Oral / Written Communications - Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I Consent Calendar 4. Approval of the May 19, 2014 action minutes ACTION: APPROVED AS PRESENTED (5-0) 5.Resolution(s) for consideration – a) Resolution P.C. 15-17 to revoke a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment, in conjunction with an existing restaurant (‘the Establishment’), and rescinding C.C. Resolution 08-6617, at 1332 Hermosa Avenue. ACTION: ADOPTED RESOLUTION P.C. 15-17 TO REVOKE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1332 HERMOSA AVENUE, ESTABLISHEMENT (3-2; COMMISSION HOFFMAN AND CHAIRMAN FLAHERTY NO ) This final action is subject to potential review by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2.52 of the Municipal Code*, or may be appealed to the City Council by any party if filed by July 6, 2015. Section II 2 Hearing 6.S-21 #20 -- Request to determine whether the property is a convex sloping lot and may use alternative points adjacent to the top of the retaining wall along Hermosa Avenue for the purpose of measuring building height at 3224 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: By Minute Order determine the property is a convex sloping lot and direct staff to use alternative survey points along the north and south property lines, minus 1 foot, and use elevation points adjacent to the top of the retaining wall along Hermosa Avenue for the purpose of measuring building height. ACTION: DETERMINED, BY MINUTE ORDER, THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A CONVEX SLOPING LOT AND STAFF TO USE ALTERNATIVE SURVEY POINTS ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES, MINUS 1 FOOT, AND USE ELEVATION POINTS ADJACENT TO THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL ALONG HERMOSA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT (5-0). This action is not appealable by applicant or public; however, it may be reviewed by City Council pursuant to Chapter 2.52 of the Municipal Code*. 7.CUP 15-4 / PDP 15-6 -- Request to extend the expiration dates of Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit amendments to convert an auto body, painting and general repair use to auto repair and sales for a maximum of two vehicles use; substantially replace 4,816+ square feet of buildings with 9,203+ square feet of buildings (6,000+ square feet auto repair and 3,203+ square feet of accessory office/storage), surface parking and landscaping; and amend hours of operation and other conditions for consistency with the revised use and site plan at 1086 Aviation Boulevard & 1111 Prospect Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt a Minute Order extending the expiration dates for a Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit amendments for an auto repair business at 1086 Aviation Boulevard and 1111 Prospect Avenue by two years to June 18, 2017. ACTION: ADOPTED A MINUTE ORDER EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATES FOR SUBJECT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENTS BY ONE YEAR TO JUNE 18, 2016 (5-0). This action is not appealable by applicant or public; however, it may be reviewed by City Council pursuant to Chapter 2.52 of the Municipal Code*. Section III 8.Staff Items a.Report on City Council actions. b.Report on comprehensive planning processes. c.Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. d.Community Development Department activity report of April, 2015. 9.Commissioner Items THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING BACK AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING CONVEX SLOPE DETERMINATIONS. 3 10. Adjournment *Chapter 2.52, Section 2.52.040 of the Municipal Code provides for Council review and reconsideration of any decision of the Planning Commission by two affirmative votes at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. In the event the Council initiates a review, the review will be placed on a future agenda of City Council within a reasonable time period, and the Commission’s decision is stayed pending Council’s review and final decision. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0526 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 12, 2015 Recommended Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Joint City Council and Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Study Session of May 12, 2015. Attachments: Minutes of May 12, 2015 Approved: Kelly Orta, Senior Recreation Supervisor Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 2015 JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STUDY SESSION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Peter Tucker. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Present: Mayor Peter Tucker Councilmembers: Hany Fangary, Carolyn Petty Commissioners: Jessica Guheen, Jani Lange, Laura Raymond, Robert Rosenfeld City Manager, Tom Bakaly City Attorney, Michael Jenkins Senior Recreation Supervisor, Kelly Orta Study Session Special Event/Volleyball Subcommittee Update Staff Report(s) Attachments: A. Subcommittee Report Orta presented the Staff Report. Commissioners Guheen and Lange presented their Subcommittee Report, focusing on the first and second recommendations. Councilmember Fangary stated that since the entire Commission was unable to hear the recommendations prior to the meeting, he would like to hear the input of those outside of the subcommittee. Councilmember Fangary asked how the stakeholders were chosen. Commissioner Guheen stated that those who spoke on the topic at both City Council and Commission meetings were chosen along with staff input. Councilmember Fangary asked if setting a time frame on when the volleyball courts were to be used was discussed. Bakaly added that there is no set open time for people to be on the beach. The issue of noise needs to be considered and perhaps this can be something the subcommittee can address. Commissioner Guheen confirmed that this will considered within the third recommendation item. Councilmember Fangary asked how those giving instruction on the volleyball courts, would be challenged off a court since they are not playing a game and if the issue of challenging courts has been considered by the subcommittee. Commissioner Guheen replied that feedback was made on making some courts strictly first come-first serve and installing adjustable courts so children can play, both without the option to challenge. This would coincide with the third recommendation item as well. Commission Raymond asked for clarification on the comment of instructors on the volleyball courts since they are policies in place regarding that. Orta replied that the Outdoor Fitness Permit exists within the commercial zone and what Councilmember Fangary is referring to is activity taking place within the residential zone. Bakaly added the exchange of money qualifies such activity as commercial play, and all other training or teaching without the exchange of money would be just practicing. Both issues should be looked at by the subcommittee. Councilmember Fangary asked for further clarification on the request for adjustable courts. Commissioner Guheen stated the resident who made the request discussed making a donation but the subcommittee has not followed up on the offer until further direction was received from City Council. Councilmember Petty asked if there are broken courts in the residential zone. Commissioner Guheen replied that the current policy states that the court holders need to maintain the courts, but there is no clear definition of what maintaining consists of. Upon research done by the stakeholders there are little to no broken courts. Councilmember Petty asked if the adjustable courts will be the same quality as the permanent courts. Commissioner Guheen and Commissioner Lange replied that is unknown to them. If direction was given, the subcommittee would do further research to find out if adjustable courts are a viable solution. Councilmember Petty asked if the current layout of the volleyball courts within the commercial zone is problematic. Commissioner Guheen replied that a potential of 6 courts could be added to the north side and up to 4 more courts could be added to the south side if the current layout is adjusted. Councilmember Petty asked Commission for their feedback on whether or not the current special event approval process is working. Commissioner Guheen replied that is unknown at this time but shared her opinion that focusing on the application and review process is beneficial regardless. Commissioner Lange shared that he believes the process is working, when considering the event producer’s job at hand, but agreed the process needs to be looked at. Councilmember Petty asked if the entire commercial zone, both the north and south side, is used at the same time. Orta replied that not in the past few months, as the north side would be booked for special events and the south side for residential play or contract classes. However, through last year, both the north and south side would be booked at the same time for special events. Commissioner Guheen added this falls in line with why the application and review process of special events needs to be reviewed. Councilmember Fangary asked what information Commission would like to be presented regarding special events. Commissioner Raymond stated that the commitment from staff to oversee special events on the day of needs to be determined due to past issues with events straying from the approved site plan. Councilmember Petty added this could be linked to staff cuts made in 2008. Councilmember Petty asked for a copy of Municipal Code 12.28.120 be given to City Council. Councilmember Petty asked for more information on the current fee structure for special events. Bakaly responded there are different rates for commercial and non-profit events, and multiple fee-waiver requests are submitted. The recommendation asks for direction on if the fee structure needs to be reviewed or adjusted. Orta added that four different fee categories exist depending on event size. Mayor Tucker stated the main concern is the activity within the commercial zone and agrees that looking at the layout of the existing volleyball courts and possibility of adding more needs to be further reviewed. The larger tournaments need to be reviewed and approved first. It is also suggested that a court maintenance fee be added into the fee structure. Bakaly added that the August through December Special Events Calendar will be presented before City Council soon and asked what information is asked of staff. Mayor Tucker opened for Public Comment. Chris Brown, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that more of the volleyball community needs to be involved in this discussion. The current system is not broken. Angela Freeman asked that the fee structures of local communities be considered in order to remain competitive. Donny Young, Hermosa Beach resident, stated there should be space for other recreational activities other than volleyball due to the large number of volleyball courts that currently exists. Sandy Seaman, Hermosa Beach resident, said to limit to one major event per month, focusing on local play and nonprofit events first, and classify events exceeding 200 people as pro tournaments to make it easier to plan moving forward. Seaman stated that special event fees need to be raised. There needs to be enforcement of managing unauthorized play, and permitted users need to be posted. All courts should be public and owned by the City so they are maintained properly. It is also suggested that the second recommendation be looked at first and the first recommendation will then fall into place. Dave Fulton, Hermosa Beach resident, said that the beach is for everyone’s enjoyment and the best use of the beach needs to remain the focus, with policies in place encouraging this. Lauren Pizer, Hermosa Beach resident, agreed that the residents and the professional volleyball players can work together to find the best balance and the addition of volleyball courts within the commercial zone will meet the needs. It was also agreed that the City needs to take over maintenance of all volleyball ball courts and it was suggested it happen with the help of Leadership Hermosa. Councilmember Fangary, answering Bakaly’s question from earlier, stated that more information regarding special events is best when reviewing the August-December Special Events Calendar. First-time events or large event producers need to be present to address any questions or concerns from City Council. Staff can determine if the event producers should be present in regards to the smaller events. Councilmember Fangary agreed that the evaluation on special event fees is needed and that enforcement must be done to ensure events stay within their approved site plan. He also added that the unauthorized instruction is an issue and needs to be kept in mind by the subcommittee. Councilmember Petty agreed with the first two recommendations with some comments. The quality standard of adjustable courts needs to be researched. The City needs to recoup their costs with all special events; therefore fee waivers are not favorable. The current special event process needs some flexibility so a great event for the City is not missed. When trying to plan events for all demographics, a first-come first-serve event approval and review process does not allow that. As far as enforcement, Councilmember Pretty stated that if event producers do not follow the rules twice, they should not return for a third year. Staff should look at enforcing weekend supervision of special events. Councilmember Petty suggested for Commission to meet every month if every other month is proving to no longer be sufficient. Councilmember Petty, also answering Bakaly’s question from earlier, stated that following the existing policy and taking in recommendations from Commission and staff is sufficient. Mayor Tucker stated a nice beach day could bring more event spectators, so one cannot blame the event producer always. Every event needs a follow-up meeting to address any concerns. It is agreed that a problem special event should not return. Commissioner Rosenfeld stated the usual process is for all of Commission to review a subcommittee’s report before a presentation to City Council so they can reach a consensus on the recommendation. Moving forward, that will happen. Commissioner Rosenfeld felt that meeting once a month was necessary for the Commission. In regards to the special event review process, Commission currently asks event producers to be present unless they are returning after a number of consecutive years. When the event producer is not present, the special event is tabled. Commissioner Raymond agreed that the information needs to be presented before Commission first to be able come together as one with all concerns and recommendations along with more community input. Motion by Mayor Tucker to adjourn the meeting. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0509 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 20, 2015. Recommended Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of May 20, 2015. Attachments: Minutes of Public Works Commission Meeting of May 20, 2015 Approved: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ ACTION MINUTES PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015 CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE COMMISIONERS Janice Brittain Andrea Giancoli Kimberlee MacMullan Rob Saemann Justin Schnuelle All public testimony and the deliberations of the Public Works Commission can be viewed on the City’s website at http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=358. 1. Call to Order 7:00 PM 2. Flag Salute 3. Roll Call Present: Commissioner Brittain, Commissioner Giancoli, Commissioner Saemann, Commissioner Schnuelle and Chairwoman MacMullan. Also present: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Ells Freeman, Public Works Superintendent; Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst; and Liz Zeigler, Administrative Assistant. 4. Approval of Action Minutes for March 18, 2015 ACTION: MOTION was made to approve the minutes of March 18, 2015, seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 5. Public Comment: Anyone wishing to address the Commission on items not on the agenda and pertaining to Public Works may do so at this time. None 6. Correspondence None 7. Presentations None 8. Items for Consideration a.Bike Parking Update Kristy Morris informed the Commissioners that there is $20,000 from the General Fund appropriated for permanent bike parking and that the City is looking for grant funding for future bike parking. Staff received the following comments from the Commissioners: Saemann noted that Council asked the Commission to provide recommendations for Fiesta parking and that the Council and the City Manager would ultimately be the parties to decide how to proceed. He added that they had the option of trying out one of the options before implementing any one solution. He suggested that 11th St. and 13th St. offered the best solutions because they are adjacent to the Strand and don’t involve removing any existing car parking. 2 Kristy Morris informed the Commission that the Bike Parking Update was provided to Council at a recent Council meeting and that the update included the permanent bike parking solutions, but not the solutions for the Fiesta parking. She added that the City is proceeding with the bike rack purchases and that the racks will be phased in as they become available. Public comment included: Julian Katz, 9th street resident, who thanked Staff and the Commission for the report. Mr. Katz added that eliminating random parking on the Plaza makes this area more attractive and that the additional bike parking provided by the mini-corrals in business areas would contribute to economic development and the health/safety of citizens. He encouraged the Commission to add bikeways including bike sharrows on Monterey. Trent Larson, 1421 Bonnie Brae, expressed strong support for additional bike racks. Additional comments from the Commissioners included: Brittain expressed concern over the safety of bike parking at corner of Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue and also about aesthetics of more bike racks around the trees on the Plaza. Commissioners MacMullan, Giancoli, and Schnuelle expressed strong support for the report. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Brittain to receive and file the Bike Parking Update, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Schnuelle, and the motion carried 5-0. b.CIP 14-163 Protective Bollards Along the Strand – Update Commissioner comments to Staff were as follows: MacMullan: additional expenditures may be needed to reach the level of aesthetics the Council wants and still meet the expectations and needs of the Fire and Police Departments Saemann suggested that: Staff obtain statistics from the Police Department (PD) that show the entrance points with the highest number of cars accessing The Strand or request that PD start collecting this data Public Works implement a pilot program for bollards along the streets that are common access points, mainly south of the Pier Brittain: Commission needs to consider more aesthetically pleasing bollards because that is what City Council wants. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Saemann to received and file the Protective Bollards Along the Strand Update, seconded by Commissioner Schnuelle, and the motion passed 5-0. 9. Commissioners’ Reports ACTION: None 10. Monthly Reports ACTION: None 11. Commissioners’ Announcements ACTION: None 12. The Regular Meeting of the Public Works Commission for May 20, 2015 was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. to the Regular meeting of Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7 pm. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0508 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of May 31, 2015 PROJECT STATUS REPORT AS OF MAY 31, 2015 (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommended Action: To receive and file the Project Status Report as of May 31, 2015. Attachments: Project Status Report as of May 31, 2015 Respectfully Submitted by: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Priority Project Name Start Date Estimated End Date Completion Date Project Budget Project Manager Comments Street and Highway Improvements 06/16/14 04/01/21 High CIP 14-128 Street Improvements - Various Locations 12/01/14 10/30/15 $1,032,800.00 Homayoun Behboodi Description: Pavement rehabilitation of streets at various locations per the Pavement Management Program Report. Design Phase 12/01/14 05/20/15 Construction Bid and Award Phase 04/30/15 07/21/15 Three bids received on 6/9/15. Bids being Construction Phase 08/03/15 10/30/15 evaluated. Proposed Award of Construction Contract in July 2015 CIP 11-141 Gould Avenue Street Improvements 03/30/15 07/30/15 $75,000.00 Lucho Rodriguez Description: Pavement and Sidewalk Rehabilitation of Gould Avenue/27th Street between Sepulveda Avenue and Manhattan Avenue. Feasibility Study 03/30/15 07/30/15 Report being reviewed High CIP 12-143 PCH/Aviation Mobility Improvements 11/01/14 04/01/21 $1,225,704.00 Andrew Brozyna Description: Improvements to PCH and Aviation Blvd to turn them into Complete Streets. Improvement will include gateway signs, medians and sidewalk, street and pedestrian lighting, bus shelters and street furnishings. Pre-Design Phase 11/01/14 09/01/17 PSR 11/01/14 01/01/15 01/01/15 PAED 09/01/15 09/01/17 Design Phase 09/01/17 04/01/19 Complete PSR and 60% Design - Phase I 09/01/17 10/01/18 Complete 90% Plans - Phase I 10/01/18 04/01/19 Begin Construction - Phase I 10/01/19 04/01/21 CIP 12-160 PCH Traffic Improvements 06/16/14 06/15/16 $304,583.00 Vince Damasse Description: Improve operational mobility on PCH (State Route 1) between Anita Street and Artesia Blvd., includes new striping, median curb extensions and revised signal timing. Design Phase (estimated completion date)06/16/14 08/30/15 $88,000.00 Stantec 100% plans are substantially complete Permit Phase 09/29/14 09/30/15 4th revision sent plans for Caltrans BId Phase 10/01/15 11/02/15 subject to Caltrans permit approval Council Award Date (tentative)11/24/15 11/24/15 Caltrans is requesting traffic control plans to be Tentative Construction Phase 01/05/16 06/15/16 $216,000.00 submitted. Stantec to prepare additional TCP. High CIP 14-163 Protective Bollards Along the Strand 01/21/15 10/15/15 $25,000.00 Andrew Brozyna Presentation of delineators to PW Commission 01/21/15 01/21/15 Presentation of delineators to PW Commission 03/18/15 03/18/15 Presentation to City Council 04/14/15 04/28/15 Presentation to Public Works Commission 05/20/15 05/20/15 Presentation to Public Works Commission 07/15/15 07/15/15 Design Phase 01/21/15 09/15/15 Council Presentation 09/22/15 09/22/15 Construction Phase (pending Design Phase)10/01/15 10/15/15 Priority Project Name Start Date Estimated End Date Completion Date Project Budget Project Manager Comments CIP 14-168 Valley Drive Sharrows 05/20/15 10/20/15 $20,000.00 Lucho Rodriguez Construction and Design Schedule pending completion of preliminary design Description: Installation of sharrows, associated traffic furnishings and pavement rehabilitation the entire length of Valley Drive. Preliminary Engineering 05/20/15 10/20/15 Traffic Eng to study feasibility and alternative bike routes High CIP 14-173 8th Street Study 12/01/14 07/30/16 $71,434.00 Homayoun Behboodi Description: Improvements to provide "safe route to school" to Hermosa Valley School including sidewalks, ADA curb access ramps on both sides of 8th Street, installing new MUTCD School Zone signs along 8th Street, installing a new ramp at the intersection of 16th St. & Ardmore Ave. to cross the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt and join the existing ramp leading to the school.Preliminary Engineering 12/01/14 07/30/15 Staff to review 3 conceptual designs, to be incorporated into the Preliminary Design. Utility notices are pending. Design Phase (pending Prelim Engineering)08/15/2015 12/15/2015 Bid and Award Phase (pending Design Phase)01/15/2016 02/15/2016 Construction Phase (pending Design Phase)03/15/2016 07/30/2016 Sewer Improvements 01/13/14 08/15/15 High CIP 13-401 Sewer Improvements - Various Locations 01/13/14 05/29/15 $478,111.00 Homayoun Behboodi Description: Engineering and Construction of sewer work required to be performed in association with and in advance of streets designated for rehabilitation for FY 13-14. Design Phase 01/13/14 03/03/14 Bid and Award Phase 03/04/14 05/26/14 Construction Phase 05/27/14 10/17/14 $339,981.00 Punch List Items 10/20/14 11/07/14 Completed Additional Work - Herondo Street Reclaimed Water Line 12/01/14 12/01/14 Construction for Additional Water Line 03/02/15 05/29/15 $138,130.00 High CIP 14-402 Sewer Improvements - Various Locations 11/17/14 08/15/15 $519,515.00 Vince Damasse Description: Engineering and Construction of sewer work required to be performed in association with and in advance of streets designated for rehabilitation for FY 14-15. Design Phase 11/17/14 02/19/15 Bid & Award Phase 02/23/15 03/24/15 Construction Phase 05/18/15 08/15/15 Construction started May 18, 2015. Construction in progress. Park Improvements 11/12/13 01/22/16 High CIP 11-537 South Park Playground Improvement 11/12/13 08/04/15 $884,246.00 Lucho Rodriguez Description: Demolition of existing skate park and construction of a natural playground for 2-5 year olds and a 6-12 year old play area. Project under construction approximatelly 35% completed Design Phase 11/12/13 09/26/14 Bid Phase 01/08/15 02/18/15 Award 03/10/15 03/10/15 Construction Phase 04/06/15 08/04/15 $884,246.00 Priority Project Name Start Date Estimated End Date Completion Date Project Budget Project Manager Comments CIP 13-538 Citywide Park Master Plan 07/04/15 10/06/15 $143,853.00 Homayoun Behboodi Description: Update the City's 1990 Park Master Plan. RFP Phase 07/04/15 10/06/15 CIP 14-539 Valley Park Playground Surface Renovation 11/03/14 08/31/15 $21,128.00 Ells Freeman In-progress, estimate that project will be out to bid by end of June 2015 Description: Resurface existing poured rubber playground surface at Valley Park protecting the surface from UV Rays, cracks and granulation. Preliminary Phase 11/03/14 08/31/15 High CIP 14-541 Clark Field Energy Efficient Electrical Upgrades - Phase II 01/19/15 03/30/16 $227,000.00 Vince Damasse Description: Upgrade the existing poles and field lighting to increase efficiency. Project includes providing ADA accessibility to the grand stands. Project kick-off meeting completed in June 2015. RFP Phase 01/19/15 03/12/15 Design is in progress in June 2015 Award Date PSA 05/26/15 05/26/15 Design Phase 05/27/15 08/24/15 Award Date Construction (tentative)09/30/15 10/20/15 Construction Phase 11/17/15 3/302016 Public Building and Ground Improvements 04/10/14 02/26/16 High CIP 13-656 Citywide Energy Efficiency Upgrades - Phase I 07/07/14 04/14/15 $705,402.00 Lucho Rodriguez Description: Conduct energy audits for all City facilities and assess areas where the City can reduce electricity and natural gas and increase efficiency of these facilities. Phase I: Consists of upgrading the lighting systems at multiple sites, including: Building Interior, Building Exterior, City-owned Street Lights and Park Lights. Phase I: Design Phase & SCE Application Process 04/10/14 09/30/14 Phase I: Bid and Award Phase 09/11/14 10/14/14 Phase I: Construction Phase 02/23/15 07/15/15 High CIP 12-609 Downtown Strategic Plan Implementation 06/15/15 11/27/15 $217,415.00 Homayoun Behboodi Description: Develop a strategic economic plan for the Civic Center and Downtown Core to stimulate economic growth. 06/15/15 11/27/15 CIP 13-606 Fire Station Renovation and Upgrades $23,178.00 Ells Freeman Description: Upgrade or repair kitchen cabinets, exterior sliding door and apparatus bay door. Priority Project Name Start Date Estimated End Date Completion Date Project Budget Project Manager Comments CIP 14-614 Police Facilities Improvements 04/20/14 06/30/15 $93,800.00 Ells Freeman Description: Improvements to old traffic office on Bard including walls, ceilings, shelving, security gate/alarm, property/evidence storage; improvements for the new traffic office on Bard improvements include a new bathroom and driveway to roll-up door and new armory, security gate and alarm system addition to property/evidence, consolidation of range and armory equipment, and installation of new locks in the Police Department.Construction 04/20/14 06/30/15 In-progress, currently finishing the improvements to the storage garage for the evidence area and started the electrical upgrades for the gun range. Police lock improvements will be completed in FY 15/16. CIP 14-632 Fire Department Tower Demolition 06/04/15 07/15/16 $220,000.00 Vince Damasse Proposal requested from Structural Engineering Request for Proposals 06/04/15 06/19/15 firm for detailed structural analysis of Tower and buildings. Design 07/28/15 10/28/15 Proposal received June 10, 2015 per Historical report Bid Phase 11/06/15 11/30/15 recommendations; Proposal under staff review Council Award Date Construction (tentative)12/22/15 12/22/15 Construction 01/11/16 07/15/16 Description: Demolition and removal of the Fire Dept. tower and seismic upgrades to the 2nd floor addition. High CIP 13-649 Community Center General Improvements - Phase II 06/16/14 06/11/15 $70,000.00 Vince Damasse Combined with CIP 11-602Description: On-going electrical upgrades and repairs to existing electrical systems in the Community Center Design Phase 06/16/14 06/27/14 Vince Damasse Bid & Award Phase 07/24/14 08/26/14 Council Award Date 08/26/14 08/26/14 Construction Phase 09/22/14 06/11/15 $70,000.00 Project substantially completed; Project closeout Project Closeout 06/12/15 06/30/15 in progress CIP 13-655 City Facilities ADA Improvements 11/01/14 09/22/15 $146,159.00 Lucho Rodriguez Description: Installation of self-opening doors at the Civic Center and Clark building to comply with ADA guidline. Design Phase 11/01/14 01/30/15 Design complete need HUD input Bid and Award Phase 06/27/15 07/22/15 Will upgrade 6 doors to meet ADA Construction Phase 08/12/15 09/22/15 CIP 13-659 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs - Phase II 06/16/14 05/05/15 $330,538.00 Vince Damasse Construction completed in May 2015. Notice of Completion filed 5/26/15; Awaiting County Recorder's Office confirmation Description: Phase II structural repairs including 13 damaged piles. Design Phase completion date shown 06/16/14 07/24/14 Permit Phase 08/25/14 11/17/14 Bid & Award Phase 11/20/14 12/26/14 Award date 01/13/15 01/13/15 Construction Phase 01/20/15 05/05/15 $330,538.00 Priority Project Name Start Date Estimated End Date Completion Date Project Budget Project Manager Comments CIP 10-661 Surfing Memorial Statue 11/05/14 10/30/15 $369,950.00 Vince Damasse Description: Installation of a surf legends memorial bronze statue in front of the Community Center. Committe Review & Commitment to Design 11/05/14 09/30/15 PS & E 11/10/14 03/12/15 Council Award PSA & Trust agreement 11/05/14 11/05/14 Bid & Award 04/06/15 04/23/15 Council Award date 05/12/15 05/12/15 Construction Phase 06/08/15 10/30/15 Construction started on June 8, 2015. Construction in progress High CIP 13-664 Comprehensive City Facilities Master Plan 06/16/14 09/18/15 $223,636.00 Vince Damasse Description: Assess the condition of city facilities, Seismic evaluation, asbestos/lead survey, ADA compliance/transition plan, space needs study and equipment conditions/upgrades. Develop RFP 06/16/14 10/03/14 Proposals Recieved & Reviewed 11/06/14 12/08/14 Projected Council Award Date 02/10/15 02/10/15 Final Report 08/17/15 09/18/15 Draft Tier I seismic analysis report reviewed. Draft Final Report anticipated July/August 2015 Non-CIP Projects 06/01/12 12/07/15 EIR - City Maintenance Yard Relocation 12/10/13 01/31/14 Lucho Rodriguez Phase Completed. Waiting for outcome of November's Elections EV Charging Stations - Evaluate situation and parking and fees 04/06/15 04/06/15 Lucho Rodriguez Mini-Bike Corrals 04/07/14 03/18/15 Lucho Rodriguez In Planning Phase Pavement Management Program 01/05/15 12/07/15 Homayoun Behboodi Ongoing High Five Year CIP Plan For FY 15-16 02/15/15 05/15/15 Andrew Brozyna To be presented at the Budget Workshop on 5/21/2015 High Sewer Replacement Program and Funding Mechanism 06/01/12 02/27/15 Andrew Brozyna In Progress, Majority Protest Hearing set for 6/23/2015. High Stormwater Management Program and Funding Mechanism 04/01/14 04/01/14 Andrew Brozyna Parking Counting System 03/02/15 06/29/15 Lucho Rodriguez Construction Phase -06/15/15 08/15/15 Construction to begin after 7-4-15 City Council Chambers Audio/Visual Improvements Homayoun Behboodi Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0521 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PALP, INC. DBA EXCEL PAVING COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT CIP NO. 14-128 AND 15-129 STREET IMPROVEMENTS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1.Award the Construction Contract for CIP Project No. 14-128 and 15-129 Street Improvements - Various Locations to Palp, Inc., DBA Excel Paving Company for the bid amount of $878,772.05; 2.Authorize a project budget of $1,107,253 to include geotechnical / materials testing, public works inspection, and a 15% construction contingency; 3.Authorize the Mayor to execute the Contract and the City Clerk to attest subject to approval by the City Attorney; 4.Adopt the attached resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CIP NO. 14-128 and 15-129 STREET IMPROVEMENTS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 830.6 AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT ACCOUNT”; 5.Authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the contract within the City’s Street Improvement Program budget; and 6.Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion following final completion and acceptance of the project. Background: This project will rehabilitate, repair and replace portions of approximately forty-eight (48) asphalt and concrete local and arterial street segments throughout the City. Work will include grind/overlay, cape seal, slurry seal, and removal and replacement of miscellaneous street segments as identified in the City’s Pavement Management Plan. Other improvements will include associated curb, gutter, sidewalk, and minor drainage improvements at various locations. This phase of work is part of the City’s overall Pavement Management Plan (PMP) to rehabilitate and maintain the City’s local and arterial street network. Field work is anticipated to start in August 2015 following the completion of the City’s Sewer Improvements project currently under construction. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0521 Analysis: In May 2015, construction bids were solicited. The City Clerk received three (3) bids by the bid closing date of June 9, 2015. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. Bid results are summarized below. BIDDER TOTAL BID AMOUNT Palp, Inc. (DBA Excel Paving Company) $878,772.05 Copp Contracting, Inc. $934,620.07 All American Asphalt, Inc. $1,015,532.00 Staff reviewed the bid proposals and determined that the bid from Palp Inc. DBA Excel Paving Company was in conformance with the bid documents and was the lowest responsible bidder. As part of their evaluation, staff also confirmed that the contractor’s contracting license was active and in good standing with the Contractor’s State License Board. References contacted by City staff were also determined to be positive. Fiscal Implications: Staff recommends establishing a project budget to reflect a construction contingency of 15% of the base bid. This contingency is slightly higher than average to account for unknown conditions that may be encountered in the field since it is difficult to determine the subsurface conditions of streets. Unforeseen conditions are typically more prevalent in older street segments, such as those selected for this project. Additionally, funding is also allocated for materials testing and inspections and public works inspection support for the duration of the project. Given the number of street segments to be paved, the project will require full-time inspection support. The anticipated project budget is as follows: Construction Contract $878,772 15% Contingency $131,816 5% Special Inspection/Materials Testing $43,939 6% Public Works Inspection $52,726 Total Project Budget $1,107,253 Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0521 There is sufficient budget in the City’s Street Improvement Program budget that consists of CIP 14- 128 ($973,178) for the current Fiscal Year and CIP 15-129 ($1,018,000) for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2015/16 to fund the project. A transfer will be made from 15-129 to 14-128 for the additional funds needed. Attachments: 1. Street List 2. Public Works Contract Award to Palp, Inc. DBA Excel Paving Company 3. Project Resolution Respectfully Submitted by: Vince Damasse, Consultant Project Manager Concur: Andrew Brozyna, Director of Public Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ CIP 14-128 Street Improvement List FY 2014-2015 ARTERIAL STREETS  6th Street ........................ Loma Dr. to Monterey Blvd. (Slurry Seal)  Ardmore Ave. ........................ Gould Ter to Porter Ln. (Slurry Seal)  Ardmore Ave. ............................. Porter Ln. to 21st St. (Slurry Seal)  Aviation Blvd. ........... Corona Street to Prospect Ave. (Cape Seal)  Aviation Blvd. ................ Corona Street to Ocean Dr. (Slurry Seal)  Francisco Street ... Morningside Dr. to Ingleside Dr. (PCC Repair)  Hermosa Ave. .......................2nd Street to Lyndon St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. ................................ 6th Street to 8th St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. ............................... 4th Street to 2nd St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. ................................ 6th Street to 4th St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. .......................Lyndon Street to 2nd St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. .............................. Pier Ave. to 15th Ct. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. ................................ 8th Street to 6th St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. ............................... 2nd Street to 4th St. (Slurry Seal)  Hermosa Ave. ................................ 4th Street to 6th St. (Slurry Seal)  Prospect Ave. ............................ 17th Street to 20th St. (Slurry Seal)  Prospect Ave. ................ Van Horne Ln. to Gentry St. (Slurry Seal)  Prospect Ave. ..... Aviation Blvd. to 14th St. (AC Pavement Repair)  Prospect Ave. ................ 8th Street to 6th St. (AC Pavement Repair) LOCAL STREETS  4th Street .................... Ocean View to PCH (PCC Pavement Repair)  6th Street ....................... PCH to Pine Street. (PCC Diamond Grind)  6th Street .. Hollowell Ave. to Reynolds Ln. . (PCC Diamond Grind)  30th StreetMorningside Dr. to Ingleside Dr. (PCC Pavement Repair)  30th Street ........ Ingleside Dr. to Valley Dr. (PCC Pavement Repair)  6th Street ... Prospect Ave. to Hollowell Ave. (PCC Diamond Grind)  6th Street Pine Street to 58’ s/o Prospect Ave. (PCC Diamond Grind) Attachment 1  31st Street Morningside to Ingleside Dr……………. (PCC Pavement Repair)  Alley End to Tennyson Pl…… (AC Grind & Overlay)  Longfellow Ave. Tennyson Pl. to PCH (PCC Repair & Diamond Grind)  Longfellow Ave. Ardmore Ave. to Tennyson Pl. (PCC Repair & Diamond Grind)  Bayview Dr. 16th Street to Pier Ave. (AC Grind & Overlay)  13th Street Ocean Dr. to PCH (AC Grind & Overlay, R&R Sidewalk)  28th Court Morningside Dr. to Manhattan Ave. (PCC Pavement Repair)  20th Pl. at Prospect Ave……………………… (AC Grind & Overlay)  North East corner of 8th and Bard Street .(Remove Roots, AC Pavement Repair)  600 Block of Gould Ave east bound……….. (AC Grind & Overlay)  Gould Ave, between Porter Ln. and Gould Terrace (R&R Sidewalk on the south side)  Gould Ave east Bound 500 Block across from park (AC Grind & Overlay)  South East corner of Gould Ave. and Ardmore (Remove Roots, AC Grind & Overlay)  15th Street and Beach Drive…………………. (AC Grind & Overlay)  Harper Street…………..18th to Artesia Street. (Cape Seal)  8th and Valley Drive south west corner… (R&R Concrete Spandrel and AC pavement)  17 Street 1100 Block…… (AC Grind & Overlay)  Manhattan Ave. and 29th Street- ………… (AC Pavement Repair)  Bonnie Brea Aviation to Joy St. (Slurry Seal, AC Grind & Overlay at Aviation, sidewalk repair  Bonnie Brea……...Joy St. To 6th St (Cape Seal and AC Pavement Repair)  Ocean View……….4th St. to 5th St. (PCC Pavement Repair)  16th St. …….PCH to Prospect Ave (PCC Pavement Repair) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 -1-Attachment 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CIP NO. 14-128 and 15-149 STREET IMPROVEMENTS – VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 830.6 AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT ACCOUNT; The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does resolve as follows: The City Council finds and declares as follows: The City retained MBF Consulting, Inc. (“Consultant”) as the engineer to design and prepare the plans for CIP No. 14-128 Street Improvements – Various Locations Project (“Project”); The Consultant informed the City Engineer that these plans are complete and that construction of the Project may begin; The City Engineer reviewed the completed design and plans for the Project and agrees with the Consultant that the plans are complete and the Project may be constructed; and The City Council wishes to obtain the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6 with regard to the plans and construction of the Project. Design Immunity; Authorization. The design and plans for the Project are determined to be consistent with the City’s standards and are approved; The design approval set forth in this Resolution occurred before actual work on the Project construction commenced; The approval granted by this Resolution conforms with the City’s General Plan; The City Engineer, or designee, is authorized to act on the City’s behalf in approving any alterations or modifications of the design and plans approved by this Resolution; and The approval and authorization granted by this Resolution is intended to avail the City of the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6. -2-Attachment 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Project Payment Account; For purposes of the Contract Documents administering the Project, the City establishes an account containing sufficient monies from the current and following fiscal year budget to pay for the Project. This Account is the sole source of funds available for the Contract Sum, as defined in the Contract Document administering the Project. The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City of Hermosa Beach City Council hereby adopts Resolution No. 2015- ____ on June 23, 2015. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _______, 2015. _________________________________________________________________ MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-XX was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its adjourned regular meeting held on the 23 rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0512 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA) GOVERNING BOARD (Interim Human Resources Manager Robert A. Blackwood) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution appointing a City representative and alternate to the ICRMA Governing Board. Background: The Independent Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA)is a joint powers authority that was created pursuant to the California Government Code to provide insurance coverages and risk management services to municipalities.The governing documents of the ICRMA require that each member city appointment representatives of the City to the Governing Board (Board)in order to represent the City in insurance and risk management matters that come before the Board. Analysis: The ICRMA Joint Powers Agreement requires that the City Council of each member city appoint one or more representatives to the ICRMA Board to represent the City’s interests.The City of Hermosa Beach has been a participating member of the ICRMA since 1986. Former Assistant to the City Manager Diane Strickfaden was the previous designated ICRMA representative.Personnel Assistant Monica Bagnara is the alternate.The attached Resolution designates Interim Assistant to the City Manager Bob Blackwood as the City’s representative and confirms Monica Bagnara as the continuing alternate representative. Attachments: 1.Resolution Respectfully Submitted by: Robert A. Blackwood, Interim Human Resources Manager Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. 15-XXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE AND SUBSTITUTE ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA) WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") is a member of the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ("ICRMA"), a joint powers authority created pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, ICRMA provides a Liability Risk Management Program, Property Risk Management Program, Workers' Compensation Risk Management Program, and other programs for its members; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the city council of each member city may appoint a member of the city council as that city's representative to the ICRMA Governing Board and also authorizes the appointment of an alternate representative and a substitute alternate representative to represent the city's interest in the absence of the city council appointee; and WHEREAS, City desires to designate its representative to the ICRMA Governing Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: SECTION 1. That Robert A. Blackwood is hereby appointed to serve on the ICRMA Governing Board and to the Risk Management Programs in which this City participates. SECTION 2. That Monica Bagnara is hereby appointed as the alternate, to serve on the ICRMA Governing Board and to the Risk Management Programs in which this City participates in the absence of the primary member noted in Section 1 above. SECTION 3. That the individuals designated by this City Council as the City's representative and alternate representatives to the ICRMA Governing Board and to the Risk Management Programs in which this City participates are hereby confirmed and designated as the City's delegates for all purposes of representing the City's interests and exercising the authority of the City with respect to the Coverage and the Program and voting on behalf of the City on all matters delegated to the Governing Board and signing such amendments as are contemplated to be approved by the Governing Board. SECTION 4. That a certified copy of this Resolution shall be provided to the General Manager of the ICRMA. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall cause the original of the same to be entered in the book of original Resolutions of said City, and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015. ________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ) I,Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-XXXX was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on June 23, 2015. The vote was as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dated: _____________________________ Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0536 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 RESOLUTION ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015 (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution which, consistent with past policy, establishes a 200-word limit and requires candidates to pay all costs related to candidate statements for the November 3, 2015 General Municipal Election. Background: California Elections Code § 13307 allows each candidate for a nonpartisan elective office in a city to prepare a statement to be included with the sample ballot and mailed to each registered voter. No later than seven days before the opening of the nomination period, State law requires the City Council to adopt a policy regarding the candidates’ obligation for payment for candidate statements and other related matters. The filing period for nomination papers is July 13 through August 7 for the upcoming November election. Attached is a draft resolution outlining the candidate statement regulations. Traditionally, it has been Council policy to require the candidates to cover all costs associated with their statements, and the attached resolution has been prepared assuming that policy will be maintained. The City Clerk is required to set the estimated cost of candidate statements prior to the nomination-filing period. The County has indicated they will provide me with a rough cost estimate by the first week in July. State law permits the Council to authorize an increase of the word limitation for the statement from 200 words to 400 words. Past policy has restricted the statements to 200 words, and the attached resolution has been prepared assuming that policy will be maintained. The 200-word limit has seemed adequate in the past, and increasing the word limit would increase the cost. The draft resolution also accommodates any required translation of statements into one or more foreign languages, pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act. Hermosa Beach has not been required Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0536 to do any translations into foreign languages in past election and it appears that the same will hold true for this election. However, since I have nothing in writing at this time from the County, I have included a provision in the resolution, which states that translation and printing “may be required.” Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 4 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015 WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidates' statements. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at an Election to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, may prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. SECTION 2. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY. A. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidate statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of Los Angeles. The County may be required to translate Hermosa Beach candidates’ statements into one or more of the following languages: Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, Vietnamese and/or others. Page 2 of 4 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. The County will print and mail sample ballots and candidate statements to all voters in English, and will mail separate sample ballots and candidate statements in other qualified languages to only those voters who are on the County voter file as having requested a sample ballot in a particular language. The County will make sample ballots and candidate statements in the required languages available at all of the City’s polling places, on the County’s website, and in the City Clerk’s office. SECTION 3. PAYMENT. A. Translations. 1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate’s statement into any required foreign languages as specified in (A) and/or (B) of Section 2 above, pursuant to Federal and/or State law. 2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate’s statement into any foreign language that is not required as specified in (A) and (B) of Section 2 above, pursuant to Federal and/or State law, but is requested as an option by the candidate. B. Printing. 1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in English in the main voter pamphlet. 2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in a foreign language required in (A) of Section 2 above in the main voter pamphlet. 3. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in a foreign language requested by the candidate per (B) of Section 2 above, in the main voter pamphlet. 4. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in a foreign language required by (A) of Section 2 above in the facsimile voter pamphlet. // Page 3 of 4 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidates' statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and shall require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance to the City his or her estimated pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter’s pamphlet. The estimate is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate and shall, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidates for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid, depending on the final actual cost. In the event of underpayment, the City Clerk shall require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within 30 days of the election. SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS. A. All translations shall be provided by professionally-certified translators. B. The City Clerk shall allow boldface type, underlining, capitalization, and leading dashes/hyphens in the statement, to the same extent and manner as allowed in previous City elections. Words/acronyms to be printed in boldface type, underscored and/or CAPITALIZED must be clearly indicated and shall not exceed 25 words. C. The City Clerk shall comply with all recommendations and standards set forth by the California Secretary of State regarding occupational designations and other matters relating to elections. SECTION 5. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall provide to each candidate or the candidate’s representative a copy of this Resolution at the time the nominating petitions are issued. Page 4 of 4 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 7. All previous Resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for candidates' statements are repealed. SECTION 8. This Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, and shall then be repealed. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2015. _________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0539 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 PURCHASE NEW AMBULANCE (Fire Chief David Lantzer) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve the purchase of a new ambulance in the amount of $165,000 from Emergency Vehicle Group,Inc.of Anaheim,California made in reliance on a bid solicitation by the Eloy Fire Protection District (Arizona); 2.Appropriate an additional $35,000 to the 2015-16 Budget from the Equipment Replacement Fund for this purchase; and 3.Authorize the City Manager to sign the Purchase Agreement with Emergency Vehicle Group, Inc. before July 1, 2015 for the purchase and delivery of the ambulance. Background: This new ambulance will be placed in service as the fire department's paramedic transport unit.This purchase will result in the removal of the fire department's 2006 ambulance from the city fleet and the assignment of the 2009 model to reserve status.The current paramedic unit (2014 model)will transition to the EMT unit. The Council approved the fire department's request for funding and appropriated $130,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund in the fiscal year 2015-16 budget for the purchase of a new ambulance. In June of 2014,the fire department assembled an Ambulance Committee of three personnel who began researching and developing specifications.During design,engineering,and construction, representatives from the South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority (SBRPCA or RCC), the city's Public Works Department (mechanics)and the department's vehicle preventive maintenance vendor were consulted.This all-inclusive approach enabled full consideration of communications, repair, and maintenance issues. The committee researched the bid awards for one consistent with the specifications developed and identified an existing bid award to Emergency Vehicle Group,Inc.by the Eloy Fire Protection Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0539 identified an existing bid award to Emergency Vehicle Group,Inc.by the Eloy Fire Protection District in Arizona.The EVG bid to Eloy is consistent with the specifications developed by HBFD's Ambulance Committee and offers the most competitive price.Eloy's evaluation criteria included adherence to the bid specification,price,warranty,and delivery time.The Fire Department used this research to purchase a 2014 Chevy Ambulance last fiscal year and is applying this study to our current request to approve the purchase of a second ambulance. Our pricing is only guaranteed until July 1,2015 and has the potential for a significant price increase beyond that date.If approved,the fire department will take delivery of the new ambulance within 180 days from the date that EVG receives the chassis and signed purchase order. Fiscal Implications: The fiscal year 2015-16 Equipment Replacement Fund budget includes an appropriation of $130,000 for the new ambulance.The additional $35,000 appropriation is available in the Equipment Replacement Fund for 2015-16. Attachments: 1.Purchase Agreement with EVG and City of Hermosa Beach 2.Change Notice Respectfully Submitted by: David Lantzer, Chief Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Regional Account Manager RE:Offer to Provide One (1)Road Rescue Type III Metromedic 3153 Ambulance(s)on 2015 Chevrolet 3500, 4 x 2, Diesel Powered Cutaway Van Chassis May 11, 2015 Hermosa Beach Fire Department 540 Pier Ave. Sincerely, Garett Adleman Attention: Captain James Crawford On behalf of Emergency Vehicle Group,Inc.,I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the following offer for the Hermosa Beach Fire Department to purchase One (1)Road Rescue Type III Metromedic 3153 Ambulance(s) on 2015 Chevrolet 3500, 4 x 2, Diesel Powered Cutaway Van Chassis Emergency Vehicle Group,Inc.(EVG)is proud to be in the business of serving those who bravely serve our communities and help ensure the safety of our families and friends.Our pledge is to offer you the same quality of service and expertise that is demanded from you.Over the years we have introduced fire departments,municipalities and private companies to the absolute best in service,sales and support for emergency vehicle products. We proudly serve California,Arizona and Nevada and offer you premium custom products along with the best value available in the industry.EVG accomplishes this by representing Spartan ERV Apparatus,SVI Trucks,Wheeled Coach Ambulance,Road Rescue Ambulances,Lifeline Ambulances and McCoy Miller Ambulances as well as ambulance remounts and command vehicles built by EVG. EVG employs EVT and ASE Certified Mechanics with decades of experience in servicing emergency vehicles,fire apparatus and ambulances.EVG recognizes the importance of these vehicles as a life saving device and take great pride in serving those that bravely serve and protect us.Our corporate office, remount and main service facility is located in Anaheim, CA. Our mission is to develop long-term relationships and provide our customers with “honest,intelligent effort”in everything we do for you.We are committed to do whatever it takes to surpass customers’ expectations by continually improving upon what we do. All of us at Emergency Vehicle Group,Inc.believe in long-term relationships and we look forward to the opportunity of working with you and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department.I would again like to thank you for the opportunity.Each of us at EVG offer you our sincere pledge of “Honest,Intelligent Effort”in everything we do for you now, and in the future. Captain James Crawford HermosaBeachFD_CA_T3am_150015-RR_EVG Order Summary.xlsm 2883 E. Coronado St. Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714-238-0110 Fax: 714-238-0120 www.evginc.net Qty 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Payment Terms: 100% payment of the contract is due at the time of delivery. Failure to pay the contract in full may result in interest accruing at a rate of 0.0164%compounded daily on the unpaid portion (based on a 6%annual rate). Proof of insurance and approved financing or payment will be required to execute this contract. Delivery Time:Delivery shall be 120 days after after receipt of chassis and approved work order and production drawings of the vehicle. This constitutes a contract for the purchase and sale of One (1)Road Rescue Type III Metromedic 3153 Ambulance(s)on 2015 Chevrolet 3500,4 x 2,Diesel Powered Cutaway Van chassis between Emergency Vehicle Group, Inc. (Seller) and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department (Buyer) in the total amount of: Signature below represents acceptance of above contract and terms: One Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars and Fifty Four Cents $164,988.54 Offer based on work order/specification reference number 150015-RR and any associated drawing(s)as provided. A final approval work order/specification and drawing will be provided after all Pre-Construction changes are completed (if applicable). Pre-Construction changes may incur an additional cost. Printed Name Regional Account Manager Title Hermosa Beach Fire Department: Signature Printed Name Title Date 5/11/2015 Date Emergency Vehicle Group: Signature Garett Adleman Description The Following is an Offer and Purchase Agreement for: Hermosa Beach Fire Department To Purchase May 11, 2015 Extended PricePrice Each One (1) Road Rescue Type III Metromedic 3153 Ambulance(s) on 2015 Chevrolet 3500, 4 x 2, Diesel Powered Cutaway Van(s) $12.25 $80.00 $164,988.54 $151,281.00 $0.00 $13,615.29 $0.00 One (1)Road Rescue Type III Metromedic 3153 Ambulance(s)on 2015 Chevrolet 3500,4 x 2,Diesel Powered Cutaway Van Chassis Chassis VIN Number(s): To Be Determined After Production Start Total Purchase Price $164,988.54 $151,281.00 Tire Fee $12.25 Document Fee $80.00 $0.00 $13,615.29Tax (Based on Rate of 9%) $0.00 HermosaBeachFD_CA_T3am_150015-RR_EVG Order Summary.xlsm 2883 E. Coronado St. Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714-238-0110 Fax: 714-238-0120 www.evginc.net Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0530 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1353 ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REVISING ORDINANCE NO. 93-1097, TO MODIFY THE DOLLAR THRESHOLDS FOR BIDDING AND TO ESTABLISH CITY MANAGER PURCHASING AUTHORITY FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.” (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No. 15-1353. Background: At its meeting of June 9, 2015, the subject ordinance was presented to the City Council for consideration and was introduced by the following vote: Ayes:Barragan, DiVirgilio, Fangary, Petty, Mayor Tucker Noes:None Absent:None Abstain:None Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 15-1353 Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 4 15-1353 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1353 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REVISING ORDINANCE NO. 93-1097, TO MODIFY THE DOLLAR THRESHOLDS FOR BIDDING AND TO ESTABLISH CITY MANAGER PURCHASING AUTHORITY FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Section 3.12.080 of Title 3, Chapter 3.12 is amended to read as follows: 3.12.080 Open market procedure for purchases of less than fifteen thousand dollars in value. Purchases of supplies and equipment of an estimated value in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) or less may be made by the purchasing officer in the open market at the best prices obtainable and to the best advantage of the City without observing the procedure prescribed by Section 3.12.090; provided, however, that when practicable, bids or quotations shall be taken as follows: A. Minimum Number of Bids. For purchases over one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), at least three bids or quotations solicited by written requests to prospective responsible vendors, by telephone, or public notice posted on a public bulletin board in the City Hall. B. Record. A record of all informal bids and quotations shall be kept and be open to public inspection for a reasonable period of time. SECTION 2.Section 3.12.090 of Title 3, Chapter 3.12 is amended to read as follows: 3.12.090 Formal contract procedure for purchases exceeding fifteen thousand dollars in value. Except as otherwise provided herein, purchases for supplies and equipment of estimated value greater than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) shall be by written contract with the lowest and best responsible bidder. The following procedure is deemed to be in the best interest to the City: Page 2 of 4 15-1353 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Notice Inviting Bids. Notices inviting bids shall include a general description of the articles to be purchased, shall state where bid blanks and specifications may be secured, and the time and place for the opening of bids. B. Published Notice. Notices inviting bids shall be given at least ten days before the date of opening of the bids. Notices shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City, or it shall be posted in at least three public places in the City that have been designated by Ordinance as the places for posting public notices. C. Bidders’ List. The purchasing officer shall solicit sealed bids from all responsible prospective suppliers whose names are on the bidders’ list or who have requested that their names be added thereto. D. Bidder’s Security. When deemed necessary by the purchasing officer bidder’s security may be prescribed in the public notices inviting bids. Bidders shall be entitled to return of bid security provided that a successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon refusal or failure to execute the contract within ten days after the notice of award of contract has been mailed, unless the City is responsible for the delay. The City Council may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest bidder; the amount of the lowest bidder’s security shall be applied by the City to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. E. Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the purchasing agent and shall be identified as bids on the envelope. Bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the public notices. A tabulation of all bids received shall be open to public inspection during regular business hours for a reasonable period of time. No bidder may withdraw his bid for a period of at least thirty (30) days after the date set for the opening thereof. F. Rejection of Bids. In its discretion, the City Council may reject any and all bids presented and re-advertise for bids or to exclude any item or items from the award of bid or waive any informalities on a bid. Page 3 of 4 15-1353 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G. Award of Contracts. 1. Supplies and equipment. A contract for the purchase of supplies and equipment shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Services. A contract for services, other than professional services, shall be awarded to the bidder which the City Council in its discretion determines offers the best level of services to the City. In making that determination, the Council may consider the bidder’s price, experience, references, location, previous performance experience with the City if any, and overall reputation. H. Tie Bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, and if the public interest will not permit the delay of readvertising for bids, the City Council may accept the one it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiations with the tie bidders at the time of the bid opening. I. Performance Bonds. The City Council shall have authority to require a performance bond before entering a contract in such amount as it shall find reasonably necessary to protect the best interest of the City. If the City Council requires a performance bond, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids. SECTION 3.Title 3, Chapter 3.12 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Section 3.12.035 to read as follows: 3.12.035 Authorization to enter into contracts. The City Manager is authorized to enter into the following types of contracts: a. Contracts required of an applicant as a condition of approval of a permit, license, or other grant of approval not involving expenditure of City funds; b. Contracts involving the allocation of County, State or Federal funds pursuant to a program previously approved by the City Council where the form of contract is standard and used in substantially the same form by all applicants and has been approved by the City Attorney; c. Contracts for services for a sum not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) for which funds have been budgeted in the current year budget and where the form of the contract Page 4 of 4 15-1353 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 has been approved by the City Attorney; d. Contracts or amendments to contracts which the City Council has expressly authorized the City Manager to execute; and e. Amendments to contracts previously approved by the City Council not involving expenditure of City funds, or modifying the duration and/or amount of the contract in strict accordance with a specific line item in the approved city budget. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated, in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original Ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Barragan, DiVirgilio, Fangary, Petty, Mayor Tucker NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None _________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0531 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1354 ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ERECTION OF EXTENDED TEMPORARY SIGNS BY AUTOMOBILE DEALERS FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD AND SUPERCEDING ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH.” (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title Ordinance No. 15-1354. Background: At its meeting of June 9, 2015, the subject ordinance was presented to the City Council for consideration, was amended to increase the proposed extension from one year to two years, and was then introduced, as amended, by the following vote: Ayes:DiVirgilio, Petty, Mayor Tucker Noes:Barragan, Fangary Absent:None Abstain:None Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 15-1354 Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 3 15-1354 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 15-1354 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ERECTION OF EXTENDED TEMPORARY SIGNS BY AUTOMOBILE DEALERS FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD AND SUPERSEDING ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Zoning Ordinance, extended temporary signs are permitted for on-site identification purposes for automobile dealers located on Pacific Coast Highway for a period of two years from the effective date of this Ordinance. Extended temporary signs shall be treated as temporary signs under the Municipal Code Section 17.50.030 and Section 5497(g) of the California Business and Professions Code, subject to compliance with the standards set forth in Section 2 hereof. SECTION 2.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Municipal Code governing temporary signs, the following regulations shall govern the display of extended temporary signs: 1. Extended temporary signs shall be permitted only at automobile dealerships with frontage on Pacific Coast Highway. 2. The total square footage of all extended temporary signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. Only one face of a double-face sign shall be counted when determining sign area. 3. Extended temporary signs shall exclusively identify businesses that principally sell automobiles operating on the same premises and shall contain no other advertising whatsoever. Extended temporary signs shall include only the name of the business and/or the product or service provided by the business at that location. 4. The maximum height of pole or freestanding extended temporary signs shall be twenty (20) feet above grade. Page 2 of 3 15-1354 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Extended temporary signs shall be professionally produced using high quality materials. 6. Extended temporary signs shall be securely attached, not create a hazard or nuisance and maintained in a clean condition, free of rips, tears, holes, and graffiti. 7. The allowance for extended temporary signs is in addition to temporary signage otherwise allowed by Municipal Code Section 17.50.210. 8. No extended temporary sign shall be displayed until an application for an extended temporary sign is made in writing on forms furnished and approved by the building official. Such application shall contain the location, type of materials, square footage, and height of the proposed extended temporary sign(s), as well as the name and address of the business owner. SECTION 3. This Ordinance does not create a vested right to continued display of extended temporary signs beyond the expiration of this Ordinance, or otherwise alter the character of such signs as anything other than “temporary” within the meaning of Section 17.50.030 of the Municipal Code and Section 5497(g) of the California Business and Professions Code. Upon the expiration of this Ordinance, extended temporary signs shall be treated as temporary signs displayed beyond the authorized duration and shall be immediately removed by the business owner or subject to removal without compensation by the City pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 5497(g). SECTION 4. This Ordinance and the regulations set forth herein shall remain in effect until July 23, 2017, at which time they shall expire and be of no further force and effect. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Page 3 of 3 15-1354 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original Ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0519 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION (REFUSE) CHARGES FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLACING SAID CHARGES ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT WOULD AFFECT ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES WITH REFUSE BILLS DELINQUENT AS OF MARCH 31, 2015 (City Manager Tom Bakaly) Recommended Action: That the City Council: 1.Receive testimony from affected property owners regarding their delinquent refuse bills; and 2.Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing and directing the County Assessor to place delinquent refuse charges for Athens Services, which remain ten (10) days following this hearing, as a special assessment for collection as part of the County tax collection process. Background: Pursuant to Section 8.12.36(A)(5) of the Municipal Code, a public hearing is required prior to establishing a special assessment for property owners delinquent in payment of refuse collection fees. In March 2013, the City entered into an exclusive Integrated Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement with Athens Services for a term of eight years beginning July 1, 2013 and ending June 30, 2021. Athens has provided the City with a list of delinquent accounts that are appropriate for placement on the property owner’s tax bills. Analysis: Attached is a list of properties that have been reported by Athens Services as delinquent in payment of refuse collection fees as of March 31, 2015. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0519 The following accounts were removed from the list due to a current dispute in the amount owed: Notices were sent to affected property owners advising them of the opportunity to appear before the Administrative Appeals Board to dispute unpaid charges at a meeting held on June 9, 2015. The attached list was compiled following the hearing of the Administrative Appeals Board. The Administrative Appeals Board recommends that the properties remaining on the list have the delinquent charges added to their property tax bills as a special assessment. Notices were sent to the property owners on the attached list advising them of the opportunity to appear before the City Council at the public hearing scheduled for June 23, 2015 to appeal the matter prior to the City proceeding with the special assessment. The attached resolution directs the County Assessor to place delinquent refuse charges on the property tax bill as a special assessment. Exhibit "A" of the attached resolution will be modified by Athens to delete any delinquent refuse charges which are paid within ten days following this hearing as provided for by Section 8.12.360(A)(6) of the Municipal Code. To compensate for the administrative costs incurred in the collection of delinquent refuse bills via a special assessment, each delinquent refuse bill shall be increased by ten dollars ($10.00) to compensate the County of Los Angeles and fourteen ($14.00) to compensate the City of Hermosa Beach per the adopted Master Fee Schedule. Attachments: 1.Proposed Resolution 2.List of Delinquent Refuse Charges for Athens Services 3.Public Notices 4.Correspondence from Business Owners Respectfully Submitted by: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS,Section 38790.1 of the California Government Code authorizes cities to collect delinquent refuse bills via a special assessment to be collected with county taxes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 86-840 which provides for collection of delinquent refuse bills in accordance with California Government Code Section 38790.1; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 86-840, property owners have ten days from the date of the hearing to pay the delinquent refuse bill to avoid the special assessment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.Each delinquent refuse bill shall be increased by an amount not to exceed the actual costs incurred by the County of Los Angeles, and charged to the City of Hermosa Beach for placing the delinquent refuse bills on the property tax roll via a special assessment. Section 2.Each delinquent refuse bill shall be increased by fourteen dollars ($14.00) to compensate the City of Hermosa Beach for the administrative costs incurred by collecting delinquent refuse bills via a special assessment. Section 3.The list of properties and the amount to be collected, attached as Exhibit "A,” shall be forwarded to the county assessor for posting on the tax bill as a special assessment. Exhibit "A" may be modified by the City Manager to delete those parcels where delinquent refuse charges are paid within ten (10) days following the City Council hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO INCLUDE DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS FROM ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES (ATHENS) TO THEIR EXISTING FUND NUMBER 168.87 (HERMOSA REFUSE-2) AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE COLLECTED AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS COUNTY TAXES. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015. ____________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney CO ACCT NO ACCOUNT NAME SERVICE ADDRESS PARCEL NO BILLING NAME BILLING ADDRESS BILLING CITYBILLING BILLING ZIPTOTAL A/R CURRENT 30 DAYS 60 DAYS 90 DAYS PAST DUEHB 482416 KENNETH HAAS 745 8TH PL4187-028-014KENNETH HAAS 0 HC 1 BOX 125A C MARICOPA CA 93252471.83 56.81 0 0 415.02 415.02HB 483027 MAURISA MILLER 907 5TH ST4186-016-011MAURISA MILLER 849 ALMAR AVE STE C SANTA CRUZ CA 95060155.21 42.93 0 0 112.28 112.28HB 480685 DIANDELL INC 810 MANHATTAN AVE4187-008-025DIANDELL INC 6420 W 82ND ST LOS ANGELES CA 90045‐284097.8 48.9 0 0 48.9 48.90HB 480633 DEBORAH W SMITH 940 5TH ST4186-019-046DEBORAH W SMITH 5450 W 104TH ST LOS ANGELES CA 90045‐601285.57 36.32 0 0 49.25 49.25HB 481400 HENRY & DORIS RADO 720 24TH PL4184-020-010HENRY & DORIS RADO 720 24TH PL HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐220384.46 37.58 0 0 46.88 46.88HB 483247 MORRI J & KAREN MOHR 262 27TH ST4181-024-023MORRI J & KAREN MOHR 262 27TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐2439310.34 85.84 0 0 224.5 224.50HB 483418 PARKER HERRIOTT 2300 OZONE CT4182-016-038PARKER HERRIOTT 224 24TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐26001339.09 223 0 0 1116.09 1,116.09HB 482815 MARGARET HUGHES 2108 LOMA DR4182-021-024MARGARET HUGHES 2108 LOMA DR HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐2625274.39 75.89 0 0 198.5 198.50HB 481539 J BETTES/J ALONZO 554 24TH ST4182-023-017J BETTES/J ALONZO 554 24TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐2666519.34 86.83 0 0 432.51 432.51HB 496004 BRIAN B ANTLEY 930 15TH ST4185-008-038BRIAN ANTLEY 930 15TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐3204100.19 20.31 35.2 0 44.68 79.88HB 481462 HOLLY DURAND 1019 16TH ST4185-004-022HOLLY DURAND 1019 16TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐323696.64 50.62 0 0 46.02 46.02HB 481487 HOWARD SMITH 88 18TH ST4183-007-013HOWARD SMITH 88 18TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐3428206.96 108.86 0 0 98.1 98.10HB 486591 STEPHANIE GETTIS 1217 CYPRESS AVE4187-019-057STEPHANIE GETTIS 1217 CYPRESS AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐3811334.8 55.76 0 0 279.04 279.04HB 493134 HAUTE LA BOUTIQUE AND SALOON 505 PIER AVE4183-018-007ALBERT AND MADELEINE MARCO 201 NEVADA ST EL SEGUNDO CA 90245438.48 68.63 122.02 0 247.83 369.85HB 481694 JAMES RYAN 833 CYPRESS AVE4187-014-019JAMES RYAN 833 CYPRESS AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4235258.72 94.08 0 0 164.64 164.64HB 496010 HEATHER POE 1236 8TH ST4160-031-015HEATHER POE 1236 8TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4315138.66 72.63 0 0 66.03 66.03HB 484640 THOMAS & LESLIE SHEA 42 7TH CT4187-016-031THOMAS & LESLIE SHEA 47 6TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4411551.96 117.88 0 67.99 366.09 434.08HB 481877 JEROME & MARGARET GROSS 442 MANHATTAN AVE4188-010-057JEROME & MARGARET GROSS 442 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐457770.62 0 0 0 70.62 70.62HB 479730 ANGES SMYTHE 401 2ND ST4188-020-030ANGES SMYTHE 401 2ND ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4602334.8 55.76 0 0 279.04 279.04HB 483018 MATTHEW STELZEL 1266 7TH PL4160-028-010MATTHEW STELZEL 1266 7TH PL HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4913145.26 72.63 0 0 72.63 72.63HB 483683 RAMI HASSIF 99 HERMOSA AVE4188-002-042RAMI HASSIF 99 HERMOSA AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5017223.5 61.82 0 0 161.68 161.68HB 483684 RAMI NASSIF 66 THE STRAND4188-002-039RAMI NASSIF 66 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5042623.85 102.95 0 0 520.9 520.90HB 484127 RUTH R GONZALES 622 1ST PL4188-023-018RUTH R GONZALES 622 1ST PL HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5201369.15 65.54 0 0 303.61 303.61HB 491172 GAUTAM SHARMA 1235 2ND ST4186-023-012GAUTAM SHARMA 1235 2ND ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5338105.9 39.37 0 0 66.53 66.53HB 483524 PAUL MARCHINI 136 28TH ST4181-026-015PAUL MARCHINI PO BOX 3837 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266‐1837108.96 39.62 0 0 69.34 69.34HB 480591 DAVID LEWIS WHITE III 2212 HERMOSA AVE4182-010-003DAVID LEWIS WHITE III 1740 RUHLAND AVE MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266‐7132147.25 77.13 0 0 70.12 70.12HB 479926 BLUE OCEAN VIEW LLC 2634 THE STRAND4181-037-005BLUE OCEAN VIEW LLC PO BOX 1176 REDONDO BEACH CA 90278‐0176133.22 39.62 0 0 93.6 93.60HB 484626 THER HISHBURG FAMILY TRUST 252 LONGFELLOW AVE4181-019-020THER HISHBURG FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 1176 REDONDO BEACH CA 90278‐0176138.66 72.63 0 0 66.03 66.03 Easy Reader Run Date: May 28, 2015 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 NOTICE OF HEARING Delinquent Solid Waste Collection (Refuse) Bills NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Administrative Appeals Board of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a hearing on June 9, 2015 to review delinquent solid waste collection (refuse) bills for the purpose of recommending to City Council that said delinquent charges be placed on the property tax bill as a special assessment. The assessment would affect only those properties with solid waste collection bills delinquent as of March 31, 2015. SAID HEARING shall be at 6:00pm in the Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, 1st Floor Conference Room, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested in the above matter are invited to appear at the time and place stated above or to submit their written comments to the City Manager's Office at the address above no later than the time stated. For further information, please contact the City Manager's Office at (310) 318-0216. ELAINE DOERFLING City Clerk Easy Reader Run Date: June 11, 2015 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 NOTICE OF HEARING Delinquent Solid Waste Collection (Refuse) Bills NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, to consider the following: 1. Review delinquent solid waste collection (refuse) bills for the purpose of ordering said delinquent charges be placed on the property tax bill as a special assessment. The assessment would affect only those properties with solid waste collection bills delinquent as of March 31, 2015. (City Manager's Office, Tel: 318-0216) SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be held at 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Council Chambers, Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the department listed with the item, in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Wednesday, June 17, 2015, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the above-listed departments at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the departments listed above. A copy of the staff report(s) in the City Council packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, June 18, 2015, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department. Elaine Doerfling City Clerk From: Brett Doherty [mailto:sbd@sbdconsultingllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:03 AM To: Ann Yang Cc: Justin Newman; Laura Paul; phennessey@hennesseystavern.com; rrussomano@hennesseystavern.com; Tsgfred; Josh Royal; Seth Weiss; Doug Howarth; jed Sanford; David Lowe; Shelli Margolin-Mayer; Kristy Morris; Tom Bakaly Subject: Re: Delinquent Refuse Bills - Appeals Board Hearing Follow-up All: I just received a call from Johnny Perkins, the Executive VP of Athens Services. He is reviewing my and likely our joint concerns and seems to be genuine in wanting to resolve the issues. I will forward more info to all as it becomes available. Thank you. Regards, Brett Doherty Principal SBD Consulting LLC | The Hospitality Collective 18219 Coastline Drive, Suite 3 Malibu, CA 90265 office 310-439-8271 cell 310-579-5277 e-mail sbd@sbdconsultingllc.com e-mail sbd@thehospitalitycollective.com website www.thehospitalitycollective.com On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Brett Doherty <sbd@sbdconsultingllc.com> wrote: Ms Yang, Below please find my comments regarding the issue with Athens and the thread of communications regarding this matter. Please pass this along to the city council as well and the city managers office and other related departments. As a multi unit operator with 35 years of ownership and management experience, I have negotiated and dealt with multiple trash removal companies over my history as an operator. My experience with Athens has been by far the most difficult and frankly vague experience I have had. Killer Shrimp Restaurants took over two existing properties over the last 18 months to include The Mermaid (Opened December 2013) and Cantina Real (now Killer Shrimp opened August 2014). In early 2014 we were informed that Athens Services would be taking over the trash service for the Hermosa Pier Plaza environment and that we should expect to hear from them shortly. Some time shortly thereafter we were told that Athens had begun service and that we would receive a FOB (Fiber Optic Baton) and directions on how to use it. After a few months of no direction but Athens providing service we started to receive billing after the summer.The immediate issues were as follows:  Spoke with both Mary and Martha from Athens  Billing very high when compared to my other businesses with much larger revenue  Was billed for Killer Shrimp for July when we were not open When I questioned them they had no response other than "This is your portion of the bill”. After several months they finally credited my account reluctantly  When I further pressed them they said they would get back to me. When I asked them how they calculated the bills, they stated they had done extensive surveys. I asked for copies of the surveys and they refused to provide  When I continued to press them on the billing rates, they finally admitted that in fact they never completed any type of survey and that they based their billing on the historical data from the previous businesses. I explained the following: o I was a new operator at both locations o My business is different from the previous operator due to several conditions  My restaurant in Marina Del Rey acts as a commissary providing sauces, dressings and other prepped goods significantly reducing my waster at both Killer Shrimp HB and the Mermaid  That a large amount of rubbish was actually recycling to include bottles, cans and cardboard  That the MDR location has sales in excess of 10M and services multiple locations from the central commissary and that my trash bill including recycling was roughly $750 per month compared to over $300 for the mermaid with sales of 1M and Killer Shrimp with estimated sales of 2M so how could my usage be even close to what they had estimated  I once again asked for the survey from the previous trash company they refused to provide it but kept saying it was based on the historical usage. My response was that I was not willing to pay a rate with no support of back up as that would be poor business practices  At this point I reached out to the City for guidance and spoke with Kristy Morris and explained in detail the situation. As Kristy was new to her position, she said she would get back to me. Kristy called back several days later and indicated that yes, there was an issue and that the city was getting involved to try to solve it  I spoke once again to Athens and again requested some sort of back up. Once again they refused but did review with me the following o That they were a contract vendor and that prices were approved by the City Council and it was negotiated and that the local businesses had no other option but to accept it o Athens further explained that they used a consumption formula from the previous trash company in order to divide the billing and that the Pier Avenue businesses were also responsible for the common public areas that they serviced and that my portion went to cover the cost of the porter assigned to Pier Ave  Kristy got back to me and sent the distribution schedule from Athens. Upon review I once again called Athens and requested a new survey as I question the accuracy of what I was provided based on my findings above In review, I am a very fair business person who has invested heavily in Hermosa Beach. I am a huge fan of the City, its initiatives and feel that I have been a great partner. In my conversations with city officials, it seems there is a major disconnect with Athens Services and that they are not working in our cumulative best interests as they have continually and in my opinion purposely given out false statements and information. As recently as this week, I spoke once again to Mary and requested a meeting with management of Athens in order to work out an appropriate compromise but was refused as she stated that she is the only one within her group that has the authority to represent their company in regards to this matter. I am open to any questions or thoughts as I have actively tried to resolve this issue for 10 months with no appropriate or professional response from Athens. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you! Regards, Brett Doherty Chief Operating Officer Killer Shrimp Restaurant and Bar | Killer Cafe | The Mermaid Hermosa Beach | The Hamburger Hamlet 4211 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 office 310-439-8271 cell 310-579-5277 e-mail brett@killershrimp.com website www.killershrimp.com From: Ann Yang Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:18 AM To: 'rrussomano@hennesseystavern.com' Cc: 'brett@killershrimp.com'; Kristy Morris (kmorris@hermosabch.org) Subject: Delinquent Refuse Bills - Appeals Board Hearing Follow-up Ralph, Thank you for taking the time last Tuesday to attend the Delinquent Refuse Bills Administrative Appeals Board Hearing. As discussed, attached is the Athens contract. Kristy Morris has been in contact with Athens and below in red are answers that we’ve received. Please send me any correspondence you would like included with the agenda and distributed to City Council for consideration for the June 23, 2015 public hearing on this matter. Please pass this along to Mr. Hennessey. I’m also copying Brett from Killer Shrimp on this email since he has similar concerns. As noticed, the Public Hearing will begin at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. There are two issues here that have been discussed extensively and should be somewhat resolved with the compacter retrofit. 1. Their bills increased with the new contract and this was a decision made by Hermosa Beach City Council According to the information provided in the RFP we did not increase rates at the start of the contract actually they were lower with the exception of two accounts (Silvios Brazilian and Dragon Waterman) We did an audit and adjusted these two accounts based on usage. All other accounts had reduced monthly rates. Prior hauler was billing a total of $12,157.56, Athens rate was $9,988.54. We are currently billing an average of $10,500.00 due to the addition of the lease fee for the compactor. 2. Some businesses saw disproportionate increases in their bills and they would like to see audit reports showing how their portion was allocated We have provided the allocation sheet several times but we do not have the original audit data. We were planning another audit in an attempt to resolve the disputes but as I recall we decided to look at allocations after we start the weighing process. If found that some were overbilled or under billed we would make the adjustments then. Thank you, Ann Yang Secretary to the City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Office: (310) 318-0216 Fax: (310) 372-6186 anny@hermosabch.org CO ACCT NO ACCOUNT NAME SERVICE ADDRESS PARCEL NO BILLING NAME BILLING ADDRESS BILLING CITYBILLING BILLING ZIPTOTAL A/R CURRENT 30 DAYS 60 DAYS 90 DAYS PAST DUEHB 482416KENNETH HAAS 745 8TH PL4187-028-014KENNETH HAAS 0 HC 1 BOX 125A C MARICOPA CA 93252471.83 56.81 0 0 415.02 415.02HB 483027 MAURISA MILLER 907 5TH ST4186-016-011MAURISA MILLER 849 ALMAR AVE STE C SANTA CRUZ CA 95060155.21 42.93 0 0 112.28 112.28HB 480685 DIANDELL INC 810 MANHATTAN AVE4187-008-025DIANDELL INC 6420 W 82ND STLOS ANGELES CA 90045‐284097.8 48.9 0 0 48.9 48.90HB 481400HENRY & DORIS RADO 720 24TH PL4184-020-010HENRY & DORIS RADO 720 24TH PLHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐220384.46 37.58 0 0 46.88 46.88HB 483247 MORRI J & KAREN MOHR 262 27TH ST4181-024-023MORRI J & KAREN MOHR 262 27TH STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐2439310.34 85.84 0 0 224.5 224.50HB 483418 PARKER HERRIOTT2300 OZONE CT4182-016-038PARKER HERRIOTT224 24TH STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐26001339.09 223 0 0 1116.09 1,116.09HB 482815 MARGARET HUGHES 2108 LOMA DR4182-021-024MARGARET HUGHES 2108 LOMA DR HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐2625274.39 75.89 0 0 198.5 198.50HB 481539 J BETTES/J ALONZO 554 24TH ST4182-023-017J BETTES/J ALONZO 554 24TH STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐2666519.34 86.83 0 0 432.51 432.51HB 496004BRIAN B ANTLEY930 15TH ST4185-008-038BRIAN ANTLEY930 15TH STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐3204100.19 20.31 35.2 0 44.68 79.88HB 481462 HOLLY DURAND 1019 16TH ST4185-004-022HOLLY DURAND 1019 16TH STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐323696.64 50.62 0 0 46.02 46.02HB 481487 HOWARD SMITH 88 18TH ST4183-007-013HOWARD SMITH 88 18TH STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐3428206.96 108.86 0 0 98.1 98.10HB 486591 STEPHANIE GETTIS1217 CYPRESS AVE4187-019-057STEPHANIE GETTIS1217 CYPRESS AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐3811334.8 55.76 0 0 279.04 279.04HB 493134HAUTE LA BOUTIQUE AND SALOON 505 PIER AVE4183-018-007ALBERT AND MADELEINE MARCO 201 NEVADA STEL SEGUNDO CA 90245438.48 68.63 122.02 0 247.83 369.85HB 481694JAMES RYAN 833 CYPRESS AVE4187-014-019JAMES RYAN 833 CYPRESS AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4235258.72 94.08 0 0 164.64 164.64HB 481877 JEROME & MARGARET GROSS 442 MANHATTAN AVE4188-010-057JEROME & MARGARET GROSS 442 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐457770.62 0 0 0 70.62 70.62HB 479730ANGES SMYTHE 401 2ND ST4188-020-030ANGES SMYTHE 401 2ND STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4602334.8 55.76 0 0 279.04 279.04HB 483018 MATTHEW STELZEL1266 7TH PL4160-028-010MATTHEW STELZEL1266 7TH PLHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐4913145.26 72.63 0 0 72.63 72.63HB 483683 RAMI HASSIF 99 HERMOSA AVE4188-002-042RAMI HASSIF 99 HERMOSA AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5017223.5 61.82 0 0 161.68 161.68HB 483684RAMI NASSIF 66 THE STRAND4188-002-039RAMI NASSIF 66 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5042623.85 102.95 0 0 520.9 520.90HB 484127 RUTH R GONZALES 622 1ST PL4188-023-018RUTH R GONZALES 622 1ST PLHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5201369.15 65.54 0 0 303.61 303.61HB 491172 GAUTAM SHARMA 1235 2ND ST4186-023-012GAUTAM SHARMA 1235 2ND STHERMOSA BEACH CA 90254‐5338105.9 39.37 0 0 66.53 66.53HB 483524PAUL MARCHINI 136 28TH ST4181-026-015PAUL MARCHINI PO BOX 3837 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266‐1837108.96 39.62 0 0 69.34 69.34HB 479926BLUE OCEAN VIEW LLC 2634 THE STRAND4181-037-005BLUE OCEAN VIEW LLC PO BOX 1176 REDONDO BEACH CA 90278‐0176133.22 39.62 0 0 93.6 93.60HB 484626THER HISHBURG FAMILY TRUST252 LONGFELLOW AVE4181-019-020THER HISHBURG FAMILY TRUSTPO BOX 1176 REDONDO BEACH CA 90278‐0176138.66 72.63 0 0 66.03 66.03 Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0517 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING - HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1.Conduct a Public Hearing in connection with the levy of assessments for FY 15-16; and 2.Adopt the attached Resolution confirming the diagram and assessment for Hermosa Beach Landscaping & Street Lighting District 2015-2016 ("District") and levying an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016. Background: As required by law,the following steps have been taken for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 2015-2016 within the District: 1.March 14, 2015: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-6951 ordering the preparation of a report for the District. 2.May 14, 2015: The Director of Public Works filed with the City Clerk the report consisting of, among other things; the assessment diagram and assessment roll for the District. 3.May 26, 2015: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-6959 approving the report of the Director of Public Works. 4.May 26, 2015: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-6960 setting June 23, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing in order to accept public input on the District. 5.June 11, 2015: Notice of the Public Hearing was given by publishing a public notice in the Easy Reader. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0517 Analysis: The District assessment funds the cost of maintaining and operating street lights,traffic signals and landscaping located within parkways or medians as is demonstrated in the Part B of the attached Engineer’s Report.The proposed assessment rate for FY 2015-2016 is $41.45 per equivalent dwelling unit,the same equivalent dwelling unit rate used in fiscal year 2014-2015 to finance those improvements.The assessment is based on the actual number of dwelling units that are on a property (or their equivalent for vacant and commercial properties). Prior to 1995,the assessment amount was $16.84 per dwelling unit.In FY 1995-96,the assessment amount was increased to $54.82 with the exception of senior citizens,for whom the $16.84 amount (through a rebate program)was maintained.Due to a surplus of funds,the assessment amount was reduced to the present amount of $41.45 in FY 1997-98. This surplus of District funds was enough to cover the increasing costs of services through FY 2003- 04.Since this time period,the District has been running a deficit,requiring supplemental revenue from the General Fund. Fiscal Implications: The General Fund has contributed $26,950 to the District Funds to maintain the District for FY 15-16. Attachments: 1.Engineer’s Report 2.Draft Resolution Respectfully Submitted by: Homayoun Behboodi, Associate Engineer Concur: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Lauren Langer Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ ATTACHMENT 1 ENGINEER’S REPORT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016 ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016 Prepared By: Andrew Brozyna, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer May 14, 2015 ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate .................................................................................................. 1 Report........................................................................................................ 2 Part A - Plans and Specifications................................................... 4 Part B - Estimate of Cost................................................................ 6 Part C - Assessment Roll............................................................... 7 Part D - Method of Apportionment of Assessment ......................... 8 Part E - Property Owner List ..........................................................10 Part F - Assessment District Boundary...........................................11 ENGINEER’S REPORT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016 The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council. DATED: May14, 2015 BY:Andrew Brozyna, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll and Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the day of , 2015. City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County, California By I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll and Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on the day of , 2015. City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County, California By I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Assessment Roll and Diagram were filed with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles, on the day of , 2015. City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County, California By FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679, OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE Pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with the Resolution of Initiation adopted by the Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, in connection with the proceedings for: HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016 Hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District" or "District", Andrew Brozyna, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer, the duly appointed ENGINEER OF WORK, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of six (6) parts as follows: PART A Plans and specifications for the improvements showing and describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements. PART B An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements for FY 2015-2016, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. PART C An assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements on each benefited lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District. PART D The method of apportionment of assessments, indicating the proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements upon the several lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels. PART E A list of the names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Assessment District, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles. PART F The Diagram of the Assessment District Boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District. PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of Hermosa Beach, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be operated, serviced and maintained as generally described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016 The proposed improvements for FY 2015-2016 may be generally described as the continued maintenance and operation of streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation, servicing and maintenance of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities that are located in and along such streets and sidewalks, including but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contracting services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation of these services described as follows: Street Landscaping and Appurtenant Facilities Landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems, hardscapes and fixtures in public street and sidewalk rights-of-way, including parkways and medians, within the boundaries of the Assessment District. Street Lighting and Appurtenant Facilities Poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide street lighting and traffic signals in public street and sidewalk rights-of-way, including parkways and medians, within the boundaries of the Assessment District. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the lighting facilities, or for the lighting or operation of the landscaping or appurtenant facilities. The plans and specifications for the improvements, showing and describing the general nature, location, and the extent of the improvements, are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are incorporated herein by reference. PART B ESTIMATE OF COSTS LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT Proposed Budget - Fiscal Year 2015-2016 The estimated cost of the operation, servicing and maintenance of the street and sidewalk improvements for fiscal year 2015-2016, as described in Part A, are summarized herein and described below. Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance and Servicing Median & Pkwy Landscaping Maintenance and Servicing Lighting Maintenance and Servicing Tree Trimming $455,938 Administration Costs $ 8,345 Insurance $ 29,842 L.A. County Tax Collection Costs $ 4,000 Equipment Replacement $ 40,054 Proposed Capital Improvements $ 0 Expenditures Subtotal $538,179 Appropriation from Fund balance $ 51,581 Amount transferred from General Fund $ 26,950 Miscellaneous Revenues $ 648 Total Assessment $459,000 Fund Balance 6/30/16 $ 0 An additional amount of $26,950 will be transferred from the General Fund to maintain the District for FY 15-16. The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on July 1 must be carried over to the next fiscal year. PART C ASSESSMENT ROLL The total proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and the amount of the total proposed assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel within the District, as shown on the latest assessment roll at the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office, are contained in the Assessment Roll on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, which is incorporated herein by reference. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the Los Angeles County assessment roll and this roll is, by reference, made part of this Report. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT GENERAL Part 2, of Division 15, of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by cities for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include operation, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals and landscaping. The 1972 Act requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. Section 22573 provides that: “The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.” The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements" (Sec. 22574) Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "benefit assessment" rather than a "special tax." Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of all publicly owned property in use in the performance of a public function. Railroad and utility rights-of-way are also exempt from assessment. BENEFIT ANALYSIS Street Lighting and Traffic Signals -The proper functioning of street lighting and traffic signals is imperative for the welfare and safety of the public and property throughout the City. Proper operation, maintenance and servicing of the street lighting system benefits properties within the District by providing proper illumination for ingress and egress and safe traveling at night. Properties within the District also benefit from the proper functioning of the District's traffic signal system. Proper operation of the streetlight and traffic signal systems is imperative to public convenience, orderly traffic flow, enhanced congestion management and safety. Improved security, fuel conservation, protection of property from crime and vandalism, and reduction of traffic accidents, are special and direct benefits to all properties within the City; lighting benefits are directly related to public safety and property protection and therefore increase property values. Median and Parkway Landscaping and Tree Trimming -Trees, landscaping, hardscaping and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade and enhancement of the desirability of the surroundings, and therefore increase property value. The City maintains trees and miscellaneous shrubbery and landscaping throughout the City. The trees, shrubbery and landscaping are located within the public street and sidewalk rights- of-way, including parkways and medians. These trees, shrubbery and landscaping provide an aesthetically pleasing environment, shade, beautification, and, according to some authorities, air purification and sound attenuation. These positive attributes increase the value of all properties throughout the City. Therefore, all property within the District receive an overall specific and direct benefit from the maintenance and servicing of the street median and parkway landscaping and street tree trimming programs. Special benefits which are received by all parcels in the City are considered to be City-wide Benefits, and the associated costs of these special benefits are spread equally, based on Equivalent Dwelling Units, to all parcels within the District. All properties in the District benefit from the operation, maintenance and servicing of the street lighting, traffic signals, street median and parkway landscaping and street tree trimming. The degree of benefit to each parcel of land varies depending on its land use and the size of the parcel. If assessments were spread on an individual parcel basis, not considering land use or parcel size, it would not be an equitable method of spread because a single family parcel would pay the same assessment as a 50-unit apartment parcel or a large commercial parcel. Therefore, the method for spreading the improvement costs, which must be based on special and direct benefit, is on an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) basis. The EDU method uses the residential dwelling unit as the basic unit and compares other uses to it, as follows: Residential parcels are assessed based on the number of dwelling units on each parcel, where each residential dwelling unit equals one EDU Non-residential parcels have been converted into EDU'S, based on engineering judgment taking into consideration the size of the parcel and the amount of frontage along the street. Every parcel is assessed a minimum of one (1) EDU. There are a total of 11,073 EDU's within the Assessment District. ASSESSMENT RATE CALCULATION Based on a budget of $459,000 as shown in Part B of this report, the preliminary assessment rate for FY 2015-2016 is calculated as follows: $459,000 / 11,073 EDU's = $41.45 per EDU The assessment for FY 2014-2015 was $41.45 per EDU. PART E PROPERTY OWNER LIST A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels within this District is shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which by reference is hereby made a part of this report. This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach. PART F ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach. A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District, and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, and is incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles for fiscal year 2015-2016. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this report. -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT RESOLUTION -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2015 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2016 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2015-2016. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section 22500, (the "Act"), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-6951 initiating proceedings and ordering the Director of Public Works to prepare and file the report required by the Act. Said report is for the proposed levy of an annual assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15-6951, such report was prepared and filed with the City Clerk. SECTION 2. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-6959, approving the report as filed, and Resolution No. 15-6960, declaring its intention to order certain improvements and to levy and collect assessments for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016 and appointing a time and place for hearing protests relative thereto. SECTION 3. Following notice duly given in accordance with law, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing at the time and place appointed therefor regarding the proposed levy of assessments within the District and the report of the Director of Public Works, including the diagram and assessment for the District. At the public hearing, all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests and objections to -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 the levy and collection of the proposed assessments against lots or parcels of real property within the District. SECTION 4. The City Council considered all oral and written statements, protests and communications made or filed by any interested persons. Any and all oral and written protests and objections are hereby overruled by the City Council. SECTION 5. Based upon its review of the Engineer's Report, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council and which has been filed with the City Clerk, and other reports and information presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby finds and determines that (i) the land within the District will be benefited by the improvements described in Section 6 below, (ii) the District includes all of the land so benefited, and (iii) the net amount to be assessed upon the land within the District for the 2015-2016 fiscal year in accordance with the Engineer's Report is apportioned by a method and formula which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby orders the proposed improvements to be made as described in the Engineer's Report, which improvements are briefly described as follows: the maintenance and operation of streets and sidewalks within the assessment District, including the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities located in and along such streets and sidewalks. SECTION 7. The City Council declares that the diagram and assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby confirmed as filed. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016. SECTION 8. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual assessment -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 pursuant to the Act. The assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and expenses of the improvements described in Section 6 above for fiscal year 2015-2016. SECTION 9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution and the diagram and assessment with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles. Thereupon, the County Auditor shall provide for the collection of assessments at the time and in the manner provided in the Act. SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall cause the original of the same to be entered among the original Resolutions of the City Council, and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of June 2015. MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: , CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: , CITY ATTORNEY Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0525 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE CHARGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 TO FUND MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, SERVICING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM; AND AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13.12 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE (Public Works Director Andrew Brozyna) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: Hold a majority protest hearing at the June 23, 2015 Council meeting, confirm the number of written protests received at the close of the public hearing, and if a majority protest is not received: 1.Adopt attached Resolution, adopting the annual sewer service charge and authorizing the charge for Fiscal Year 2015-16 to fund maintenance, operation, servicing, and improvements to the City’s sewer collection system; and 2.Waive full reading and introduce attached Ordinance, adding a new Chapter 13.12 to the Municipal Code regarding the sewer service charge. Background: At the meeting of June 10, 2014, the City Council considered a plan to either annex into Los Angeles County’s Sewer Maintenance District or continue to own and operate the City’s own sewer system. Necessary capital improvements to the sewer system are projected to cost approximately $11 million. At the June 2014 meeting, the City Council elected to continue ownership and operation of the City’s sewer system. The Council also directed staff to return with scenarios on how to fund both operations and maintenance, alongside critical capital improvements to both the sewer and storm drain system. Council held a second study session in September 2014 to review staff’s findings, and discuss the funding mechanism for operation and maintenance as well as necessary improvements to the City’s sewer system. Council discussed various types of sewer service charges for both residential and Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0525 commercial units.Council directed staff to return with a proposed sewer fee structure that will fund sewer operations and maintenance. At the April 14, 2015 Council meeting, staff and the City’s sewer fee consultant, Penco Engineering, Inc. (Penco) proposed a sewer charge formula for determining each property owner’s sewage charge. In addition, Council was also presented with several charge rate levels to fund necessary capital improvements on the City’s sewer system and annual operation and maintenance costs. Council selected to use $3 million in cash from the Sewer Fund and finance the remaining $8 million for the expenditure of $11 million dollars in necessary capital improvements on the City’s sewer system over the next ten years, with a minimum annual operation and maintenance budget of $250,000. Council directed staff to return with a proposed sewer fee structure to fund the $8 million over twenty years or thirty years for comparison of the bond term. Also, Council decided that condominiums are similar in nature to single family homes in Hermosa Beach. Therefore, both are to be assigned one (1) Equivalent Sewage Unit (ESU). At the April 28, 2015 Council meeting, Council set the level of proposed charge at $115 per ESU, and agreed to a range of annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs from $250,000/year to $450,000/year. This range will pay for all anticipated O&M expenditures for the year as well as allow for a gradual buildup of reserves to be spent on future sewer capital projects after the initial ten year program, estimated at a cost of approximately $11 million, is completed. Staff informed Council that the bond term would be reviewed and options brought back to Council after the June 23, 2015 protest hearing. Prior to adopting any new (or increased) sewer charge, the City must conduct a majority protest hearing in accordance with Proposition 218 (Article XIIID of the California Constitution). Proposition 218 requires the City to provide mailed notice at least 45 days before the public hearing to each property in the City that may be affected by the new charge. The notice advises the property owner (or tenant) that if he or she objects to the new charge, the individual must file a written protest with the City. Only one protest is counted per parcel. At the April 28, 2015 Council meeting, Council also adopted the Engineer’s Report, setting the majority protest hearing for June 23, 2015 and directed the City Clerk to mail all notices required under Proposition 218.A copy of the notice to property owners is enclosed as Attachment 1. On May 27, 2015, staff and the City’s sewer fee consultant held a community presentation for the proposed sewer service charge at City Council Chambers. The presentation covered an overview of the condition of the sanitary sewer system; a comparison of other sewer charges in neighboring cities; use of funds from the proposed charge; the protest process; a reminder of the public Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0525 hearing/protest hearing on June 23, 2015; and finished with an open question and answer session from the community. Minutes of the question and answer session are enclosed as Attachment 2. Analysis: The sewer service charge is based on the direct cost of providing maintenance, operation, servicing, and improvements to the sewer collections system. These costs include staff, contracting service, material, and other costs as described in the Engineer’s Report (enclosed as part of Attachment 3). The $115 charge per ESU for 2015/2016 as adopted by the City Council on April 28, 2015 is multiplied by the ESUs for each residential parcel and by water consumption for non‐residential to determine the charge for each parcel. The proposed 2015/2016 revenue for the sewer services will be funded by the total of the charges from the parcels. As mentioned, the City must conduct a majority protest hearing in accordance with Proposition 218 (Article XIIID of the California Constitution) prior to adopting any new (or increased) sewer charge. A majority protest exists if, at the end of the public hearing, there are valid written protests submitted by a majority of the properties subject to the proposed charge. Should the number of written protests received not be sufficient to constitute a majority protest of the affected properties, then the Council may adopt the proposed new sewer charge. Only one protest is counted per parcel. There were 6,919 parcels notified within the City. Therefore, a minimum of 3,460 protests are needed for a majority protest to exist. It is recommended that City Council hold a majority protest hearing at the June 23, 2015 Council meeting, confirm the number of written protests received at the close of the public hearing, and if a majority protest is not received, adopt attached Resolution (Attachment 3), adopting the annual sewer service charge and authorizing the charge for Fiscal Year 2015-16 to fund maintenance, operation, servicing, and improvements to the City’s sewer collection system; and introduce on first reading attached Ordinance (Attachment 4), adding a new Chapter 13.12 to the Municipal Code regarding the sewer service charge. The ordinance will codify the charge, the process for collection, and the permissible use of the funds. The resolution also adopts the updated Engineer’s Report, which reflects the decisions made by the City Council on April 28th. Attachments: 1.Notice to Property Owners 2.May 27, 2015 Community Presentation Minutes 3.Draft Resolution w/ revised Engineer’s Report Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0525 4.Draft Ordinance 5.Objection from Roberta Moore dated May 14, 2015 Fiscal Impact: Approval of the staff recommendations will authorize a sewer service charge of $115/year per ESU for fiscal year 2015-16 plus an annual increase beginning fiscal year 2016-17 not to exceed 2% per year for a maximum period of five years, and allow operation and maintenance activities to be funded by this charge. Respectfully Submitted by: Andrew Brozyna, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review:Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH – NOTICE OF PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE CHARGE TO FUND MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, SERVICING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY’S SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND PUBLIC PROTEST HEARING May 7, 2015 Dear Property Owner, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. or soon thereafter on June 23, 2015 in the City Council Chambers, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 to take public testimony and receive any written protests on the proposed Sewer Service Charge that will be used to fund maintenance, operation, servicing and improvements to the City’s sewer collection system. The City of Hermosa Beach proposes to collect funds to cover the expenses for the overall operation, maintenance and servicing of the city-‐owned sewer system as well as the funds deemed appropriate and necessary to pay for capital improvements and reserves for the next ten years. The City estimates that $11 million worth of capital improvements to the sewer system will be needed over the next ten years (including rehabilitation and reconstructing pipes and manholes). The charge will also cover annual operation and maintenance costs for the sewer system. The proposed sewer service charge is based on the direct cost of providing the service, which includes staff, rent, utilities and other costs. The baseline for calculating the charge per parcel is a single-‐family residential lot. If approved, the proposed charge will appear on your annual property tax bill. Typically in Los Angeles County on the average, a single-‐family lot generates 260 gallons of sewage per day (GPD). For purposes of comparing the various land uses for lots and parcels, 260 gallons per day is designated as the Equivalent Sewer Unit (ESU). The rate per ESU for 2015/2016 of $115 will multiplied by the ESUs for each residential parcel and by water consumption for non-‐residential to determine the charge for each parcel. For residential parcels, the ESU and charge is calculated as follows: LAND USE ESU ANNUAL CHARGE Single Family 1.0 $115 2 Condominiums 1.0 $115 Multi Family 0.6 $69 (Charge is per unit) Vacant parcels 0.5 $57.50 For non-‐residential parcels, the ESU is calculated by the following equation: ESU= [Commercial Water Consumption GPD]/260 GPD (the same GPD as a single-‐family residential lot). Commercial Water Consumption information can be found on your water bill. Thus the ESU will be different for each non-‐residential parcel. Due to the number of parcels in the City of Hermosa Beach that will be subject to the Sewer Service Charge, the charge per parcel cannot be provided in this notice. The actual Parcel Charges (a listing of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and the amount to be levied on each parcel) is available in the Hermosa Beach City Clerk’s Office in an electronic format. The list is available for public inspection during normal business office hours (1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254). Because the costs of providing the sewer service may increase over time, beginning July 1, 2016 and each July thereafter for a period of five years, the rate per ESU established for 2015/2016 shall be increased for inflation by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in the Los Angeles-‐Riverside-‐Orange County, CA Area (CPI), including all items as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year, not to exceed two percent (2%) per year. An annual notice will be provided before an annual inflation increase will be applied. After the five-‐year period, the City may conduct another majority protest hearing to authorize inflation increases for an additional period not to exceed five years. Any property owner or tenant may file a written protest against the proposed sewer charge with the City Clerk at any time before the end of the public hearing. The protest must identify the (a) address or Assessor Parcel Number(s) of the property (listed on your Los Angeles County Tax Bill or at http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp or contact City staff as indicated below), (b) name and signature of protester, and (c) a clear statement protesting the charge pursuant to this Notice. Only one written protest per parcel will be counted. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing on June 23, 2015. Written protests received after the close of the public hearing and protests submitted by telephone, facsimile, e-‐mail or other electronic form will NOT be accepted or counted. Postmarks are NOT acceptable. This protest hearing is being conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution (also referred to as Proposition 218). The City Council will not implement the new sewer charge if it receives written protests against the proposed charge from a majority of the properties subject to the proposed charge by the close of the public hearing. Please note that a protest proceeding is not an election. To ensure transparency and accountability in the protest tabulation, protests shall constitute disclosable public records from and after the time they are received. For additional information about the proposed sewer charge or your Assessor’s Parcel Number, please contact the Public Works 3 Department at (310)318-‐0214. Questions about filing a protest should be directed to the City Clerk at (310)318-‐0203, City of Hermosa Beach, Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. Office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. _________________________________ Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SEWER SERVICE CHARGE PROTEST FORM IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THE ANNUAL SEWER CHARGE, NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. To protest the proposed Sewer Service Charge, you may complete this Protest Form, detach it, and mail or deliver it to the City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach, Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. In order for this form to be counted as a valid protest against the proposed sewer charge, this form must be signed and received by the City Clerk no later than the end of the public hearing on June 23, 2015. You may also appear at the public hearing and submit a written protest at the hearing. Only one protest is allowed per property. Assessor’s Parcel No.: ___________________________________________________ I protest the proposed Sewer Service Charge. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner or tenant of the above listed property and I am authorized to submit this protest. Place signature here: _______________________________________________________________ Print property owner name here: _____________________________________________________ Additional information on the rate changes may be obtained from the Public Works Department (310)318-‐0214. Questions about filing a protest should be directed to the City Clerk at (310)318-‐0203, City of Hermosa Beach, Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. Office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. MINUTES SEWER SERVICE CHARGE PUBLIC PRESENTATION WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2015 CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE The presentation can be viewed on the City’s website at: http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=358. Present: Andrew Brozyna, P.E., Director of Public Works; Jeff Cooper, Consultant, PENCO Engineering, Inc.; Tom Bakaly, City Manager; and Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Cooper and Mr. Brozyna presented information on the following topics: Condition of Sanitary Sewers Proposed Sewer Charge Use of Revenue Proposed Annual Increases Protest Process Public Hearing / Date & Location The following is a list of questions asked and answered at the Sewer Service Charge Public Presentation: Jeff Cooper, Consultant: 1.Q: When you shared the other city rates, you said Manhattan Beach was $350 per resident, but didn’t you mean per residence? Are all these numbers per residence? A: The rate charged is per single-family residence in Manhattan Beach. The $350 is a calculation based on average use and the City of Manhattan Beach uses water usage for the calculation. 2.Q: Why not a vote from the people of Hermosa Beach water to consumption? $195 per home Redondo Beach. A: By a vote is not the legal process. Proposition 218 is a constitutional amendment passed by the voters of California in 1996 and it has no avenue for a vote or ballot. In the case of a sewer fee a protest hearing is required. 3. Q: How much will the annual assessment grow over the next 20 years? A: It can only increase for 5 years and if the increase is approved the Council can only approve up to a maximum amount of 2% but must have inflation for the increase to be approved and the Council does not have to approve the increases. If the increases are needed beyond 5 years, that would require additional noticing and public hearings. 4. Q: How to fill out the protest form if I do not mind the new charge but do not agree with the method of calculating it? A: There is no avenue for protesting how the rate is calculated. You may protest if you have a problem with any part of the fee. The form is available in the City Clerk’s office. 5. Q: Will voters have a vote on this proposal? A: There is not an avenue for a vote. There is no vote only a protest process. 6. Q: Why is the Manhattan Beach sewer charge collection at $350 so much more than Hermosa Beach? A: Proposition 218 requires that the City charge only for the real costs needed by the City to operate the sewers and the cost to repair and improve them. Manhattan Beach may have higher costs to operate or their system may need more improvements. 7. Q: Why not use water meter bills per residence and business to calculate payments? A: We feel that charging on water usage is not as fair since some of the water used by residents does not end up in the sewers and using water usage tends to lead to higher charges. In Hermosa Beach, the City of Hermosa Beach does not own their water service, it is owned by a commercial water company and would make collecting the charge more complicated because the City would have to ask the water company to collect the charge for the City. 8. Q: How many people have to protest for it to matter? A: For there to be a majority protest 50% of the property owners and tenants would have to protest. 9. Q: For how many years will this tax go on? A: This is not a tax. The City cannot predict how long the charge will go on, but at least for 5-6 years. It is very hard to find a city that does not charge their residents for the use of their sewer system. 10.Q: If actual charges are less than revenue, will there be a refund to the residents? A: If costs to operate the system go down then the City will have to lower the charge. Proposition 218 does not allow the City to charge more than the cost of service. 11.Q: Why are condos charged the same as single-family residence (SFR) and not like apartments? A one bedroom, one bath condo uses less water the SFR? A: The City Council determined that condominiums in Hermosa Beach are more similar to single-family homes (SFHs) than in other communities thus they will be charged the same rate as SFHs. Apartments are not the same and are charged .6 per unit. 12.Q: Do two units (house and one bedroom above garage) with one meter count as SFR/condo or like a large apartment building? A: The City is required to use the Los Angeles County Assessor’s information. This means that we must use the classification the County has on file for the property. If residents think LA County has made a mistake, then once this charge is passed residents can submit the information to the Department of Public Works. Public Works will investigate and modify the charge based on the results of the field check. The City cannot field check every property in the City at this time. 13. Q: What are the credentials of Mr. Cooper to use a consultant for this project? A: My credentials include: BA in Economics, Bachelors and Masters in Engineering, Registered Civil Engineer since 1980, consulting engineer for 38 years, owned and operated consulting firms, performing assessment districts, special taxes and charges for 30 years. 14. Q: How is this fair? Define “fair”. Your charge calculations slide says this is fair. Why not factor in water usage per each properties water bill? A: Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. The majority of agencies feel that charging a flat rate is the most fair for SFHs, and charging a flat rate is the most common way to do it and that was my recommendation because I don’t feel it is fair to charge residents for watering their lawn or filling up a swimming pool. We are using water usage for commercial properties. 15. Q: Will there be additional bond issues after this borrowing is used up in seven years? A: I am not aware of any plans to do so. The plan is to catch up on sewer improvements because the City has very old pipes and they are leaking. Some pose a bad environmental situation with wastewater leaking into the ground water. What we are trying to do in the sewer charge is build capacity so that in the future we have a pay as you go basis and don’t have to borrow money. Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director: 16. Q: Where did the $11 million number come from? A: The 11 million dollar cost estimate comes from the sewer master plan that included video taping the sewer lines. The Sewer Master Plan was recently updated. 17.Q: Is the $11 million estimate a firm estimate or just a guess? Have bids been let? If so, how many bidders? A: The estimate consists of an estimate for construction costs based on current labor and material costs and design fees. The work has not gone out to yet. This is strictly an estimate. Eventually the project will go out to bid. A portion of the sewer line will be rehabilitated over seven years. 18.Q: How do we know this estimate isn’t really high (like the education fund vote)? Or too low? A: The estimate is based on current construction and design fees. 19.Q: How did you decide what needs to be fixed? Who made the decision? What is the format for repair contract price? A: We based our decision on the Sewer Master Plan that included video taping the lines. The City made a decision based in conjunction with the City’s Sewer Master Plan consultant and City staff. We will go out to bid for sewer projects and that gives us a better idea of what the costs will be. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney: 20.Q: Since actual count of registered voters represents large numbers of people who don’t care, why does their count go against those who protest? A: This is not an election. As Mr. Cooper explained, under Proposition 218, the purpose of the measure by the voters was to reform all of the State’s tax, assessment and fee laws. Prop 218 treats property based fees, fees for services that benefit properties differently, they don’t have to be approved by election, but instead can be approved by a protest procedure. 21. Q: What are repeal options after the protest hearing? A: The fee can be approved by the City Council as long as there is not a majority protest. If there are insufficient protests the Council can proceed with the fee and decide at a future time to eliminate the fee, but there is no option for the property owners to do so. 22. Q: Will the protest be counted if the name is not exactly how it is on the title? A: If it is reasonably close and we can identify the owner that will be sufficient. If there is a question as to who is on the title, but if you are the owner of the property and put your name down that should work. Tom Bakaly, City Manager: 23.Q: Can a portion of the Tyco income (Tideland Trust money) and/or TOT revenue be allocated to pay for sewers? A: Yes, but that would come at the expense of other projects. There might be restrictions based on locations for Tyco funds. TOT revenues are General Fund revenue and could be transferred to pay for the sewers. 24.Q: How were our sewers paid for up till now? Why can’t that “process” continue? A: The UUT Tax has been around since 1985 of 10% that goes into the General Fund and then the funds are transferred for other uses that were approved as part of that ballot process. There have been annual contributions for sewer maintenance and repairs. 25. Q: How long will this tax last and how is this different than the 6% UUT? This is not a tax, it is a fee. If the fee is approved then the UUT funds could be freed up to cover other costs like streets, or as has been discussed, the new State storm water requirements. 26. Q: What has user utility tax been used for? Is all or a portion of UUT be applied to sewers? A: We have a 10% UUT tax and it has been used for sewers, storm water and other services allowed for when the tax was voted in. 27.Q: What are the current sewer rates? Zero? No – it’s bundled in the utility tax. So how much is it now, and how much of an increase is this proposal? A: The UUT of 10% of which some has gone to sewers. 28.Q: Why a sewer charge now? What has been done to maintain the sewers in the past? A: The sewer charge is needed now to catch up on improvements. Jeff Cooper, Consultant: 29. Q: What if the water consumption of a single-family house is 0.1 of GPD (over period of 5 years)? A: In the charge water consumption is not part of the equation for a single-family home, the rate is a flat charge of $115 per year so the GPD does not come into play on a single-family home. 30. Q: How many swimming pools are in the city of Hermosa Beach? (In reference to your comments on fairness of calculation). A: I used swimming pool as an example of water that does not go into the sewer. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be water used to water yards or shrubs. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney 31. Q: Are we assessed district charges already on our property taxes, such as SB San Dist. charge, WB MWD charge? A: I’m fairly certain there are several charges on your property taxes. One of the assessments is from the County Sanitation District and is a charge to carry sewage from the City’s main line to the sewage treatment plant that is operated by the Sanitation District. There is also a tax for the abatement of mosquitoes. Those are assessments that are either countywide or region-wide. Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director: 32. Q: How much is it costing us for consultant? A: The Consultant fees are approximately $40,000. Tom Bakaly, City Manager: 33. Q: Can we expect to see in the future “fees” to upgrade the fire department along with the other capital projects? A: We’ve been very transparent about our capital needs by doing future planning, 5 Year Capital Improvement Planning and identifying over 100 million in capital project needs through the Community Dialogue sessions with resident committees. Right now we are not planning on using fees to fund capital needs. There is a petition sponsored by members of the public going around to put a TOT increase to fund capital on the ballot, but the City does not have any plans at this time to do that. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney added the following response: Under Prop 218 the City can only use fees to pay for certain things. Fees can only be adopted if they benefit your property or reimburse the City for an actual cost the City incurs. Taxes don’t have to be tied to a specific benefit to property. You pay for garbage collection. That is a fee for a service because you generate the garbage. You pay a charge to a State regulated utility for the gas and electricity that you use. The City has never charged a fee for the sewer service before, but this fee is for a charge for the sewage travelling from your pipes to be treated. The City can charge permit fees, but usually the fees do not cover all the costs to process those applications. The process for a tax increase is different and requires a vote. If enough petitions are gathered, then the question of the TOT increase will be put on the ballot. We can use those tax revenues for general purposes because they are not tied to any specific use. We use taxes for paying for Police and Fire services, but we could not raise fees for that. Tom Bakaly, City Manager: 34. Q: Please give us an idea of how many other fees/charges/or taxes are in the pipeline or are planned in the next 7 years. Is $11 million going to be followed by another $100 million? A: We’ve addressed that. We have identified the capital needs. The Community Dialogue process identified a 100 million in capital needs and the community group discussed other ways to raise revenues to cover capital needs and it is on the City’s website. We will need to find a way to fund these capital needs. 35. Q: What other Prop 218 “fees” are on the horizon for Hermosa Beach infrastructure? A: We’ve answered that question. We do have the need to improve the storm water system and would look to use the UUT money for that. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney: 36. Q: Will the estimate of total include average election turnout in the city? A: Will the average the election turnout in some way affect how we count the ‘no’ vote? If that is the question, then the answer is no. We need roughly 3,500 protests to make a majority protest and kill the sewer fee. There is one protest per parcel. Tom Bakaly, City Attorney: 37. Q: If we put off the issuance of the bonds, how much will we lose in fees to consultants and bond issuers, etc.? A: The plan, if the fee is approved, would be to take that revenue stream and borrow for it and thus have more capital to fund the sewer improvements. If we didn’t go forward with the bonds, then we wouldn’t have the bond and consultant fees, but we would not be able to make the sewer improvements, but we would have the revenue source if the fee was approved. Andrew Brozyna, Director of Public Works: 38. Q: Is there an opportunity now to make comments? A: This is an information meeting, public comments can be made at the Public Hearing, on June 23rd. Jeff Cooper, Consultant added: The protest remains open until the end of the Public Hearing and the Hearing is in front of the City Council. 39. Q: If there are not enough protest votes to prevent the fee, will the council still have the option of moving forward with this fee? A: Yes, the Council has the option either way. If the protest is less than 50% the Council still has to act on whether they will go forward with the fee or not and this needs a majority of the City Council. If the protests are more that 50%, it is over and the sewer fee will not be implemented. The Presentation ended at 7:59p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 15 -______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ADOPTING THE ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE AND AUTHORIZING THE CHARGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 TO FUND MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, SERVICING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY’S SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. Recitals. A. On April 28, 2015, the Hermosa Beach City Council initiated proceedings to consider adoption of a sewer service charge. The purpose of the charge is to collect funds to cover the expenses for the overall operation, maintenance and servicing of the city-owned sewer system as well as the funds deemed appropriate and necessary to pay for capital improvements and reserves. B. At its April 28th meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-6954 which adopted the City of Hermosa Beach Sewer Service Charges Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Preliminary Engineer’s Report (“Engineer’s Report”) for the proposed sewer charge and set a majority protest hearing as required under Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). C. On April 28 th, the City Council also decided to set the proposed base charge at $115/Equivalent Sewage Unit (ESU). D. On or around May 7, 2015, the City mailed notices of the proposed sewer service charge and majority protest hearing to the record owners at the service address and if different, also to the record owner’s mailing address (as set forth on the last equalized assessment roll). E. A total of 6919 parcels were notified of the proposed sewer charge and majority protest hearing. F. The actual Parcel Charges (a listing of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and the amount to be levied on each parcel) has been made available in the Hermosa Beach City Clerk’s Office in an electronic format. G. The City held a community meeting on May 27, 2015 to present the public with information on the proposed charge and to allow the public an opportunity to ask questions. H. On June 23, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed protest hearing with respect to the proposed sewer service charge. All affected properties were given notice of the hearing and given an opportunity to file a written protest. Section 2. Updated Engineer’s Report. The Engineer’s Report has been revised based on the City Council’s decision to set the proposed fee at $115/ESU. After reviewing and considering the revised Engineer’s Report, the City Council hereby adopts the City of Hermosa Beach Sewer Service Charges Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Engineer’s Report dated June 23, 2015 as an accurate and complete analysis of the proposed service charge. The June 23, 2015 report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. Majority Protest. 6919 parcels will be affected by the proposed sewer service charge. The City received written protests for ___ properties prior to the protest hearing and an additional __ written protests were received at the public hearing. A total of __ written protests were received before the close of the June 23, 2015 hearing. The number of written protests received was not sufficient to constitute a majority protest under Proposition 218. The City Clerk has certified the tabulation of written protests. Section 4. Adopting Annual Sewer Service Charge. A. The City Council hereby accepts the City Clerk’s certification of the results of the protest hearing and adopts the sewer service charge of $115/ESU per year, as set forth in the June 23, 2015 Engineer’s Report. The charge will commence in fiscal year 2015-2016 and shall be increased annually for inflation by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in the Los Angeles‐Riverside‐Orange County, CA Area (CPI), including all items as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year, not to exceed two percent (2%) per year. An annual notice will be provided before an annual inflation increase will be applied. The annual increase for inflation is authorized through fiscal year 2019-2020. After the five-year period, the City may conduct another majority protest hearing to authorize inflation increases for an additional period not to exceed five years. This charge will also be codified in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 13.12. B. The parcels within the Sewer Service Charge Area consist of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the City of Hermosa Beach, as set forth in the Boundary Diagram in Part D of the Engineer’s Report. C. The charge is in compliance with the provisions of Article XIIID of the California Constitution and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual charge pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). Section 5. Confirming Charge for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. A. The City Council declares that the Boundary Diagram and Sewer Service Charge, as presented to the City Council in the Engineer's Report is hereby confirmed as filed. B. The purpose of the charge is to collect funds to cover the expenses for the overall operation, maintenance and servicing of the city- owned sewer system as well as the funds deemed appropriate and necessary to pay for capital improvements and reserves. C. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of the charge against the parcels within the Sewer Service Charge Area for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016. Section 6. The County Auditor of Los Angeles County shall enter on the County Assessment Roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of the charge as set forth in the Engineer’s Report, and such charge shall then be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City Treasurer. Section 7. The Hermosa Beach Finance Director, or designee, shall deposit all moneys representing charges collected by the County to the credit of the City’s Sewer Fund. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the Boundary Diagram and the list of actual Parcel Charges (a listing of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and the amount to be levied on each parcel) with the County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption, in addition to any additional information the County Auditor required to collect the charge with the County taxes. Section 9. A copy of the Engineer’s Report and the actual Parcel Charges (a listing of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and the amount to be levied on each parcel) shall be filed in the office of the Department of Public Works, with a duplicate copy on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection. Section 10. Beginning in fiscal year 2016-2017, the City Clerk is hereby directed to mail an annual notice to each property before an annual inflation increase will be applied at least thirty days before the effective date of the increase. The notice shall be provided in accordance with Government Code Section 53756. Section 11. The City Clerk is directed to complete the blanks in Section 3 above; certify the adoption of this Resolution; record this Resolution in the book of the City’s original resolutions; and make a minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the City Council’s records and the minutes of this meeting. Section 12. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015. __________________________ Peter Tucker, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Mike Jenkins, City Attorney June 23, 2015 Submitted by: PENCO Engineering, Inc. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SEWER SERVICE CHARGES COMMENCING FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016 ENGINEER’S REPORT City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 2 INTRODUCTION In order to effectively establish a capital improvement program to implement the needed wastewater system improvements, an equitable method of prioritizing projects must be established. In general, sewer facilities having the greatest degree of defects and deterioration at the present time will receive higher priority than those which are in better conditions. In 1994, an Infrastructure Management Project Report, prepared by ITX, analyzed the City’s sewer network and also recommended a rehabilitation program to address the immediate needs of the sewer network. In 2008, considering the City’s 85 years old sewer network of concrete and clay pipes, City embarked on the implementation of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan that updated the Sewer portion of the Infrastructure Management Project Report prepared by ITX in 1994. Building on the work the City had completed through the undertaking of previous studies and projects, the Sewer Master Plan was prepared based upon newly collected data from the 2008 Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) inspection of the entire sewer system. This Sewer Master Plan, dated April 2009 and revised March 2011, currently lists the existing defects and deficiencies and identifies projects for improvements for a 10 year program. At the end of the ten year rehabilitation program, CCTV inspection of the entire sewer system is recommended for monitoring any remaining or newly developed physical deterioration and maintenance problems. This would allow the City to continue with development and implementation of a cost effective rehabilitation program that will insure the long‐term integrity of the sewer system and service to the community. The City is now considering to bond for needed capital improvements using a portion of the proposed sewer service charges to pay annual debt service to address major repairs and rehabilitation of the sewer system based on the priority set in the Sewer Master plan. In support of this endeavor and per City’s request, a more up to date cost to rehabilitate the sewer system over the next ten (10) years is presented in the following section of this update to the Sewer Master Plan. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section puts forth a rehabilitation program cost estimate considering the needs of the sanitary sewer infrastructure over the next ten (10) years; however a plan is in place to implement the necessary improvements within seven years. As was previously stated, the City has undertaken rehabilitation work of its sewer system based on programs outlined in previous studies that recommended the City to plan for the eventual replacement of the entire sanitary sewer system. City is estimated to currently have 194,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer pipes, 880 sewer manholes, one (1) main wastewater pump station and three (3) small beach restroom pumps. In 2008, Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) inspection of the entire sewer system, that was accessible, was completed and prioritized for repair in the 2009 Sewer Master Plan. Of the 194,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer pipes in the system, 38,000 lineal feet of sewer pipes were not accessible by CCTV due to obstructions. These pipes are likely to be badly deteriorated considering their age and limited accessibility for routine maintenance. Therefore, these pipes are considered a priority for rehabilitation and repair. Based on existing records, 53,800 feet of pipe is considered to be in good condition and requires no rehabilitation for a minimum of ten years. The remaining 140,200 feet of pipe in the system; requires some form of rehabilitation within the next ten years. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 3 Since 1985, approximately 180 manholes have been rehabilitated or replaced. The remaining 700 manholes are over 85 years old. Some of the existing manhole openings do not provide adequate access and hinder the City’s use of closed circuit television inspection and emergency bypass equipment. Some of the manhole bottoms are deteriorated and need to be replaced. It is anticipated that in the next ten (10) years about 15% of the remaining 700 manholes will have to be reconstructed and or replaced. An estimate of the City’s sewer system rehabilitation cost over the next seven (7) years follows. An inflation rate of 2% per year as well as 10% contingency and 20% soft costs (Design and Inspection) is incorporated.1 1 Information from the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan prepared by MBF Consulting. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 4 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS (over next 7 years) Total pipe inventory 194,000 ft. Pipes in good condition for next ten years 53,800 ft. Pipes to be rehabilitated (194,000 ‐ 53800) = 140,200 ft. Pipe Rehabilitation Unit Cost (based on past 3 years average cost) 50.00 $/ft. Pipe Rehabilitation Quantity per Year (spread equally over 7 years) 140,200/7=20,029 ft. /yr. Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (1styear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02) =$1,021,479 Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (2ndyear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02)2 =$1,041,909 Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (3rdyear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02)3 =$1,062,747 Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (4thyear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02)4 =$1,084,002 Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (5thyear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02)5 =$1,105,682 Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (6thyear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02)6 =$1,127,793 Pipe Rehabilitation Cost (7thyear) ‐ assume 2% inflation (20,029) (50.0) (1.02)7 =$1,150,351 Manholes ‐15% need reconstruction (700) (.15) ($8,000) =$840,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $8,433,963 Contingency ‐10% $843,396 Design & Inspection Costs‐20% $1,686,793 TOTAL REQUIRED BUDGET $10,964,1522 2 Information from the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan prepared by MBF Consulting. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 5 This Engineer’s Report (“Report”) has been prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach commencing in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 and consists for four (4) parts: PART A – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Contains a summary of the improvements within the City to be maintained and the proposed services and activities to be funded by the sewer services charges. PART B – ESTIMATE OF COST Identifies the estimated cost of the services and/or maintenance to be provided by the City, including annual service and maintenance expenses; debt service for capital outlays, repairs, rehabilitation or replacement of equipment or facilities; as well as operational and incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. PART C – CHARGE CALCULATION AND PROPOSED CHARGES Outlines the basis on which the annual charges will be calculated for each parcel within the City. PART D – BOUNDARY DIAGRAM Contains a Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the territory within the City of Hermosa Beach subject to annual sewer services charges, which is coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach. Parcel identification, the lines and dimensions of each lot, parcel and subdivision of land within proposed sewer services boundary described herein are identified and correspond to the Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Maps for said parcels as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and shall include all subsequent subdivisions, lot‐line adjustments or parcel changes therein. Reference is hereby made to the Los Angeles County Assessor's maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the City of Hermosa Beach and subject to the proposed annual sewer services charges to be levied on behalf of the City. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 6 PART A – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS CITY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS3 The sewer improvements within the City of Hermosa Beach for which the City proposes to be responsible for maintenance and operation of the sewer system as well as levy and collect charges to maintain such improvements, includes, but is not limited to, and may be generally described as follows:  Approximately 194,000 feet of main sewer lines consisting of the following: o 28,868 linear feet (LF) of 6" sewer lines; o 149,993 linear feet (LF) of 8" sewer lines; o 4,204 linear feet (LF) of 10" sewer lines; o 5,071 linear feet (LF) of 12" sewer lines; o 1,254 linear feet (LF) of 15" sewer lines; o 1,150 linear feet (LF) of 18" sewer lines; o 805 linear feet (LF) of 21” sewer lines; and o 2,655 linear feet (LF) of 24” sewer lines.  880 Sewer Manholes  Four Lift/Pump station: 394 – 21 inch and 2,629 – 24 inch o Three (3) Beach restroom pumps o The Strand ‐ 34th The specific plans and specifications for the city‐owned sewer improvements are incorporated and contained in the sewer construction plans and specifications for the various sewer segments of the sewer system within the City of Hermosa Beach. These plans and specifications are voluminous and are not bound in this report but by this reference are incorporated and made a part of this report. The specific plans and specifications for the city‐owned sewer improvements are on file in Public Works at the City. OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICES The City of Hermosa Beach proposes to collect funds to cover the expenses for the overall operation, maintenance and servicing of the city‐owned sewer system as well as funds that may be necessary to pay for capital outlay expenditures including repairs, rehabilitation or replacement of equipment or facilities. The following is a summary of the services and activities associated with the maintenance, operation, servicing and capital outlay expenditures for the City's sewer system. The frequency, extent and/or level of the services and activities identified below may be modified based on available funding and priorities as determined by the City: Preventive Maintenance One of the City's primary objectives for assuming responsibility and management of the operation and maintenance of the City's sewer system is to provide a cost‐effective and efficient program that will ensure the integrity and long term stability of the sewer system. This is best accomplished by implementing preventive maintenance program that addresses the entire sewer system. This preventive maintenance should include, but is not limited to, regular inspection of the sewer manholes, pipes, siphons, pump stations and related facilities as well as regular cleaning, 3 Information from the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan prepared by MBF Consulting. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 7 repair, and related activities as warranted. These activities are intended to detect and correct potential problems before they develop into major problems. The following is a general summary of those preventive maintenance activities.  Sewer Line and Manhole Inspection ‐ The interior and exterior of manholes to be inspected (at least once a year) for any structural defects, sewage flow condition, presence of vermin or rodents, deleterious industrial waste, odors, and any signs of unusual settlement around or evidence of debris within the manholes and along sewer alignments.  Sewer Line Cleaning ‐ Sewer lines will be videoed and cleaned by hydro jet or rodding as needed based on a scheduled that ensures each sewer line is addressed at least every three‐five years. The actual frequency of cleaning may vary based on inspection records. Sewer lines known to cumulate grease, garbage grinds, or sand may be addressed more frequency with possible monthly, quarterly, or semi‐annual cleaning schedule. Those areas prone to root growth may be periodically rodded or chemically treated.  Sewage Pump Stations ‐ All pump stations are equipped with telemetry/alarm systems and will be inspected at least once a week. Pumps and motors will be inspected and lubricated, control mechanisms and valves will be checked and adjusted as necessary. Pump station equipment will be repaired or modified as required.  Gas Trap Manholes and Siphons ‐ Inspected and cleared of any stoppages or flow restrictions on a monthly basis.  Drop Manholes ‐ Inspected and cleared of stoppages and flow restrictions on variable frequencies based on prior inspection records.  Vermin and Rodent Control ‐ On an as‐needed basis, sewers infested by insects will be chemically treated, and those infested by rodents will be baited. Capital Outlay, Rehabilitation and Replacement The City plans to bond for needed capital improvements using a portion of the proposed sewer service charge to pay annual debt service to address major repairs and rehabilitation of the sewer system on a priority basis. However, in addition the City plans to develop and implement a long‐term replacement and refurbishment program that will ensure not only the short term integrity of the sewer system, but also the long‐term integrity and continue service to the community. As the city's sewer collection system ages, the risk of failure will ultimately increase due to deterioration, collapse, blockage, excessive inflow and infiltration, overflow, and other potential service interruptions. Therefore, while the scheduling of major repairs, rehabilitation projects and replacement projects will ultimately be implemented based on available funding, highest priority will be given to structural deficiency. However, by developing a long‐term replacement and refurbishment program with the goal of eventually addressing the entire system, the City may also address hydraulic deficiency in addition to the structural deficiency. Sewer System Management  Mapping ‐ As‐built plans of the sewer facilities will be maintained by the City. Data on the plans, such as system locations and alignment, pipe material, size, etc., will be maintained and stored electronically by the City. These maps will be available and utilized by the field crews for work scheduling and responding to emergencies, and will be updated to reflect any changes in the system. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 8  Work Scheduling ‐ Field crew activities will be recorded and tract by the City utilizing various forms including, but not limited to service requests, cleaning reports, sewer maintenance daily reports, overflow reports forms, project work orders, etc. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 9 PART B – ESTIMATED COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS The net amount to be charged on the lots or parcels within the City is based on an initial estimate of the annual cost and expenses for the maintenance, operation, servicing of the City's existing sewer system improvements as well as the funding deemed appropriate and necessary for future capital improvements and reserves (Replacement funding). It is estimated that sewer capital improvements are needed at $11 million for the current planning period. It is the City’s plan to spend $3 Million in cash plus finance an additional $8 Million to fund needed improvements. USE OF REVENUE O & M/year (range) $250,000 ‐ $450,000 Available for Improvement Financing / Year $700,000 ‐ $900,000 $ Charge/1 ESU (Single Family Resident) $115/year City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 10 PART C – CHARGE CALCULATION AND PROPOSED CHARGES The sewer service charge for 2015/2016 is being established by the City. The charge multiplied by the Equivalent Sewer Units assigned to each parcel will be the charge for each parcel. The Equivalent Sewer Unit (ESU) determination for each parcel is described below. LAND USE ESU Single Family 1.0 Condominiums 1.0 Multi Family 0.6 Sewage Generation Factors The City of Hermosa Beach updated their sanitary sewer master plan in April 2009 and again in March 2011, both were prepared by MBF Consulting. A numeric relationship between the various lots and parcels is necessary for the allocation of the costs of sewer maintenance among the lots and parcels. It is customary to relate the various land uses to the single family residential lot which is established as one Equivalent Sewage Unit (ESU), and all other lots and parcels are related proportionally to the single family residential lot. Based on sewage generation rates, a typical single family lot generates 260 gallons per day in Los Angeles County4. Therefore, for purposes of comparison of the various land uses for lots and parcels, 260 gallons per day is designated as the equivalent of 1 ESU. Non‐residential Land Uses The ESU for various non‐residential land uses is calculated by the following equation: ESU = [Commercial Water Consumption GPD]/260 GPD per SFRU Single family residential units will be charge at 1.0 ESU per parcel, the multi‐family residential units will be charged at 0.6 ESU per parcel and condominiums at 1.0 ESU per parcel as they are similar to single family residents in use. For the non‐residential, it was allocated by water consumption values for all of Hermosa Beach from information provided by California Water Services Company annually. Vacant parcels of any use are charged 0.5 ESU. 4 West Hollywood Sewer Charge Report. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 11 Government Facilities and Parcels There are several parcels that receive sewer service that are owned and operated by local government. Proposition 218 requires that each parcel not pay more than the proportional cost of providing the service. Therefore, because these government parcels use the sewer service, they are included in the computation of the charge and are charged. CALCULATION OF THE CHARGE The sewer service charge is based on the direct cost of providing the service. These costs include staff, rent, utilities, and other costs as needed for sewer repair and improvements as described earlier in this report. The $115 charge per ESU for 2015/2016 as adopted by the City Council on April 28, 2015 is multiplied by the ESUs for each residential parcel and by water consumption for non‐residential to determine the charge for each parcel. The proposed 2015/2016 revenue for the sewer services (as shown previously) will be funded by the total of the charges from the parcels. ANNUAL INCREASES Because the costs of providing the sewer service may increase over time, beginning July 1, 2016 and each July thereafter, the charge per ESU established in 2015/2016 shall be increased by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in the Los Angeles‐Riverside‐Orange County, CA Area (CPI), including all items as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year, not to exceed two percent (2%) per year. The annual increases can only be authorized for a five year period. To increase the charge after the initial five year period, would require a new Proposition 218 hearing. PROPOSITION 218 CONSIDERATIONS Proposition 218, which the voters of the State of California passed on November 5, 1996, contains requirements for the imposition of a fee or charge for property related services. Requirements for fees and charges are contained in Section 6 of Article XIII D. Paragraph (b) describes the requirements for new, existing, or increased fees and charges, as: (1) Revenues shall not exceed the funds required to provide the service. (2) Revenues shall not be used for any other purpose. (3) The amount of the fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed unless the service is actually used by or immediately available to the owner of the property in question. (5) No fee or charge shall be imposed for general governmental services, i.e., police, ambulance, library, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to the property owners. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 12 This report and recommended charges complies with all five of these requirements. 1. Revenues generated by this charge will not exceed funds required to provide sewer services and shall not be used for any other purpose, besides what has been described herein. 2. The sewer charge is the proportional cost of provided service to the parcels in the City and the charge is for actual use or is immediately available to the property in question. Due to the number of parcels in the City of Hermosa Beach that will be subject to the Sewer Service Charge, the Parcel Charges (a listing of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers to be levied the proposed charge amounts) is not contained in this Report, but will be filed with the City Clerk in an electronic format prior to the public hearing regarding the levy and collection of the charges for Fiscal 2015/2016. The proposed Parcel Charge Roll, after being filed with the City Clerk, shall be available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office during normal business office hours. However, the following tables provide a summary of the estimated ESUs by land use anticipated for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, per the County's assigned land use classification of each parcel within the City that was available at the time this Report was prepared. City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 13 EXAMPLES OF ESUs BY LAND USE ‐ Residential City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 14 EXAMPLES OF ESUs BY LAND USE ‐ Non‐Residential City of Hermosa Beach – Sewer Services Charge Engineer’s Report Commencing Fiscal Year 2015/1016 | 15 PART D – BOUNDARY DIAGRAM The parcels within the Sewer Service Charge Area consist of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the City of Hermosa Beach. A copy of the Boundary Diagram is provided below. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOUNDARY DIAGRAM Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13.12 TO THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. A new Chapter 13.12 entitled Sewer Service Charge is added to Title 13 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: Sections: 13.12.010 Charges Levied. 13.12.020 Collection of Charges. 13.12.030 ESUs for Various Land Uses. 13.12.040 Use of Funds. 13.12.010 Charges Levied. An annual sewer service charge is levied upon each parcel of real property in the City of Hermosa Beach for the overall operation, maintenance and servicing of the city-owned sewer system as well as the funds deemed appropriate and necessary to pay for capital improvements and reserves. The charge was adopted in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). Beginning July 1, 2015, the amount of the charge for each parcel shall be computed by multiplying $115.00 by the number of equivalent sewage units (“ESUs”) for the current land use of the parcel as shown in Section 13.12.030 below. Beginning July 1, 2016 and each July 1 through July 1, 2020, the sewer service charge shall be increased for inflation by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in the Los Angeles‐Riverside‐Orange County, CA Area (CPI), including all items as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year, not to exceed two percent (2%) per year. 13.12.020 Collection of Charges. The sewer service charge shall be collected for each fiscal year on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes of the city. For any fiscal year that the sewer service charge is not collected on the tax roll, the city may Page 2 of 3 collect all or a portion of the sewer service charge for such year on the tax roll in the following fiscal year or years. 13.12.030 ESUs for Various Land Uses. For residential parcels, the ESU and charge is calculated as follows: LAND USE ESU Single Family 1.0 Condominiums 1.0 Multi Family 0.6 (Charge is per unit) Vacant parcels 0.5 For non-residential parcels, the ESU is calculated by the following equation: ESU= [Commercial Water Consumption GPD]/260 GPD (the same GPD as a single-family residential lot). 13.12.040 Use of Funds. The sewer service charge funds collected shall be used to cover the expenses for the overall operation, maintenance and servicing of the city- owned sewer system as well as to pay for capital improvements and reserves. The Hermosa Beach Finance Director, or designee, shall deposit all moneys representing charges collected by the County to the credit of the City’s Sewer Fund. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2015. ____________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________ City Clerk Page 3 of 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ City Attorney From: Sam Perrotti [mailto:sperrotti1@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 11:41 AM To: Elaine Doerfling; Peter Tucker; Nanette Barragan; Carolyn Petty; Hany Fangary; Michael DiVirgilio - External; Tom Bakaly Subject: Sewer Fee Discussion Presently there is a residence at 1540 The Strand listed for sale at $16,000,000. It is 5,000 square feet, 5 bedrooms and 5.5 baths. My residence is about 800 square feet, 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. The proposed sewer fee will be the same for both residences. That is not fair. The fairest method of calculating the sewer fee would be based on water consumption. However, if the city council determines that using a water consumption calculation would be too expensive to administer, it should at least consider basing the fee on the assessed value of the residences. In addition, the city council should consider whether residents over 65 should get some type of discount on the sewer fee, maybe paying 75% of the sewer fee. Thank you, Sam Perrotti From: r f [mailto:rf90254@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:49 AM To: City Clerk Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Sewer Service Charge The last time I received something in the mail from the City that needed a vote (I believe maybe one for the school funding) it came in a ballot form. This sewer charge mailing was not consistent as the prior one sent by the City - as was not a ballot but "mail back written protest" with a, "If less than a majority of properties submit a protest, then the Council can approve the charge". I am asking the Council not to approve the charge - go a different way as to collect the needed funds. As someone who is retired and on a very fixed income - the proposed charge of $115 will mean that I will have $115 less groceries per year. Could there be some exemption for hardship retirees? Just this year I applied for and was accepted for some of the utility assistance programs. I was hoping to spend the rest of my years here in Hermosa Beach, which I have considered and enjoyed as my hometown. If the sewer fee was done on the Utility Tax (the city has the proven record of the data when the Green Belt was purchased using the tax) the tax would include a higher rate on utilities that are consumed in the bootleg units. I believe there are 10 bootleg units from Morningside Drive to Ozone Court on the north side of 26th Street and the south side of 27th Street, then from Morningside Drive to Manhattan Avenue on the north side of 27th Street and the south side of 28th Street. Those are 10 bootleg units that contributed to the sewer usage - 10 X $115 = $1150 not paying their fair share per year. I think fairer if the sewer funding was on the Utility Tax. What's the yearly Utility Tax presently collected and what is that tax used for? I also saw that the fees were less for multi units. A two bathroom apartment is adding more to the sewer system than my one bathroom. A three bathroom apartment even more. Apartments are run as a business, not just an individual or family. Again, the Utility Tax would be fairer to use to fund the new sewers. Or if so going the letter's route, should be across-the-board same fee for all residential units. I saw NOTHING on the City's letter regarding commercial properties. Hopefully they a considerable more share to the new sewer tax (couple months ago saw that Yucca Valley was adding a sewer treatment system - commercial properties had a much higher rate) This new $115 fee on the property taxes will probably never get a new school bond passed. Ron Felsing rf90254@yahoo.com June 18, 2015 Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Public Hearing Item 5-c of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 5-c Page 1 of 3 City Clerk and City Manager's office: This is a ‘Supplemental Communication submitted for Public Hearing Item 5-c of the June 23, 2015, Regular Hermosa Beach City Council meeting agenda. Please include with the agenda materials packets and the Granicus Internet agenda postings for the meeting, and advance a copy to those listed under TO: below. Thank You. June 23, 2015 To: Hermosa Beach City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Finance Director, Interim Police Chief, Fire Chief, Contracted City Attorney, and Community Resources Department. From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach resident. Regarding: Fee anomalies, and suggestion that the Sewer Fee be properly re-worked up for the subsequent year's property-tax application, or placed on the ballot this coming November as a 2.4% (for 11 years) increase in the present UUT. Mayor, Councilmembers, and others: The following are my comments, given freely, and they are entirely my views and opinions on everything I've stated herein. Pardon typos etc. as time did not permit a more fully prepared submittal. I just yesterday received from the city the Excel spreadsheet data for the fees to be applied to all parcels in city. I am aghast. Unfortunately there seems to be too many anomalies to go over in this submittal, especially with the dysfunctional manner in which commercial properties are being charged, errors with respect to some condo overcharges, charges for sliver vacant lots which have no possible chance of ever impacting sewers, and more. This is what is known. 1. This data that I have received was never posted on the city's website for easy review by all concerned. I doubt the city council members themselves have ever viewed the individual parcel data. 2. There was not one advertised public hearing for people to contribute their suggestions prior to this fee being finalized in the April 14 and April 28 meetings. No mailed notice to the property owners of such non-advertised public hearing. Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Public Hearing Item 5-c of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 5-c Page 2 of 3 3. Prior to that there was only a couple odd-ball study sessions by the council, also unadvertised. 4. The entire workup of the "fee" tax has obviously been done to keep the fee essentially under the radar from those to be paying it. 5. The fee is egregiously being applied in an incredibly inequitable manner both for commercial and for residential properties, especially for residential which is being charged over 9 times as much as commercial in total. 6. In the first year the fee is shown to be bringing in about $1 Million by summing up all the individual fees posted. 7. The TOT adjustment will bring in about $440-Thousand or more in its first year when approved by the voters. 8. The Beach House's 96-condo-hotel-units in total are shown being charged $2.88 each per year with a grand total of $276.58 for the entire Beach House hotel complex per year. 9. The 200 Pier Avenue 53-office-condo-units office condo complex is to be charged $3.81 per year each with a grand total of $202.13 for the entire complex in the first year. 10. The mailer sent out, was only sent to the parcel owners, at the address of their parcel not to the address of where they get their property tax bill. 11. Tenants to be paying the Fee tax, directly or indirectly, were sent nothing. 12. The mailer looked like unimportant city information. 13. The mailer did not include a parcel number on the envelope or inside on the protest form. 14. Many owners I spoke with (property owners) had no recollection of receiving such a mailer. 15. There was no clear mention made during the fee's workup of the 6% UUT and of how it has been so egregiously misapplied during its 30 years history during which it brought in over $55 Million in revenue to the city. 16. There has been no audit of the present UUT given during this fees workup. 17. The Manhattan Beach sewer fee, always referenced in the city's propaganda, is applied equitably, and further Manhattan Beach property owners have never paid a Utilities Tax UUT, which costs the average resident/business in Hermosa Beach some $300 to Thousands per year, and has for over 30 years. 18. The fact that so many protests have been returned given the fact that it would be virtually impossible to get 50% returned when many evidently didn't even receive them should indicate to the council that they are treading on thin water by arrogantly implementing this particular fee after such a shoddy, cavalier, and less than transparent manner and workup. Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Public Hearing Item 5-c of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 5-c Page 3 of 3 The following is what would be best accomplished now. 1) The matter needs to be continued to a real Public Hearing to discuss how the fee should be calculated, uniformly across all properties, i.e. by land area, by water usage, by street frontage, etc. 2) Better yet the council needs to admit that it and prior councils (who have talked the talk on sewers every year for 30 years) did not do things right. 3) Right now the correct thing to do would be to adjust the UUT to bring in an amount desired for a fixed number of years. I.e. If $1 Million is needed for each of the next 11 years (which is an addition of 40% of what the UUT presently brings in of $2.5 Million per year) then a UUT adjustment should be placed on the ballot of 2.4%, raising the UUT from 6% to 8.4% for a period of 11 years only. Or there could be an adjustment placed on the UUT affecting the water portion only to bring in the additional amount needed. 4) This UUT adjustment would then be placed on the ballot in November for the people to debate and vote on. The City would have to do next to nothing for this adjustment to take place once approved, and it would be far more equitable in all respects, capture bootlegs etc, and not affect seniors who for years have already paid more than their share to this city in UUT and other taxes. 5) Notwithstanding, the city will be receiving, almost assuredly, due to the efforts of residents an additional $440-Thousand or more from the TOT adjustment which was not expected. 6) Further this fee should not be slammed onto the property tax bills by two sitting councilmembers with only 5 months remaining on their elected terms. They should be honorable enough to run on a UUT increase adjustment having a sunset clause. 7) In any event the data that I have just been able to view in its entirety as of yesterday, and when made publicly available on the Internet, will raise a lot of eyebrows. 8) The council has blundered badly by trying to shove through a Fee basis the egregious Prop-218 loophole. This is not supposed to be a sleazy city operation with a sleazy city council. --- End of Supplemental --- Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0541 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 MUNICIPAL CARBON NEUTRALITY IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council receive and file this report Background: On February 24, 2015 staff requested Council provided direction relating to the following carbon neutrality issues which support Council’s Strategic Plan, Goal 4- More Livable, and Sustainable Beach City. These actions advance implementation of the City’s Sustainability Plan and climate change planning and mitigation. 1.Receive “City of Hermosa Beach GHG Inventory, Forecasting, Target-Setting Report for an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. 2.Review of Addendum to Brendle Group’s Report regarding Health Costs/Benefit of Carbon Neutrality. 3.Authorize Brendle Group to continue to provide Climate Action Planning Services coordinated with General Plan Update. 4.Accept Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. 5.Adopt Resolution adopting a Municipal Carbon Neutral Target. 6.Review Employee Commute Actions to Implement Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. 7.Receive information on Renewable Energy opportunities/PV Solar Installations; Community Choice Aggregation; and Hermosa Beach’s Existing Transit/ Transportation Systems. The staff report and attachments for the February 24 meeting can be downloaded here: <https://hermosabeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2214645&GUID=E24BDAA3-6F0F- 403D-A781-C8801FD25F0A> At this meeting, consultant Juan Matute presented the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan, including estimated costs of the plan’s recommendations. City Council accepted the Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan and adopted a resolution for a Municipal Carbon Neutral Target of 2020. City Council had questions and comments about the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan focused on understanding and proposing refinements and updates to the financial analysis presented, as well as Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0541 clarifying which projects were included (including which had been authorized already, and others that may emerge in the future) . City Council also accepted the addendum to Brendle Group’s Report regarding Health Costs/Benefit of Carbon Neutrality and approved the scope of work and budget for the Brendle Group to continue to provide climate action planning services and facilitate a more inclusive process around the topic of community carbon neutrality by aligning economic analysis efforts with the current General Plan update process. On March 9, 2015 Brendle Group staff met with the General Plan Update consultants and interested members of the community to preview the Community Carbon Neutral tool that allows planners, decision-makers and the community to explore alternatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of actions. Interest in this community-facing tool led to interest in the development of a similar tool to assist in the analysis and selection of projects to support the City’s municipal carbon neutrality goal. An extension to Brendle Group’s contract was approved at the May 11, 2015 City Council meeting, authorizing Brendle Group to develop a Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool that builds on, and is informed by, the recommendations and analysis presented in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. Analysis: Prior to developing a Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool, the Brendle Group addressed the questions and comments from the February 24, 2015 City Council meeting on the financial analysis provided in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan (Attachment 1). The Brendle Group revisited and refined the calculation methodology in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan to provide the net present value analysis at the capital improvement/project level over the planning horizon. Specific adjustments to the methodology included: •Accounting for the time value of money •Clarifying the project start date, implementation horizon, and useful life of projects including replacement costs over the planning horizon •Explaining where incremental costs versus full implementation costs are being used depending on the nature of the project •Clearly showing both gross and net costs Following this, the Brendle Group shifted this spreadsheet-based analysis to a more user-friendly interface, which integrates the following additional elements into the tool functionality and design: •Planning horizon - including the short-term time horizon to achieve carbon neutrality and longer-term horizon to maintain carbon neutrality aligning with the general plan horizon. •Discount rate - including default and user-input values. •Prioritization/sequencing - including user-inputs on start-date and end date of projects based on prioritization and “triggering” events. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0541 •Offsets - including user ability to select the percentage of remaining emissions to be reduced through the purchase of carbon offsets. •Financing mechanisms - identification of relevant financing mechanisms, where possible. Such as utility incentives, power purchase agreements, leases, and the City’s debt service. •Project Tracking and Uncertainty-designation of project maturity, and by extension financial uncertainty, to help improve quality assurance and vetting of projects. The resulting tool was then used to demonstrate two (2) scenarios for achieving municipal carbon neutrality by 2020 (Attachment 2). Scenario 1. Plan Baseline represents the results of all initiatives included in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan presented at the February 24, 2015 meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council.Scenario 2. Example Priorities removes initiatives with high costs and little carbon return, such as employee commuting initiatives and purchasing electricity at a premium using Green Rate. It adds in a new initiative to purchase streetlights and shifts the rooftop solar being investigated for City Hall and the Civic Center from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to direct purchase/ownership. In total, Scenario 2 has an estimated net present value of $514,000 compared to ($4,906,000) for Scenario 1. Although both scenarios will achieve carbon neutrality, the positive net present value of the Example Priority Scenario (after the low performing items have been removed) demonstrates an overall benefit/savings to the City compared to Scenario 1 that represents a negative net present value or an overall cost. These analyses demonstrate that the goal to achieve neutrality by 2020 is realistic and financially sound. The Brendle Group encourages staff to use the tool to create different combinations of the various initiatives, where shorter-term payback projects may be able to generate savings to support longer payback items. . For example, on June 9 2015, $50,000 was approved in the 2016 City budget to support implementation of municipal carbon neutrality initiatives. The tool helps identify the most cost effective initiatives - those that produce the best return on investment for metric ton of carbon reduced. The most cost effective initiatives are lighting opportunities. Therefore, it is recommended that in 2016, the City invest its carbon neutrality budget into indoor, outdoor, and street lighting projects including purchasing available LS-1 streetlights. Upgrading the Parking Department fleet vehicles to Smart Cars also appear to be a cost effective initiative. Staff have also pursued grants to implement the various initiatives including the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Local Government Match Program to replace fleet vehicles with the lowest-emission alternatives and providing incentives for active transportation and reducing employee commutes. Fiscal Implications: No fiscal impact associated with this action. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0541 Attachments: 1.Brendle Group Memorandum 2. Comparison of Dashboard Results for Two Scenarios Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Memorandum To: Tom Bakaly, City Manager From: Judy Dorsey and Shelby Sommer CC: Kristy Morris Date: June 16, 2015 Re: Municipal Carbon Neutrality Follow-Up Response to City Council Requests This memorandum provides a response to requests and comments raised during the February 24, 2015 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Under Agenda Item 6: Municipal Matters, Topic (b): Carbon Neutrality Initiatives, consultant Juan Matute presented the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan, including estimated costs of the plan’s recommendations. City Council questions and comments about the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan focused on understanding and proposing refinements and updates to the financial analysis presented, as well as clarifying which projects were included (including which had been authorized already, and others that may emerge in the future) . In the time since that meeting, consultants from Brendle Group have developed an interactive decision-support tool to inform conversations around community planning for a low carbon future as part of the General Plan Update process. Interest in this community-facing tool led to interest in the development of a similar tool to assist in the analysis and selection of projects to support the City’s municipal carbon neutrality goal. An extension to Brendle Group’s contract was approved at the May 11, 2015 City Council meeting, authorizing Brendle Group to develop a Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool that builds on and is informed by the recommendations and analysis presented in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. The remainder of this memorandum provides additional detail in response to these key themes from the February 24 Council meeting, and describes the Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool development process and functionality. Guiding Principles for Municipal Carbon Financial Analysis As Brendle Group revisited and refined the financial analysis provided in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan for purposes of developing a Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool, the following principles guided our efforts:  Ensure the integrity and credibility of the financial analysis using recognized and accepted methods  Look for win-wins for the economy and the environment  Ensure that use of offsets is balanced with actions that will result in direct financial benefits to the community City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Carbon Neutrality City Council Follow-up Memo 2 Municipal Tool Functionality and Refinements City Council requested refinements to the cost calculation methodology to provide net present value analysis at the capital improvement/project level over the planning horizon. A first step in the development of the Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool was revisiting and refining the calculation methodology in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. Specific adjustments to the methodology included:  Accounting for the time value of money  Clarifying the project start date, implementation horizon, and useful life of projects including replacement costs over the planning horizon  Explaining where incremental costs versus full implementation costs are being used depending on the nature of the project  Clearly showing both gross and net costs Next, our team shifted this spreadsheet-based analysis to a more user-friendly interface, which integrates the following additional elements into the tool functionality and design:  Planning horizon - including the short-term time horizon to achieve carbon neutrality and longer-term horizon to maintain carbon neutrality aligning with the general plan horizon.  Discount rate – including default and user-input values.  Prioritization/sequencing - including user-inputs on start-date and end date of projects based on prioritization and “triggering” events.  Offsets – including user ability to select the percentage of remaining emissions to be reduced through the purchase of carbon offsets.  Financing mechanisms – identification of relevant financing mechanisms, where possible. Such as utility incentives, power purchase agreements, leases, and the City’s debt service.  Project Tracking and Uncertainty-designation of project maturity, and by extension financial uncertainty, to help improve quality assurance and vetting of projects. City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Carbon Neutrality City Council Follow-up Memo 3 Pipeline of Initiatives to Achieve Carbon Neutrality A more comprehensive pipeline of potential, reviewed, approved, implemented initiatives is integrated into the Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool functionality, as illustrated and explained below. It is important to note that the level and type of financial analysis will get increasingly refined as projects move through the screening, budget approval and implementation/tracking phases, from coarse estimates to investment-grade financials. In addition to maintaining a pipeline of projects and initiatives to support carbon neutrality, it is likely that the City will need to invest annually in the purchase of carbon offsets, at least in the near-term to achieve carbon neutrality by 2020. Over time, it is recommended that the City explore ways to shift this investment into offsets into capital projects and other initiatives that the City can have more direct ownership over. Potential Initiatives This pipeline includes potential projects and initiatives for consideration. The tool is currently populated with most of the initiatives identified in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan. In addition to ideas from City staff, leaders, and residents, additional initiatives may be identified from emerging technologies and evolving prices, partnership and demonstration opportunities, prospective grants and funding sources, and other ideas, such as those identified through collaboration with South Bay Cities Council of Governments. The tool is designed to accommodate other future ideas and potential initiatives for consideration, and has embedded templates for those future additions. Review After potential initiatives are added to the Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning Tool, City staff will work to refine the inputs (e.g., implementation costs, estimated savings). The analysis provided within the tool is intended to help decision- makers understand the associated costs, savings, and carbon reduction potential of each initiative. The tool also helps inform discussions around implementation timing, and coordination with the costs, savings, and carbon reduction potential of other initiatives. Approval After review, some initiatives will gain approval through the budgeting process. Note that not all projects identified, analyzed, and reviewed will be approved or implemented. After initiatives have been approved, it is recommended that City staff review the analysis assumptions again to ensure that the most updated information is used. The debt service schedule may also be an important element to consider during this approval process. Implement and Monitor Following approval, the initiatives would then be implemented. This tool will eventually include space for City staff to track actual implementation costs, annual costs, and annual savings over time, as well as estimated carbon reduction benefits. Potential Initatives Review Approve Implement & Monitor City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Carbon Neutrality City Council Follow-up Memo 4 Financial Model The results page of the Municipal Carbon Reduction Planning tool provides cumulative estimates of results by initiative, category, and as a whole. See the following sections for more detailed explanation of the different result values. The tool user can go back to the inputs dashboard to test other options and refine different combinations of initiatives to achieve maximum carbon benefits and financial results. Cumulative Costs and Savings The tool calculates cumulative costs as one-time capital expenditures plus ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the planning period. Cumulative cost savings are also calculated for the entire planning period. Net Present Value The net present value calculation represents the sum of the incoming and outgoing cash flows over the planning period, in today’s dollars. Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness is a value that indicates net cumulative costs (or savings) in achieving a reduction of one MTCO2e over the life of the plan. Negative values indicate net cumulative cost savings to the community, whereas larger, positive values indicate more costly initiatives. For perspective, the cost of carbon offsets is modeled at $15 per MTCO2e, so values below this range represent strategies that are more cost competitive than buying offsets. Debt Service A separate tab is provided in the tool to provide an example of the debt service payments over the planning period. The capital investment used for this debt service analysis is based on the cumulative total cost of all of initiatives selected. Default assumptions are provided for the duration and interest rate, which can be refined by the tool user. Findings, Recommendations and Next Steps Further analysis of the potential initiatives to support the City’s municipal carbon neutrality goal demonstrate that the goal to achieve neutrality by 2020 is realistic and financially sound. We encourage using the tool to create different combinations of the various initiatives, where shorter-term payback projects may be able to generate savings to support longer payback items. To illustrate this, Attachment A contains the Results Dashboard for two scenarios modeled by the tool. Scenario 1. Plan Baseline represents the results of all initiatives included in the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan presented February 24, 2015 during the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Scenario 2. Example Priorities removes initiatives with high costs and little carbon return, such as employee commuting initiatives and purchasing electricity at a premium using Green Rate. It adds in a new initiative to purchase streetlights and shifts the rooftop solar being investigated for City Hall and the Civic Center from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to direct purchase/ownership. In total, Scenario 2 has an estimated net present value of $514,000 compared to ($4,906,000) for Scenario 1. In addition to using the tool to run different scenarios (combinations of projects with variable start and end dates over the planning horizon), it can also be used for short-term project selection. For example, a request of $50,000 to support implementation of municipal carbon neutrality initiatives has already been approved in the 2016 City budget. The tool helps identify the most cost effective initiatives – those that produce the best return on investment for metric ton of carbon reduced. The most cost effective initiatives are lighting opportunities. Therefore, it is recommended that in 2016, the City invest its carbon neutrality budget into indoor, outdoor, and street lighting projects including purchasing available LS-1 streetlights. Upgrading the Parking Department fleet vehicles to Smart Cars also appear to be a cost effective initiative. Attachment 2 Comparison of Dashboard Results for Two Scenarios Scenario 1. Plan Baseline City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Carbon Neutrality City Council Follow-up Memo 2 Share of Your Carbon Reductions (%) Cumulative Carbon Reduction (MTCO2e) Cumulative Costs ($) (Incremental Costs are Italicized) Cumulative Cost Savings ($) Net Present Value ($) Cost Effectiveness ($ per MTCO2e) Community Center 0.4%190 $46,000 $190,000 $67,000 ($758) City Hall 0.1%51 $39,000 $49,000 ($1,700)($196) Police Department 0.1%65 $8,800 $62,000 $27,000 ($818) Fire Department 0.0%24 $280 $23,000 $12,000 ($947) Clark Building 0.0%18 $4,400 $17,000 $6,000 ($700) City Yard 0.2%91 $15,000 $88,000 $36,000 ($802) Pier 0.4%210 $61,000 $200,000 $65,000 ($662) Total 1.3%649 $174,480 $629,000 $211,300 ($700) Community Center Courts 0.4%180 $140,000 $170,000 $1,200 ($167) Clark Park Ball Field 1.0%490 $150,000 $470,000 $160,000 ($653) Clark Park Courts 0.1%32 $46,000 $31,000 ($14,000)$469 South Park 0.2%120 $46,000 $110,000 $30,000 ($533) Valley Park 0.2%82 $50,000 $78,000 $8,900 ($341) Pier Ave Median Lights 0.5%240 $18,000 $230,000 $110,000 ($883) LS-3 Streetlights 2.5%1,200 $540,000 $1,200,000 $270,000 ($550) LS-2 Streetlights 0.6%300 $88,000 $290,000 $97,000 ($673) Total 5.4%2,644 $1,078,000 $2,579,000 $663,100 ($568) LS-1 Streetlights 5.8%2,900 $0 $4,100,000 $330,000 ($1,414) Total 5.8%2,900 $0 $4,100,000 $330,000 ($1,414) Grand Total 12.5%6,193 $1,252,480 $7,308,000 $1,204,400 ($978) City Hall 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Civic Center 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CCA 21.4%11,000 $1,100,000 $0 ($1,100,000)$100 Green Rate 2.4%1,200 $2,100,000 $0 ($2,100,000)$1,750 Total 23.8%12,200 $3,200,000 $0 ($3,200,000)$262 Grand Total 23.8%12,200 $3,200,000 $0 ($3,200,000)$262 Ford Fusion Hybrid Sedan 0.7%340 $98,000 $91,000 $4,100 $21 GO-4 EV 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Smart Car 0.9%450 ($450,000)$340,000 $450,000 ($1,756) Electric Bicycles 0.0%9 $44,000 $27,000 ($12,000)$1,977 Non-Electric Bicycles 0.0%11 $17,000 $31,000 $7,500 ($1,273) PHEV 1.0%490 $400,000 $320,000 ($140,000)$163 Total 2.6%1,300 $109,000 $809,000 $309,600 ($539) Carpooling 2.5%1,200 $1,600,000 $0 ($890,000)$1,333 Employee EVs 1.7%840 $2,400,000 $0 ($1,200,000)$2,857 Total 4.2%2,040 $4,000,000 $0 ($2,090,000)$1,961 Grand Total 6.8%3,340 $4,109,000 $809,000 ($1,780,400)$988 Climate Programs Analyst --$900,000 -($900,000)- Grand Total --$900,000 -($900,000)- Purchase Offsets 56.9%28,000 $420,000 $0 ($230,000)$15 Grand Total 56.9%28,000 $420,000 $0 ($230,000)$15 TOTAL 100%49,733 $9,881,480 $8,117,000 ($4,906,000)$35 Other Costs Offsets Building Lighting Outdoor Lighting SCE Owned Outdoor Lighting Fleet Vehicles Commuting Programs Rooftop Solar Utility Based Renewables 'My Plan' Cumulative Summary (Through 2045) Buildings & Outdoor Lighting Renewables Transportation City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Carbon Neutrality City Council Follow-up Memo 3 Scenario 2. Example Priorities City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Carbon Neutrality City Council Follow-up Memo 4 Share of Your Carbon Reductions (%) Cumulative Carbon Reduction (MTCO2e) Cumulative Costs ($) (Incremental Costs are Italicized) Cumulative Cost Savings ($) Net Present Value ($) Cost Effectiveness ($ per MTCO2e) Community Center 0.4%190 $46,000 $190,000 $67,000 ($758) City Hall 0.1%51 $39,000 $49,000 ($1,700)($196) Police Department 0.1%65 $8,800 $62,000 $27,000 ($818) Fire Department 0.0%24 $280 $23,000 $12,000 ($947) Clark Building 0.0%18 $4,400 $17,000 $6,000 ($700) City Yard 0.2%91 $15,000 $88,000 $36,000 ($802) Pier 0.4%210 $61,000 $200,000 $65,000 ($662) Total 1.3%649 $174,480 $629,000 $211,300 ($700) Community Center Courts 0.4%180 $140,000 $170,000 $1,200 ($167) Clark Park Ball Field 1.0%490 $150,000 $470,000 $160,000 ($653) Clark Park Courts 0.1%32 $46,000 $31,000 ($14,000)$469 South Park 0.2%120 $46,000 $110,000 $30,000 ($533) Valley Park 0.2%82 $50,000 $78,000 $8,900 ($341) Pier Ave Median Lights 0.5%240 $18,000 $230,000 $110,000 ($883) LS-3 Streetlights 2.5%1,200 $540,000 $1,200,000 $270,000 ($550) LS-2 Streetlights 0.6%300 $88,000 $290,000 $97,000 ($673) Total 5.4%2,644 $1,078,000 $2,579,000 $663,100 ($568) LS-1 Streetlights 5.8%2,900 $370,000 $4,400,000 $630,000 ($1,390) Total 5.8%2,900 $370,000 $4,400,000 $630,000 ($1,390) Grand Total 12.5%6,193 $1,622,480 $7,608,000 $1,504,400 ($966) City Hall 4.0%2,000 $560,000 $1,700,000 $440,000 ($570) Civic Center 1.8%890 $240,000 $770,000 $200,000 ($596) Total 5.8%2,890 $800,000 $2,470,000 $640,000 ($578) CCA 16.2%8,000 $790,000 $0 ($790,000)$99 Green Rate 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 16.2%8,000 $790,000 $0 ($790,000)$99 Grand Total 22.0%10,890 $1,590,000 $2,470,000 ($150,000)($81) Ford Fusion Hybrid Sedan 0.7%340 $98,000 $91,000 $4,100 $21 GO-4 EV 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Smart Car 0.9%450 ($450,000)$340,000 $450,000 ($1,756) Electric Bicycles 0.0%9 $44,000 $27,000 ($12,000)$1,977 Non-Electric Bicycles 0.0%11 $17,000 $31,000 $7,500 ($1,273) PHEV 1.0%490 $400,000 $320,000 ($140,000)$163 Total 2.6%1,300 $109,000 $809,000 $309,600 ($539) Carpooling 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Employee EVs 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 0.0%0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grand Total 2.6%1,300 $109,000 $809,000 $309,600 ($539) Climate Programs Analyst --$900,000 -($900,000)- Grand Total --$900,000 -($900,000)- Purchase Offsets 62.9%31,000 $470,000 $0 ($250,000)$15 Grand Total 62.9%31,000 $470,000 $0 ($250,000)$15 TOTAL 100%49,383 $4,691,480 $10,887,000 $514,000 ($125) Other Costs Offsets Building Lighting Outdoor Lighting SCE Owned Outdoor Lighting Fleet Vehicles Commuting Programs Rooftop Solar Utility Based Renewables 'My Plan' Cumulative Summary (Through 2045) Buildings & Outdoor Lighting Renewables Transportation Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 REVIEW ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF THE DRAFT EWMP TO THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND ADOPT LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTATION. (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt attached Resolution: 1) Approving and authorizing submittal of the Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for review, comment and approval; and 2) Adopting the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for EWMPs, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Background: On November 8, 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the fourth Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Permit) under the Federal Clean Water Act for discharges within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County. The Permit identifies conditions, requirements and programs that municipalities must comply with to protect regional water resources from adverse effects associated with pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff. The Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance and Manhattan Beach, together with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (Beach Cities) agreed to collaborate on the development of a EWMP for the Santa Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake watershed areas within their jurisdictions (Figure 1). EWMPs are intended to facilitate Permit compliance to ensure that discharges from covered MS4s achieve applicable water quality targets, and that control measures are implemented to reduce the Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The EWMP allows Permittees to collaboratively develop comprehensive watershed-specific control plans to: •Prioritize water quality issues; •Identify and implement focused strategies, control measures and Best Management Practices (BMP); •Execute an integrated monitoring and assessment program; and •Allow for modification over time. On June 28, 2013, in compliance with the Permit, the Beach Cities submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop a EWMP to the Board. On March 27, 2014, the Beach Cities received a letter from the Board approving the NOI. On June 26, 2014, in compliance with the Permit, the Beach Cities then submitted a draft EWMP Work Plan to the Board. As the next step in the Permit compliance process, the Beach Cities developed a Draft EWMP which must be submitted to the Board no later than June 29, 2015. The EWMP Executive Summary is included in this report (Attachment 1). Analysis: As required by the Permit, the EWMP comprehensively evaluates opportunities within the Beach Cities’ collective watershed management area for collaboration on multi-benefit regional projects that, wherever feasible, will retain all non-storm water runoff and storm water runoff from a ¾ inch storm over a 24 hour period for the drainage areas. Additionally, the EWMP addresses required adherence to established water quality standards for each water body in its jurisdiction. 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 of water resources. Geosyntec Consultants prepared the comprehensive report in conformance with NPDES permit provisions. City staff has worked closely with the project team to assure the EWMP is ready for submittal to the Board before the June 29, 2015 deadline. The following is a summary of the content of the Draft EWMP: Section 1- Introduction - Addresses the purpose and regulatory framework of the EWMP in the context of the Permit and states that the EWMP is intended to facilitate effective, watershed-specific implementation strategies in accordance with the Permit. The Draft EWMP summarizes the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel-specific water quality priorities identified by the Beach Cities. It outlines the program plan, including specific strategies; control measures and BMPs, necessary to achieve water quality targets and Receiving Water Limitations; and, describes the quantitative analysis completed to support target achievement and Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 Permit compliance. Section 2 - Santa Monica Bay Watershed, and Section 3 - Dominguez Channel Watershed summarize the technical aspects of the EWMP, including: ·Water Quality Prioritization, which characterizes the stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water bodies; prioritizes water body-pollutant combinations; and assess sources for high priority water bodies. ·BMP Selection objectives include preventing and/or eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the MS4 that are a source of pollutants from the MS4 to receiving waters; achieving all applicable interim and final water quality targets pursuant to corresponding compliance schedules; and ensuring that discharges from the MS4 do not cause or contribute to exceedances of Receiving Water Limitations. ·Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) Approach requires that the Beach Cities’ conduct a RAA for each water body-pollutant combination addressed by the EWMP. The objective of the RAA is to demonstrate the ability of EWMP to ensure that Permittees’ MS4 discharges achieve applicable water quality based effluent limitations and do not cause or contribute to exceedances of Receiving Water Limitations Section 4 -EMWP Implementation Schedules -Presents the compliance schedules necessary to meet the interim and final compliance deadlines for the Beach Cities EWMP water body pollutants. Important compliance deadlines are described below. Section 5 -Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework -EWMP updates are required at two- year cycles by the Permit. The Coordinated Integrated Management Program will gather additional data on receiving water conditions and stormwater/non-stormwater quality. This data will support adaptive management at multiple levels, including: tracking improvements in water quality over the course of EWMP implementation; and, generating data not previously available to support model updates. Over time, the experience gained through BMP implementation will provide lessons learned to support modifications to the control measures identified in the EWMP. Thus, the Program will be periodically adjusted to respond to the availability of new information and actual pollutant measurements observed over time Section 6 - Financial Analysis - Provides an order-of-magnitude estimate of the financial resources that may be required to attain compliance with the water quality targets as well as a recommended project scheduling in order to meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance deadlines and interim deadlines. A discussion of the projects, cost and funding is provided below. Section 7 - Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy - Overview of potentially available Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 funding sources to pay for programs proposed in the EWMP. The funding sources included in this section for consideration are grants, interagency partnerships, bonds, State Revolving Funds, local funding opportunities, and public private partnerships. Sections 8 - Legal Authority - The Beach Cities have the necessary legal authority to implement the BMPs identified in the EWMP. Projects Table 1. shows a listing of all of the recommended water quality BMP projects within the Beach Cities jurisdiction and within the Santa Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Torrance Watersheds in order to achieve compliance. The listed projects include primarily infiltration and green street projects. Since the projects are conceptual in nature at this point, the cost estimates are in an order- of-magnitude and include a low and a high range. In summary, the total cost range for all of the projects is estimated at: 1. Construction costs from $54.6M (low) to $101M (high) 2. Annual operations and maintenance costs from $1.3M (low) to $2.1M (high) It should be noted that the Beach Cities are collectively responsible for funding, designing, constructing, and maintaining all of the projects noted in Table 1. Project implementation details and cost-sharing mechanism are yet to be determined. For background information, Table 2. shows the factors considered in coming up with the estimated costs. The Beach Cities individual contributions would be based on their relative proportional geographic tributary area. For Hermosa Beach, the calculated portion of the tributary area is 4%. Table 3. shows the proportional costs assigned to each of the Beach Cities. For Hermosa Beach, the potential share of the cost is: 1. Construction costs from $2.2M (low) to $4M (high) 2. Annual operations and maintenance from $51K (low) to $86K (high) Two BMPs that were determined to be most viable for Permit compliance in Hermosa Beach include: • Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench located along the coast of Hermosa Beach, the subsurface trench has a potential surface area of 0.2 ac, an average depth of 1.7 ft, a diversion flowrate of 5 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 12.5 in/hr. • Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration located between Valley Dr. and Ardmore Ave, the subsurface trench has a potential surface area of 1.5 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 48 cfs, and an assumed infiltration rate of 12 in/hr. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 The Beach Cities project implementation time-line and Permit compliance time frames of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria, Trash/Debris, Toxicity, Copper, Lead and Zinc are illustrated in Table 4. The table is broken down by receiving waters (Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel). In summary, Table 4. outlines the project sequence and associated deadlines in order to achieve the compliance levels as dictated in the Permit. In summary, the following are the key deadlines: •50% Reduction in Wet Weather Bacteria by 2018 •20% Annual Trash Load Reduction from 2016 through 2020 •100% Reduction in Wet Weather Bacteria by 2021 •100% Reduction in Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria by 2032 •100% Reduction in Toxicity, Copper, Lead, and Zinc by 2032 In order to comply with stated pollutant reduction deadlines, the sequence of project implementation was developed, which orders the Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach’s Infiltration Trench Projects first (Table 5). Specific Green Street BMPs were not identified in the deadline schedule. However, Reasonable Assurance Analysis modeling supports order of magnitude reduction of pollutant loads in areas within the Beach Cities sub-watersheds. This gives the Beach Cities flexibility to implement more cost effective options that better conform to the engineering and environmental constraints, without identifying specific streets. Project Funding The availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Currently, the vast majority of cities within Los Angeles County, including Hermosa Beach, do not have sufficient funds to construct and maintain these projects. The City of Hermosa Beach is working with the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities and the California Contract Cities Association to partner with other affected agencies to collectively influence State policies, pursue changes in legislation and lobby high level officials for additional stormwater funding. Working together with the other cities increases communication, collaboration, and reduces expensive redundant efforts. In addition to working with other affected cities on a regional level, City staff intends to also work closely with the Beach Cities to pursue the following funding sources at a local level. Policy Alternatives: Development of a EWMP is regulatory driven and prescriptive, which does not allow for policy alternatives. Additionally, the City already considered alternative permit compliance options when it decided to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop a EWMP on June 28, 2013. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 Public Outreach/Interest: Public outreach meetings were held on May 21, 2014 and May 27, 2015 to inform and solicit input from the community regarding development of the EWMP. The presentations included an overview of regulatory requirements, general approach to meeting regulatory requirements, local context and concepts being utilized in developing the EWMP CEQA The County of Los Angeles Flood Control District (LACFCD) is involved with all twelve EWMPs throughout the region and recognized that implementation of the twelve EWMPs could potentially result in significant environmental effects. The LACFCD therefore prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) on behalf of all the EWMP groups to provide a countywide analysis of the EWMP plans. The PEIR evaluates the major environmental effects of implementing proposed EWMP projects from a program-level perspective. At this stage, the Permittees are developing the conceptual plans for certain EWMP projects and other activities that would provide reasonable assurances of meeting the permit requirements. Comprehensive project design, construction and operation details (and in some cases even location) are not the focus of the EWMPs or the PEIR. Instead, the PEIR frames the nature and magnitude of the expected environmental impacts associated with these proposed EWMP projects and identifies program mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the projects as proposed. The PEIR analysis is conservative in nature by having to assess such a wide range of geographic areas and conceptual EWMP projects. More detailed project-level analyses of individual EWMP projects may be conducted separately as required by CEQA. The PEIR can also be used to streamline environmental review of individual EWMP projects. The City may determine that a more detailed, project-level analysis is required, or may determine some projects to be exempt from CEQA. For non-exempt projects, project-level CEQA review will be conducted. The LACFCD Final PEIR was certified by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on May 26, 2015. The LACFCD has prepared Findings of Facts (Exhibit A to the Resolution) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B to the Resolution), which may be adopted by the City Council. The LACFCD has also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit C to the Resolution), which should be adopted by the City Council to ensure impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. As explained in the Final PEIR, all identified significant environmental effects of the program can be avoided or reduced to a level of less than significant if the mitigation measures identified in the Final PEIR are implemented, except for potential significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, and noise that may be unavoidable.1 Mitigation measures will be implemented by the LACFCD for impacts within the LACFCD’s jurisdiction, and through this agenda item, by the City of Hermosa Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 Beach for impacts within the City’s jurisdiction. However, as explained in the Final PEIR and the enclosed Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, such unavoidable significant impacts have been reduced to the extent feasible and the benefits of the proposed program outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts. The overall goal of the EWMP is to prevent polluted stormwater from reaching the receiving waters and beaches and improve the environment generally. Again, this PEIR is looking at the impacts at a program-level for all 12 EWMPS throughout the region and thus, represents a conservative analysis of the impacts that could occur. By implementing the MMRP, there will be no additional significant and unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geologic and Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems. These impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures. The City will also file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk. The PEIR and its accompanying documentation is available at:www.LACoH2Osheds.com <http://www.LACoH2Osheds.com>. A complete copy of the PEIR is also available for review in the City Clerk’s office. ___________________________ 1 The PIER found that EWMPs throughout the region could potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (Impact 3.2-2 air quality violations from construction and 3.2-3 cumulatively considerable increase when projects combined with other foreseeable projects), Cultural Resources (3.4-1 potential adverse change to historic or archaeological resources from projects and cumulative impact when projects combined with other foreseeable projects) and Noise (3.10.1 and 3.10-4 construction noise and cumulative construction noise). Conclusions: Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the submittal of the EWMP in accordance with Regional Board’s deadline, and adopt the County PEIR and accompanying documentation. Fiscal Implications: No fiscal impact associated with this action. However, future construction of the identified projects could have a significant fiscal impact. Attachments: 1.Figure 1 - Beach Cities Jurisdictional Areas 2.Attachment 1 - EWMP Executive Summary 3.Table 1-Total BMP Costs 4.Table 2-Estimation of BMP Costs 5.Table 3-Proportional BMP Cost Distribution 6.Table 4-Implementation Time-Line 7.Table 5-Project Implementation Schedule Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0503 8.Attachment 2 - Full Draft Report 9.Resolution No. XXXX Resolution Exhibit A- Findings of Fact Resolution Exhibit B- Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution Exhibit C- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Concur: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Figure 1 Beach Cities Jurisdiction Areas DRAFT ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds) Submitted to: Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Submitted by: Beach Cities EWMP Group June 2015 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Table of Contents i | Page 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................... ES-6 Dominguez Channel Watershed ....................................................................................................................... ES-15 Compliance Schedule ............................................................................................................................................ ES-24 Planning Level Cost Opinion .............................................................................................................................. ES-28 Financing Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. ES-30 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Applicability of EWMP ................................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 EWMP Development Process ................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Report Organization ..................................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5 Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................................... 1-7 2 Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Identification of Water Quality Priorities............................................................................................ 2-4 2.3 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices ................................................................ 2-15 2.4 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Approach ...................................................................................... 2-19 2.5 Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions .................................................................................. 2-30 2.6 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................... 2-34 2.7 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 2-65 2.8 Multiple Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 2-68 2.9 Parallel Compliance Efforts .................................................................................................................... 2-69 3 Dominguez Channel Watershed ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Identification of Water Quality Priorities............................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices ................................................................ 3-12 3.4 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Approach ...................................................................................... 3-13 3.5 Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions .................................................................................. 3-23 3.6 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 3-39 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Table of Contents ii | Page 2015 3.8 Multiple Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 3-43 3.9 Parallel Compliance Efforts .................................................................................................................... 3-43 4 Implementation Schedule.................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Compliance Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Project Sequencing ....................................................................................................................................... 4-5 5 Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework ............................................................................... 5-1 6 Financial Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 BMP Cost Methodology and Assumptions .......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Proposed Structural BMPs ........................................................................................................................ 6-3 7 Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy ................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Grant Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Project-Specific Interagency Partnerships ......................................................................................... 7-4 7.3 Local Bond Issuance ..................................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.4 State Revolving Funds ................................................................................................................................. 7-5 7.5 Local Public Funding Opportunities and Approval Procedures ................................................ 7-6 7.6 Public Private Partnerships ...................................................................................................................... 7-9 7.7 Financial Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 7-11 8 Legal Authority ........................................................................................................................................................ 8-1 9 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Figures iii | Page 2015 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area ...................................................................................................................... ES-5 Figure ES-2. Analysis Regions and Compliance Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................... ES-8 Figure ES-3. Proposed Project Sequencing in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ................................ ES-15 Figure ES-4. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ............................................................................................................................................. ES-18 Figure ES-5 Project Sequencing in the Dominguez Channel Watershed ................................................. ES-24 Figure 1-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 2-1. Beach Cities WMG MS4 Infrastructure within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............ 2-2 Figure 2-2. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed .............................. 2-3 Figure 2-3. Process for Categorizing Water Body-Pollutant Combinations ................................................ 2-9 Figure 2-4. Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Program ................................................................................ 2-18 Figure 2-5. Analysis Regions and Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................................................................ 2-21 Figure 2-6. SBPAT Model Data Flow ......................................................................................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-7. SBPAT Monte Carlo Method Components ...................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-8. SBPAT Rain and Stream Gauges .......................................................................................................... 2-25 Figure 2-9. Annual Runoff Volumes for Topanga Creek Subwatershed: Modeled vs. Observed, 2001-2012 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-28 Figure 2-10. Correlation between Modeled Fecal Coliform Loads and Observed Exceedance Days (each point represents one TMDL year, 2005-2013) ............................................................................. 2-30 Figure 2-11. IGP and Caltrans Area within the Santa Monica Bay portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-50 Figure 2-12. Existing and Proposed Regional BMPs within EWMP Area .................................................. 2-51 Figure 2-13. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMP Locations within the EWMP Area. ................ 2-52 Figure 2-14. Proposed Regional Projects, Analysis Region SMB-5-02 ....................................................... 2-59 Figure 2-15. Proposed Regional Projects, Analysis Region SMB-6-01 ....................................................... 2-61 Figure 3-1. Beach Cities WMG MS4 Infrastructure within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ....... 3-2 Figure 3-2. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ......................... 3-3 Figure 3-3. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-4. Annual Runoff Volumes Predicted by LSPC and SBPAT ............................................................ 3-20 Figure 3-5. Comparison of Fecal Coliform High Density Residential EMC Values between SCCWRP Measurements (n=7) and Multi-Family Residential EMC distribution in SBPAT ............... 3-21 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Figures iv | Page 2015 Figure 3-6. Comparison of Total Zinc Multi Family Residential EMC Values between Los Angeles County Measurements (n=4) and Multi-Family Residential EMC distribution in SBPAT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-7. IGP and Caltrans Area within the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3-8. Proposed Distributed BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ......................... 3-32 Figure 3-9. Proposed Regional BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ............................... 3-33 Figure 3-10. Proposed Regional BMPs, DC-RB/MB Analysis Region .......................................................... 3-36 Figure 4-1. Proposed Project Sequencing ................................................................................................................. 4-6 Figure 5-1. Adaptive Management Approach .......................................................................................................... 5-3 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Tables v | Page 2015 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency ............................................... ES-4 Table ES-2. Water Body-Pollutant Combination Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................................................................ ES-6 Table ES-3. Water Quality Targets for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed .................................................. ES-7 Table ES-4. TLRs for Fecal Coliform in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ................................................. ES-9 Table ES-5. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ........................................ ES-11 Table ES-6. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance ............................................................................................................... ES-14 Table ES-7. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed ............. ES-15 Table ES-8. Water Quality Targets for the Dominguez Channel Watershed .......................................... ES-16 Table ES-9. TLRs for the Dominguez Channel Watershed ............................................................................. ES-19 Table ES-10. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed ................................ ES-20 Table ES-11. Dominguez Channel Watershed – Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance ................................................................................................................................... ES-23 Table ES-12. Compliance Schedule for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds ....................................................................................................................................................................... ES-25 Table ES-13. Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs in Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds ............................................................................................................................. ES-29 Table 2-1. Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area Distribution by Participating Agency .................................... 2-1 Table 2-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area - Santa Monica Bay Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-3. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area .................................................................................................................................. 2-10 Table 2-4. Rainfall Summary at Manhattan Beach Precipitation Gauge (Station ID 1070) ............... 2-26 Table 2-5. BMPS and Constituents Modeled in SBPAT1 .................................................................................... 2-27 Table 2-6. TLRs for Fecal Coliform for each Modeled Analysis Region in Santa Monica Bay Watershed - TMDL Year 1995 ..................................................................................................................................... 2-33 Table 2-7. MCM Modifications and Agency-Specific Enhancements for Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-37 Table 2-8. Estimated Annual Redevelopment Rates ......................................................................................... 2-45 Table 2-9. Redevelopment and Public Retrofit Incentives Model Assumptions ................................... 2-48 Table 2-10. Non-MS4 Parcels – Modeled as Treated by Treatment Plants (i.e., BMPs that will treat stormwater to the Water Quality Objectives)............................................................................................ 2-49 Table 2-11. Parameters and Performance for Existing Regional BMPs Modeled as Infiltration Basins .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-56 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Tables vi | Page 2015 Table 2-12. Parameters and Performance for Existing Regional BMPs Modeled as Wet Ponds with Extended Detention............................................................................................................................................... 2-57 Table 2-13. Parameters and Performance for Proposed Regional BMPs Modeled as Infiltration Basins ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-62 Table 2-14. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMPs ...................................................................................... 2-64 Table 2-15. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMP Performance ............................................................. 2-65 Table 2-16. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform RAA Results – Interim and Final Compliance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-66 Table 2-17. Dry Weather RAA Evaluation of Santa Monica Bay Watershed CMLs .............................. 2-68 Table 3-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency ................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. LACDPW Monitoring Results Summary ............................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ..................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-5. RAA Models Used in the Dominguez Channel Watershed ......................................................... 3-16 Table 3-6. Wet Weather Permit Limits (Final Compliance Limits for Modeled Pollutants).............. 3-17 Table 3-7. Mean Annual Volume Predicted by SBPAT and LSPC and Measured at the S28 Stream Gauge ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-8. Baseline Loads for Pollutants in the Dominguez Channel Watershed for the Critical Condition .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-23 Table 3-9. Target Load Reductions for Pollutants in the Dominguez Channel Watershed for the Critical Condition ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Table 3-10. Estimated Annual Redevelopment Rates ...................................................................................... 3-28 Table 3-11. Parameters and Performance for Proposed Regional BMPs Modeled as Media Filters ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-37 Table 3-12. Dominguez Channel Watershed – RAA Results – Interim and Final Compliance .......... 3-42 Table 4-1. Compliance Deadlines associated with Santa Monica Bay Watershed WBPCs .................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Implementation Actions and Dates associated with Dominguez Channel Watershed WBPCs .............................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Table 6-1. Range of Soft Costs for Proposed Structural BMP Projects as a Percent of Capital ............ 6-2 Table 6-2. Proposed BMP Design Assumptions for Conceptual Cost Opinions ......................................... 6-4 Table 6-3. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-5-02, Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-4. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-5-02, Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-5. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-6-01 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6-10 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Tables vii | Page 2015 Table 6-6. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region DC-RB/MB1.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6-12 Table 6-7. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region DC-Torrance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6-13 Table 6-8. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Catch Basin Retrofits ........................................ 6-14 Table 6-9. Capital, O&M, and 20-year Life-Cycle Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs by Analysis Region ........................................................................................................................................................... 6-18 Table 7-1. Relevant Grant Opportunities listed in the 2015 Funding Fairs Handbook (California Financing Coordinating Committee [CFCC], 2015) ........................................................................ 7-2 Table 7-2. Added Benefits of Interagency Partnership for Stormwater Management ........................... 7-4 Table 7-3. Local Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 7-7 Table 7-4. Local Funding Approval Mechanisms.................................................................................................... 7-8 Table 7-5. Selected Cities that provide Financial Subsidies to encourage the Development of Stormwater Infrastructure in Private Properties ............................................................................................... 7-10 Table 7-6. Funding Approach Summary ................................................................................................................. 7-11 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Appendices viii | Page 2015 LIST OF APPENDICES A. Notice of Intent B. Reasonable Assurance Analysis for Dominguez Channel Watershed within the City of Torrance C. Machado Lake Work Plan D. Machado Lake Implementation Plan E. Walteria Basin Supplementary Write-Up F. City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Management Plan G. Background Information on the LACFCD H. Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances I. Land Use-Based Wet Weather Pollutant EMC s J. BMP Effluent Concentrations K. Sample TLR Calculations L. MCM Customization Summary M. LID Ordinances N. Green Streets Policies O. Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables P. Documentation of Legal Authority Q. Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Acronyms ix | Page 2015 LIST OF ACRONYMS AED Allowable Exceedance Days ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers BMP Best Management Practice Caltrans California Department of Transportation CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act CFCC California Financing Coordinating Committee cfs Cubic feet per second CIMP Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program CML Compliance Monitoring Location CNT Center for Neighborhood Technology COMM Commercial and Sport Fishing CSMP Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan CTR California Toxic Rules cu-ft Cubic feet CWA Clean Water Act CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund DC Dominguez Channel DCu Dissolved Copper DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DP Dissolved Phosphorus as P DZn Dissolved Zinc EIFD Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts EMC Event Mean Concentration EWMP Enhanced Watershed Management Program FAA Federal Aviation Administration FC Fecal coliform FIB Fecal Indicator Bacteria ft Foot GIS Geographic Information System GM Geometric Mean GO General Obligation gpm Gallons per minute HFS High Flow Suspension HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran IBD International BMP Database IC/ID Illicit Connection/Illicit Discharge IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination IGP Industrial General Permit in inch IND Industrial Service Supply in/hr Inches per hour IPM Integrated Pest Management DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Acronyms x | Page 2015 J5&6 Jurisdictional Groups 5 and 6 JPA Joint Powers Authority LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board lb Pound LID Low Impact Development LSPC Loading Simulation Program C++ MAR Marine Habitat MB Manhattan Beach MCM Minimum Control Measure MEP Maximum Extent Practical MIGR Migration of Aquatic Organisms min Minute MPN Most Probable Number MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply NAV Navigation NH3 Ammonia as N NO3 Nitrate as N NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operations and Maintenance OM&R Operations, Maintenance, and Replacement PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PIPP Public Information and Participation Program RAA Reasonable Assurance Analysis RARE Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species RB Redondo Beach REC-1 Water Contact Recreation REC-2 Non-Contact Water Recreation RWL Receiving Water Limitation SBPAT Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Watershed Research Project SCPWA Southern California Public Water Authority SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SHELL Shellfish Harvesting SMB Santa Monica Bay SMBBB Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria SPWN Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Management Program SWMM Storm Water Management Model, originally developed by USEPA SWQDv Storm Water Quality Design Volume SWQPA State Water Quality Protection Area SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Acronyms xi | Page 2015 TAC Technical Advisory Committee TCu Total Copper TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N TP Total Phosphorus TPb Total Lead TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation TLR Total Load Reduction TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total Suspended Solids TZn Total Zinc USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat WBPC Water Body-Pollutant Combination WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WER Water Effects Ratio WERF Water Environment Research Foundation WET Wetland Habitat WHAT Web-Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool WILD Wildlife Habitat WLA Waste Load Allocation WMA Watershed Management Area WMG Watershed Management Group WMMS Watershed Management Modeling System WMP Watershed Management Program WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitation DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-1 | Page 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 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 Watershed areas within their jurisdictions (referred to herein as the Beach Cities EWMP Area). The Machado Lake Watershed is being addressed separately by the City of Torrance, and is not addressed in this EWMP2. This EWMP is intended to facilitate effective, watershed-specific Permit implementation strategies in accordance with Permit Part VI.C. Watershed Management Program. This EWMP: • Summarizes watershed-specific water quality priorities identified by the Beach Cities WMG; • Outlines the program plan, including specific strategies, control measures and best management practices (BMPs)3, 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 Section VI.C.4.b of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) a Notice of Intent (NOI) (Appendix A) to develop an EWMP on June 28, 2013, with a revised NOI submitted December 17, 2013 in response to comments received from LARWQCB staff. On March 27, 2014, the Beach Cities WMG received a letter from the Executive Officer of the LARWQCB approving the revised NOI submittal. 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 The City of Torrance developed a Special Study Work Plan for the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL (City of Torrance, 2011) (Appendix C), which was approved by the LARWQCB. On January 28, 2015, the City of Torrance submitted to the LARWQCB the BMP Implementation Plan for the Machado Lake Nutrient and Toxics TMDL (City of Torrance, 2014). For reference, the Implementation Plan is attached to this EWMP as Appendix D, but it should be reviewed separately from this EWMP. A separate discussion of the Walteria Basin is also attached as Appendix E. Previous work also includes the City of Torrance’s Stormwater Quality Master Plan, which is included as Appendix F. LACFCD infrastructure in the Machado Lake Watershed is covered under this EWMP as explained in Attachment G. 3 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-2 | Page 2015 In compliance with Section VI.C.4.c.iv of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG then submitted a draft EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014. LARWQCB comments were not received on the EWMP Work Plan; therefore work proceeded on EWMP development consistent with the approach outlined in the EWMP Work Plan. The Beach Cities WMG was required by Section VI.C.4.c.iv of the Permit to submit a draft EWMP no later than June 30, 2015. This document has been developed to serve as the Beach Cities Draft EWMP and is consistent with the Work Plan previously submitted to the LARWQCB. Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) are a voluntary opportunity afforded by Section VI.C.1 of 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. Enhanced WMPs (EWMPS) are WMPs which 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. Where it is not feasible for regional projects to retain the 85th percentile 24 hour storm, the EWMP must demonstrate through a Reasonable Assurance Analysis, that applicable water quality targets should be achieved. Permittees within the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (WMA) have elected to prepare an EWMP. The EWMP allows 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 and 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). Per Permit Section VI.C.1.e, WMPs and EWMPs are to be developed based on the LARWQCB’s WMAs or subwatersheds thereof. Consistent with Permit requirements, this EWMP is written to: 1. Be consistent with Permit provisions for EWMPs in Part VI.C.1.a.-f and Part VI.C.5-C.8; 2. Incorporate applicable State agency input on priority setting and other key implementation issues; 3. Provide for meeting water quality standards and other Clean Water Act obligations; 4. Include multi-benefit regional projects which retain stormwater from the 85th percentile 24 hour storm where feasible; 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; DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-3 | Page 2015 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. This EWMP is applicable to the Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area, 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 ES-1). This area includes portions of two distinct HUC-12 watersheds4, Santa Monica Bay Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed, as summarized in Table ES-1. The Wylie Sump, Bishop Montgomery Basin, and Ocean Basin are all retention basins with no outlet. Therefore, their drainage areas have been excluded from the EWMP, with no analyses required. • The western portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area consists of approximately 7,840 acres of land that drains to Santa Monica Bay (SMB). This accounts for 52% 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. This portion of the study area is hereinafter referred to as the “SMB Watershed”. • The northeastern portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area is tributary to Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Carson Channel) and is comprised of approximately 7,380 acres of land. This watershed accounts for 48% 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 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 Watershed”. 4 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-4 | Page 2015 Table ES-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency Participating Agency Area (acres) Santa Monica Bay Watershed Dominguez Channel Watershed Total EWMP Area (% of total) City of Redondo Beach 2,614 1,217 3,831 (25%) City of Manhattan Beach 2,078 350 2,428 (16%) City of Hermosa Beach 832 - 832 (5%) City of Torrance 2,314 5,812 8,126 (53%) Total 7,837 7,379 15,217 (100%) 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 Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014) and also leverages previous efforts where relevant models have already been developed. The individual water quality targets, BMPs, Reasonable Assurance Analyses, schedules, and costs for each of the watersheds are summarized in watershed-specific sections that follow. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-5 | Page 2015 Figure ES-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-6 | Page 2015 SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED Receiving waters for stormwater runoff from the Beach Cities EWMP Area were screened for water quality priorities by reviewing Total Maximum Daily Loads (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 water body-pollutant combination. Water body-pollutant combinations were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section VI.C.5(a).ii of the Permit. Table ES-2 presents the prioritized water body-pollutant combinations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Water body-pollutant combinations categorized below are subject to change based on future data collected as part of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) or other monitoring program. Table ES-2. Water Body-Pollutant Combination Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Category Water Body Pollutant Reason/Justification 1: Highest Priority Santa Monica Bay Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria TMDL Wet Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL Santa Monica Bay Trash/Debris SMB Debris TMDL DDTs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL PCBs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 2: High Priority N/A None No other 303(d) listings exist for the Beach Cities portion of SMB 3: Medium Priority N/A None Outfall and receiving water monitoring data are not available for the Beach Cities portion of SMB The Reasonable Assurance Analysis was performed on bacteria in each of the defined analysis regions (Figure ES-2), as it was the controlling pollutant within the SMB Watershed. Bacteria targets are summarized in Table ES-3. The MS4 compliance targets for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethanes (DDTs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) established in the Santa Monica Bay DDT & PCB TMDL were based on the assumption that the existing stormwater pollutant loads for DDT and PCBs were lower than what was needed to protect the Santa Monica Bay from these legacy pollutants (i.e., based on data used in the TMDL, no MS4 pollutant load reduction is expected to be required). Therefore, no reductions in DDT and PCB loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s are required to meet the TMDL and therefore, no Reasonable Assurance Analysis is required. Trash was not modeled as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis, instead the Reasonable Assurance Analysis describes how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the TMDL through their Trash Monitoring and Reporting Programs which are aimed at meeting the zero trash discharge definition in the TMDL. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-7 | Page 2015 Table ES-3. Water Quality Targets for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Water Body Pollutant RWL/WQBEL from the Permit Note on Modeling Assumptions Santa Monica Bay Beaches Fecal Coliform (modeled as surrogate for all three fecal indicator bacteria in the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria [SMBBB] TMDL) Allowable Exceedance Days per season per year (varies by beach Compliance Monitoring Location) Used 90th percentile rain year (based on wet days) as the critical condition. Accounted for site-specific exceedance rates and the number of discharge days modeled for each Compliance Monitoring Location. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-8 | Page 2015 Figure ES-2. Analysis Regions and Compliance Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-9 | Page 2015 Targets – Santa Monica Bay Target load reductions (TLRs) represent a numerical expression of the Permit compliance metrics that can be modeled and can serve as a basis for confirming, with reasonable assurance, that implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in attainment of the applicable TMDL-based WQBELs and RWLs in the Permit for Category 1 pollutants, or the Water Quality Objectives for Category 2 and Category 3 pollutants. For bacteria the target load reductions are expressed as Allowable Exceedance Days (AEDs) per year. TLRs for both interim and final compliance deadlines are presented for all analysis regions including both open beach and point zero compliance monitoring locations (CMLs) (Table ES-4). Table ES-4. TLRs for Fecal Coliform in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Analysis Region Baseline Annual Load (1012 Most Probable Number [MPN]) Interim Target Load Reduction Final Target Load Reduction Absolute (1012 MPN) % of baseline annual load Absolute (1012 MPN) % of baseline annual load SMB-5-011 7.4 Interim target load reduction assessed on a watershed-wide basis 0 0% SMB-O-06 23.0 0 0% SMB-5-02 534.8 247.6 46.3% SMB-5-02/SMB-5-032 34.9 0 0% SMB-5-031 29.0 0 0% SMB-5-03/SMB-5-042 89.3 0 0% SMB-5-041 17.1 0 0% SMB-5-04/SMB-5-052 8.2 0 0% SMB-5-051 182.8 0 0% SMB-5-05/SMB-6-012 6.7 0 0% SMB-6-013 706.6 312.1 44.2% BCSump3 379.4 178.0 46.9% SMB-6-01/ SMB-6-022 162.5 0 0% SMB-6-021 99.6 0 0% SMB-6-03 62.2 0 0% SMB-6-04 209.9 0 0% SMB-6-051 90.9 0 0% SMB-O-08 138.9 0 0% SMB-6-061 6.7 0 0% SMB Watershed-Wide 3875.9 368.9 13% 737.7 26% 1 Anti-degradation site 2 For the unmonitored tributary areas located in-between the CML tributary areas, TLRs were assigned from the geographically smaller of the two adjacent CML analysis regions. 3 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-10 | Page 2015 Nine CMLs were assigned zero TLRs to reflect their historic good water quality (consistent with anti-degradation-based wet weather allowable exceedance days). Although the SMBBB TMDL requires only the maintaining of beach water quality at anti-degradation compliance locations, the Beach Cities EWMP will seek to implement nonstructural and Low Impact Development (LID)- based BMPs within the SMB portion of their EWMP area; this will further protect and potentially improve water quality at these beaches and is consistent with the Jurisdictional Group 5 and 6 (J5&6) Implementation Plan (Geosyntec Consultants, 2011). BMPs – Santa Monica Bay EWMPs offer Permittees the opportunity to identify and implement focused strategies, control measures and BMPs to achieve applicable water quality targets (WQBELs and RWLs) and to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. In order to demonstrate reasonable assurance, BMPs were identified and prioritized. Prioritization was based on cost (low cost BMPs were prioritized); BMP effectiveness for the pollutants of concern (BMPs that had greater treatment efficiency for the specific pollutants of concern were prioritized); and implementation feasibility as determined by the Beach Cities agencies. In general, nonstructural (e.g., programmatic) BMPs were prioritized over structural BMPs due to their lower relative cost. The following is an overview of the types of BMPs contemplated in this EWMP within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. Programmatic BMPs: These source controls 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 agency’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan consistent with Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements [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 this EWMP. Public Retrofit Incentives: These BMPs include programs directed at incentivizing the public to decrease the amount of stormwater runoff from their property, specifically via downspout disconnection programs that redirect roof runoff to vegetated or otherwise pervious areas. Redevelopment: Beginning in 2001, redevelopment projects were required by the Permit (via the Standard Urban Stormwater Management Program [SUSMP]) to incorporate stormwater treatment BMPs into their projects if their project size exceeded specified thresholds. The 2001 MS4 Permit SUSMP redevelopment requirements were applied between 2003 (the point at which the Bacteria TMDL was implemented) and 2015 for the SMB EWMP area. Additionally, the 2012 MS4 Permit established new criteria for redevelopment projects, requiring certain sized projects to capture, retain, or infiltrate the 85th percentile design storm or the 0.75-inch design storm, whichever is greater, via the implementation of LID BMPs. These were taken into account as well. Non-MS4 Permitted Parcels or Areas: In general, this BMP assumes that regulated parcels/areas would be in compliance with the NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit Waste Discharge DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-11 | Page 2015 Requirements (WDRs) from State of California Department of Transportation (Order No. 2012- 0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the California NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Industrial General Permit [IGP], Order 2014- 0057-DWQ). Structural BMPs: Both existing and proposed regional and distributed structural BMPs are included in this EWMP to address water quality targets in the SMB Watershed. Because bacteria were identified as the controlling pollutant of concern, infiltration BMPs were prioritized as they are most effective for addressing bacteria. General design criteria for proposed structural BMPs are summarized in Table ES-5. Table ES-5. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Analysis Region Project Name Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) SMB-5-02 Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench2 Located along the coast of Manhattan Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 2 ac, an average depth of 2 ft with a diversion rate of 160 cfs and an infiltration rate under the trench of 13 in/hr. 198,000 1,4751 SMB-5-02 Distributed Green Streets The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 5% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 205,500 66 SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Located along the coast of Hermosa Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 0.2 ac, an average depth of 1.7 ft, a diversion flowrate of 25 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 12.5 in/hr. 13,300 2,0001 SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration2 Located in Hermosa Beach, between Valley Dr. and Ardmore Ave., the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 1.5 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 48 cfs, and an assumed infiltration rate of 12 in/hr. 319,000 1,8001 SMB-6-01 Park #3 Located northwest of Blossom Lane and 190th street, the sub-surface infiltration basin has a potential surface area of 0.5 ac, an average depth of 5ft , a diversion flowrate of 13 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 1 in/hr. 87,000 1,4301 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-12 | Page 2015 Analysis Region Project Name Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) SMB-6-01 Distributed Green Streets The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 25% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 605,200 190 1 This includes upstream BMPs and associated tributary drainage areas 2 Alternative project locations have also been identified Distributed green streets BMPs are proposed and were modeled as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis within select analysis regions, at analysis region-specific implementation levels (e.g., runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses would be treated by green streets BMPs). It should be noted that if at any time in the future, specific distributed green streets or regional/centralized BMPs are found to be infeasible for implementation, alternative BMPs or operational changes will be planned within the same subwatershed and within the same timeline, to meet an equivalent subwatershed load reduction. In addition, if monitoring data indicate that more easily implementable, alternative BMPs can provide equivalent (or superior) load reductions, these alternative BMPs may be implemented at the discretion of the WMG Agencies. Demonstration of Compliance – Santa Monica Bay To demonstrate wet weather compliance, a Reasonable Assurance Analysis was conducted in which the following steps were taken: 1. For each analysis region, develop TLRs for 90th percentile year based on Permit requirements and LARWQCB guidance; 2. Identify structural and non-structural BMPs that were either implemented after applicable TMDL effective dates or are planned for implementation in the future: a. Assume a load reduction for non-modeled non-structural (or programmatic) BMPs (five percent of baseline pollutant load); b. Calculate load reductions for public incentives for retrofits on private property (e.g., downspout disconnects) and redevelopment (e.g., low impact development requirements); c. Calculate load reductions attributable to anticipated new permit compliance activities of non-MS4 Permittees (e.g., Industrial General Permit holders and California Department of Transportation [Caltrans]); and d. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional BMPs that were identified in existing plans; 3. Compare total estimated load reduction for each analysis region with the TLRs; and DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-13 | Page 2015 4. Meet the TLRs by backfilling the remaining load reduction with new regional or distributed green streets BMPs, and with green streets that address a certain percentage of specific developed land uses. Results of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis for each analysis region in the SMB watershed are presented in Table ES-6 below. The values provided correspond to the load reductions attributable to the BMP types following the applicable final and interim compliance deadlines. As shown, the final TLR is met in all SMB watershed analysis regions with varying applications of non-structural and regional BMPs. The interim 50% TLR is met through a combination of nonstructural and existing regional BMPs. For dry weather bacteria compliance, a qualitative analysis was conducted to show compliance at each of the CMLs. Many CMLs have an effective diversion such that they are consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the surf zone during year-round dry weather days. For the remaining smaller outfalls a systematic screening conducted in 2002 demonstrated that there was no discharge to the wave wash during summer dry weather from these storm drains. Rescreening of outfalls will be conducted as part of the Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring in the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program and will include both summer dry weather and winter dry weather screening. For the CMLs in the SMB Watershed that have anti-degradation based allowed exceedance days for both winter-dry and summer-dry weather, reasonable assurance is assumed to be demonstrated through the basis that the TMDL established their allowed exceedance days based on historic conditions (i.e., no water quality improvements were necessary). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-14 | Page 2015 Table ES-6. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance Analysis Region Implementation Benefits (average load reduction as % of baseline load for critical year)TLR Compliance (TLR Met)? Non-Structural BMPs (Non-Modeled) Public Retrofit Incentives + RedevelopmentNon-MS4 Regional BMPs Distributed BMPs Distributed BMP Implementation Level Estimated Load ReductionSMB-5-01 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-O-06 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-5-02 5% 4% 2% 36% 3% 5% MFR/COM/SFR 50% 46% Yes SMB-5-02/5-03 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% N/A8% 0%YesSMB-5-03 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% N/A8% 0%YesSMB-5-03/5-04 5% 4% 0% 5% 0% N/A15% 0%YesSMB-5-04 5% 5% 0% 1% 1%2N/A12% 0%YesSMB-5-04/5-05 5% 4% 0% 2% 0% N/A11% 0%YesSMB-5-05 5% 4% 5% 3% 0% N/A18% 0%YesSMB-5-05/6-01 5% 3% 0% 2% 0% N/A10% 0%YesSMB-6-01+ BCSump1 5% 3% 3% 33% 2% 25% MFR/COM/SFR 46% 45% Yes SMB-6-01/6-02 5% 2% 4% 0% 0% N/A11% 0%YesSMB-6-02 5% 3% 1% 4% 0% N/A13% 0%YesSMB-6-03 5% 3% 5% 10% 0% N/A23% 0%YesSMB-6-04 5% 4% 3% 0% 0% N/A12% 0%YesSMB-6-05 5% 3% 6% 0% 0% N/A15% 0%YesSMB-O-08 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-6-06 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% N/A10% 0%YesFinal Compliance Deadline (2021) 5% 3% 3% 21% 1% N/A 33% 26% Yes Interim Compliance Deadline (2018) 2.5% 0.8% 1.5% 9.6% 0% N/A 14.4% 13% Yes 1 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). 2 Distributed green street BMP load reduction in SMB-5-04 is a result of the existing filter/infiltration boxes retrofitted on the east side of Hermosa Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-15 | Page 2015 Schedule – Santa Monica Bay In order to meet the compliance deadlines for the water body-pollutant combinations discussed above based on load reduction projections in the Reasonable Assurance Analysis, the proposed structural BMPs within the SMB Watershed would be implemented as described in Figure ES-3. Figure ES-3. Proposed Project Sequencing in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Project Name Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Catch basin retrofits Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench* Green streets application in SMB-5-02 Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration* Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Park #3 Green streets application in SMB-6-01 * Alternative project locations have also been identified DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED Within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, water body-pollutant combinations were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section VI.C.5(a).ii of the Permit. Table ES-7 presents the prioritized water body-pollutant combinations within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Water body-pollutant combinations categorized below are subject to change based on future data collected as part of the CIMP or other monitoring program. Table ES-7. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Toxicity Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Copper Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Lead Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Zinc Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Indicator Bacteria 303(d) List 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Cyanide Historic exceedances of the California Toxics Rule (CTR) continuous concentration water quality objective (5.2 ug/L) pH Historic exceedance of the Basin Plan Objective (6.5 – 8.5) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-16 | Page 2015 Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization Selenium Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (5.0 ug/L) Mercury Historic exceedances of the CTR human health criterion for organisms only (0.051 ug/L) Cadmium Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (2.2 ug/L) For the purposes of the wet weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis, the EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel was combined into a single analysis region to establish TLRs and into two analysis regions, one including the portion of the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach (Dominguez Channel – Redondo Beach/Manhattan Beach [DC–RB/MB]) and one including the portion of the City of Torrance (DC – Torrance), to evaluate the performance of BMPs. For the purposes of the dry weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis for which bacteria are the only water body-pollutant combination, the EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel was combined into the same single analysis region. The Dominguez Channel watershed analysis regions are shown in Figure ES-4. The wet weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis was performed on copper, lead, zinc, and bacteria (fecal coliform) within the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Water quality targets were identified for Dominguez Channel watershed in the same manner as in SMB Watershed. The water quality targets for prioritized water body-pollutant combinations are summarized in Table ES-8 below. Table ES-8. Water Quality Targets for the Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Body Pollutant RWL/WQBEL from the Permit or Assumed Based on Other Similar Los Angeles Region TMDLs Approach for Applying the Critical Period Dominguez Channel Fecal Coliform 19% allowed exceedance of the REC-1 water quality objective, (400 MPN/100mL) on non-high flow suspension days 90th percentile year (based on wet days) was used as the critical condition. Allowable number of wet weather exceedance days for the critical year was set to 19% of non-high flow suspension wet days, rounding down. Total Copper WQBEL=9.7 ug/L Waste load allocation (WLA)= Concentration*Daily Volume 90th percentile daily load during wet weather was used as the critical condition. This calendar day was identified for each metal by ranking daily loads for metal wet days between 2003 and 2012. Total Lead WQBEL=42.7 ug/L WLA= Concentration*Daily Volume Total Zinc WQBEL=69.7 ug/L WLA= Concentration*Daily Volume Although toxicity was identified as a Category 1 water body-pollutant combination, it was not modeled for Dominguez Channel and the Torrance Lateral since it is not a wet weather parameter that can be modeled using currently available Reasonable Assurance Analysis tools for the Los Angeles Region. Instead, the Reasonable Assurance Analysis qualitatively describes how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the TMDL WQBELs. Toxicity will continue to be monitored DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-17 | Page 2015 under the Beach Cities’ CIMP. Although ammonia was identified as a Category 2 water body- pollutant combination, monitoring data since 2003 show that all water quality samples at monitoring locations S28 and TS19 meet the freshwater Basin Plan Objective for ammonia, and as a result, ammonia was not modeled as part of the Beach Cities’ Reasonable Assurance Analysis. Similarly, the Category 3 water body-pollutant combinations cyanide, pH, selenium, mercury, and cadmium, all within the Torrance Lateral, were not modeled either due to a lack of demonstrated MS4 linkage or due to data limitations. These parameters will be monitored under the Beach Cities’ CIMP and if future monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to cadmium exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised to address these pollutants. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-18 | Page 2015 Figure ES-4. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-19 | Page 2015 Targets – Dominguez Channel As discussed previously, TLRs represent a numerical expression of the Permit compliance metrics (e.g., allowed mass per day for metals for wet weather and allowable exceedance days per year for bacteria) that can be modeled and can serve as a basis for confirming, with reasonable assurance, that implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in attainment of the applicable TMDL-based WQBELs and RWLs in the Permit for Category 1 pollutants, or the Water Quality Objectives for Category 2 and Category 3 pollutants. TLRs were developed for the single combined analysis region (Table ES-9). Table ES-9. TLRs for the Dominguez Channel Watershed Pollutant Units Baseline Annual Load Interim Target Load Reductions Final Target Load Reductions Compliance Deadline Absolute % of baseline annual load Absolute % of baseline annual load Copper 2032 lb 21 N/A 13 62% Lead 2032 lb 8.7 0 0% Zinc 2032 lb 230 175 76% Fecal coliform 2022 1012 MPN 1,498 124 8.3% - - 2027 1012 MPN 1,498 255 17% - - 2032 1012 MPN 1,498 - - 493 33% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-20 | Page 2015 BMPs – Dominguez Channel Both existing and proposed regional and distributed BMPs are included in this EWMP to address water quality targets in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Distributed green streets BMPs are proposed and were modeled as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis within the DC-RB/MB analysis region, at an implementation level of 14% (i.e., runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial land uses would be treated by green streets BMPs). General design criteria for proposed structural BMPs are summarized in Table ES-10. Table ES-10. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed Analysis Region Project Name Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) DC – MB/RB Powerline Easement Infiltration* Located along powerline easements and/or adjacent to Marine Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard, the sub-surface biofilter has a potential surface area of 7.2 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 132 cfs, and a negligible infiltration rate. N/A (Flow- through BMP) 1,500 DC – MB/RB Artesia Blvd. and Hawthorne Blvd. Filtration Located near the intersection of Artesia Blvd. and Hawthorne Blvd., the sub-surface biofilter has a potential surface area of 1 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 13.6 cfs, and a negligible infiltration rate. N/A (Flow- through BMP) 130 DC- MB/RB Distributed Green Streets BMPs The distributed green streets (to address runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi- family residential, commercial, and industrial land uses) are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 636,300 200 DC- Torrance Catch Basin Inlet Filters The City of Torrance plans to retrofit catch basins with inlet filters. N/A 5,760 *Alternative project location has also been identified It should be noted that if at any time specific distributed green streets or regional/centralized BMPs are found to be infeasible for implementation, or new innovative BMPs are developed, alternative BMPs or operational changes will be planned within the same analysis region and within the same timeline, to meet an equivalent analysis region load reduction. The performance of the proposed catch basin inlet filters within the City of Torrance will also be evaluated as potential alternatives to the proposed structural BMPs within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-21 | Page 2015 Demonstration of Compliance – Dominguez Channel To demonstrate wet weather compliance, the Reasonable Assurance Analysis was performed according to the following steps: 1. For each analysis region, develop TLRs for the critical condition (90th percentile year for bacteria and 90th percentile load day for metals) based on Permit requirements and LARWQCB guidance; 2. Identify structural and non-structural BMPs that were either implemented after applicable TMDL effective dates or are planned for implementation in the future: a. Assume a load reduction for non-modeled non-structural (or programmatic) BMPs (five percent of baseline pollutant load); b. Calculate load reductions for public incentives for private retrofit (e.g., downspout disconnects) and redevelopment; c. Calculate load reductions attributable to anticipated new permit compliance activities of non-MS4 entities (e.g., Industrial General Permit holders and Caltrans); and d. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional BMPs that were identified in existing plans; 3. Compare total estimated load reduction for each analysis region with the TLRs; and 4. Meet the TLRs by backfilling the remaining load reduction with new regional or distributed green streets BMPs, with green streets modeled by assuming treatment of runoff from a percentage of specific developed land uses. Within the DC-Torrance analysis region, an estimated load reduction attributable to distributed catch basin inlet filters was derived from a review of literature/studies on their performance (Appendix B). If the estimated performance is supported by future monitoring data, these filters may be used as alternative BMPs in other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Results of the wet weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis for each analysis region are presented in Table ES-11 below. The values provided correspond to the load reductions attributable to the BMP types following the applicable compliance deadline. As shown, the TLRs are predicted to be met in the DC-RB/MB analysis region for metals and fecal coliforms with varying applications of non-structural and regional BMPs as described previously. Within the DC-Torrance analysis region, the TLRs will be met through implementation of catch basin inlet filters as needed. Monitoring and subsequent adaptive management will be employed to evaluate the achieved load reductions prior to each of the compliance deadlines, installing additional filters as needed until compliance is achieved for every applicable WQBEL or RWL. For dry weather, bacteria is the only applicable pollutant in the Dominguez Channel watershed, and it is a Category 2 water body-pollutant combination (i.e., 303(d)-listed but not currently subject to a TMDL). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-22 | Page 2015 The City of Torrance’s dry weather load reduction strategy will focus on non-structural source control and pollution prevention measures that are designed to reduce the amount of pollutants and understand the effect of pollutants entering runoff though education, enforcement and behavioral modification programs. Within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, the implementation of the two regional BMPs at both outlets from the DC-RB/MB analysis region to address wet weather pollutants will control dry weather flows by capturing the small flows in the pre-treatment volume and either retaining them or treating them in the media filter. In addition, each of the EWMP WMG cities has water conservation regulations which will reduce dry weather runoff at its source. Collectively, by controlling dry weather MS4 flows prior to entering Dominguez Channel using the proposed suite of BMPs, bacteria will be addressed. If necessary, the EWMP Group agencies retain the option of installing low flow diversions sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the receiving water year-round dry weather days. Therefore, reasonable assurance of meeting the applicable RWLs was demonstrated in this EWMP through a qualitative assessment of the proposed BMPs and their overall approach of eliminating or substantially reducing MS4 discharges during dry weather. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-23 | Page 2015 Table ES-11. Dominguez Channel Watershed – Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance Pollutant Date Implementation Benefits (average load reduction as % of baseline for the critical condition1) TLR Compliance(TLR Met)?Non-Structural BMPs (Non-Modeled) Public Retrofit Incentives + RedevelopmentNon-MS4 Regional BMPs Distributed BMPs Distributed BMP Implementation Level Estimated Load Reduction Analysis Region DC-RB/MB Zinc 2032 (Final) 5% 9% 6% 39% 20% 14% SFR, MFR, COM, IND 79% 76% Yes Copper 2032 (Final) 24%2 0% 5% 30% 26% 85% 62% Yes Fecal coliform 2022 (Interim) 2.1% 1.5% 0.7% 0% 4.1% 3% SFR, MFR, COM, IND8.4% 8.3% Yes 2027 (Interim) 3.5% 2.4% 1.3% 0% 10% 7% SFR, MFR, COM, IND 17% 17% Yes 2032 (Final) 5% 3.2% 1.8% 45% 20% 14% SFR, MFR, COM, IND74% 33% Yes Analysis Region DC-Torrance Zinc 2032 (Final) 5% 0% 0% 0% 75% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 76% See note 3 Copper 2032 (Final) 14%2 0% 0% 0% 75% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 62% See note 3 Fecal coliform 2022 (Interim) 2.1% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 8.3% See note 3 2027 (Interim) 3.5% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 17% See note 3 2032 (Final) 5% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 33% See note 3 1 The critical condition is TMDL year 1995 for fecal coliform, 11/30/2007 for copper, 2/5/2010 for lead, and 2/26/2006 for zinc. 2 Load reduction attributable to copper brake pad phase-out, after accounting for other BMPs, up to 55%. 3 Load reduction sum cannot be estimated at this time. The individual load reduction for each inlet filter’s drainage area is shown under the “Distributed BMPs” column. Initially, 200 of 643 catch basins are planned to be retrofitted in high priority catchments. Therefore, the total load reduction from inlet filters will be evaluated in the future through monitoring, and the BMPs will be modified through the adaptive management process, with additional filters installed as necessary to meet the TLRs by the compliance deadlines. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-24 | Page 2015 Schedule – Dominguez Channel In order to meet the compliance deadlines for the water body-pollutant combinations based on load reduction projections in the Reasonable Assurance Analysis, the proposed structural BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed would be implemented per the timeline provided in Figure ES-5 . Figure ES-5 Project Sequencing in the Dominguez Channel Watershed Project Name Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Catch basin inlet filters in DC-Torrance Green streets application in DC-RB/MB Powerline Easement Filtration* Artesia Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard Filtration *Alternative project location has also been identified COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE Table ES-12 summarizes the existing and proposed implementation actions and dates within the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel watersheds, for each identified water body-pollutant combination. The compliance schedule for Category 1 water body-pollutant combinations is consistent with the associated TMDLs. The compliance schedule for the Category 2 water body- pollutant combinations has been selected to achieve the proposed wet and dry weather bacteria milestones, with implementation actions not exceeding one year, in accordance with the Permit (Section ii(5)9B). As described in Table ES-12, the compliance schedule for the Category 3 water body-pollutant combinations will be dependent on the results of the CIMP. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-25 | Page 2015 Table ES-12. Compliance Schedule for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds Category Watershed Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel Toxicity Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Wet Current Interim: Comply with the interim water quality-based effluent limitations as listed in the TMDL March 2032 Final: Comply with the final water quality-based effluent limitations as listed in the TMDL Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry N/A Final compliance in effect and attained through diversions and non-structural BMPs. Wet July 2018 Interim: 50% single sample ED reduction July 2021 Final: Geometric Mean [GM] targets met Final: Single sample AED targets met Trash/Debris N/A March 2016 Interim: 20% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2017 Interim: 40% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2018 Interim: 60% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2019 Interim: 80% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2020 Final: 100% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders DDTs N/A N/A Since the TMDL effectively implements an anti-degradation approach (i.e., historic low MS4 concentrations or loads must be kept the same or lower), and the Beach Cities EWMP Agencies are currently presumed to be achieving the WLAs (thus negating the need for Reasonable Assurance Analysis), no compliance schedule is proposed. PCBs N/A N/A 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel Bacteria Dry December 2023 Interim: 50% load reduction December 2025 Final: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 1. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (5 days during the dry weather period); or 2. Meet the allowed exceedance percentage (1.6% during a dry weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 3. Diversions are in place such that they are consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the receiving water year-round dry weather days. Wet December 2016 Provide documentation supporting minimum control measure (MCM) enhancements implemented over the past year December 2017 Provide documentation supporting MCM enhancements implemented over DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-26 | Page 2015 Category Watershed Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action the past year December 2018 Identify planned green streets locations to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2019 City Council approval of Plans & Specifications for green streets to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Begin installation of catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2020 Develop concept reports for regional BMPs in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Begin construction on green streets to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2021 Submit grant application for any one of the proposed regional projects in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2022 Interim Milestone: 25% of target load reduction December 2023 Identify planned green streets locations to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2024 Begin construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Continue installation of catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2025 Release Request for Proposals for regional BMP designs in Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach December 2026 Complete construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2027 Interim Milestone: 50% of target load reduction December 2028 Produce regional BMP design reports; identify locations for green streets implementation to treat runoff from an additional 7% (14% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2029 Begin regional BMP permitting process for project in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach. December 2030 Begin construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 7% (14% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-27 | Page 2015 Category Watershed Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2031 Begin regional BMP construction of project in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach. December 20321 Final Milestone: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 1. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (10 days during a wet weather period, plus high flow suspension days) 2. Meeting the target load reduction (33%); or 3. Meeting the allowed exceedance percentage (19% during a wet weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel Cyanide pH Selenium Mercury Cadmium N/A N/A As required by the Permit, monitoring for these pollutants will occur under the CIMP. If monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities Agencies’ MS4s may cause or contribute to exceedances of these pollutants in the receiving water,2 these contributions will be addressed through modifications to the EWMP as a part of the adaptive management process, as described in Permit section VI.C.2.a.iii. 1 The final compliance date for wet weather bacteria was selected to be consistent with the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL (RWQCB, 2011). 2 This will be assumed to be the case if monitoring data show that outfall concentrations and receiving water concentrations are in excess of the applicable water quality criteria for the same monitoring event. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-28 | Page 2015 PLANNING LEVEL COST OPINION Planning-level cost opinions associated with implementation of the proposed structural best management practices within the Beach Cities WMG area are provided based on results from the Reasonable Assurance Analysis for the Beach Cities EWMP. Cost opinions 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 budget forecasts are order-of magnitude opinions, and 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 water body-pollutant combination. EWMP planning-level cost opinions were developed for the proposed structural BMPs in addition to programmatic costs. Costs approximated for structural BMPs include “hard” costs for tangible assets and “soft” costs, which include considerations such as design and permitting. Table ES-13 summarizes the total 20-year life-cycle costs for each proposed structural BMP, which are composed of the cost to construct or implement each structural BMP plus the associated annual O&M costs over 20 years. In order to account for possible variations in BMP design, BMP configurations, and site-specific constraints, as well as for uncertainties in available BMP unit costs from literature or estimated BMP unit costs, a range of costs is presented. These cost opinions are provided for information only, and it is recognized that should monitoring information demonstrate that alternative, less-expensive BMPs are equally (or superior) to those described herein, that these alternative BMPs may be implemented at the discretion of the WMG agencies. Not included in these costs are the annual monitoring costs for implementing the CIMP or the costs associated with implementing baseline and enhanced MCMs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-29 | Page 2015 Table ES-13. Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs in Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds Watershed/ Analysis Region Location of BMP Project Name Construction Cost Range Annual O&M Range Total 20-Year Life-Cycle1 Range Low High Low High Low High Santa Monica Bay Watershed SMB-5-02, Alternative 1 Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench2 $3.7M $6.8M $140K $190K $6.5M $11M Manhattan Beach Distributed Green Streets $2.4M $6.5M $110K $220K $4.6M $11M SMB-5-02 Alternative 1 Combined Costs $6.1M $13M $250K $410K $11M $22M SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench $500K $1.1M $18K $32K $860K $1.7M Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration2$5.5M $8.0M $81K $90K $7.1M $9.8M Redondo Beach Park #3 $1.9M $3.0M $28K $33K $2.5M $3.7M Hermosa Beach Distributed Green Streets $7.0M $19M $310K $640K $13M $32M SMB-6-01 Combined Costs $15M $31M $440K $800K $23M $47M All Analysis Regions Hermosa Beach Trash exclusion devices $160K $430K $50K $64K $1.1M $1.7M Redondo Beach Trash exclusion devices $1.1M $3.1M $360K $460K $8.3M $12M Manhattan Beach Trash exclusion devices $590K $1.7M $210K $270K $4.8M $7.1M Combined Costs in Santa Monica Bay Watershed $23M $50M $1.3M $2.0M $49M $90M Dominguez Channel Watershed DC-RB/MB Redondo Beach Powerline Easement Infiltration2 $11M $16M $160K $180K $14M $20M Redondo Beach Artesia Blvd Infiltration $2.0M $3.1M $30K $35K $2.6M $3.8M Redondo Beach + Manhattan Beach Distributed Green Streets $7.4M $20M $330K $670K $14M $33M DC-RB/MB Combined Costs $20M $39M $520K $890K $31M $57M DC-Torrance Torrance Catch basin inlet filters $240K $360k $130K $170k $2.8M $3.7M DC-Torrance Combined Costs $240K $360k $130K $170k $2.8M $3.7M Combined Costs in Dominguez Channel Watershed $20M $39M $650K $1.1M $33M $61M Combined Costs of All Proposed Structural BMPs $43M $89M $2.0M $3.1M $82M $150M M = Million dollars, K = Thousand dollars 1 Life-cycle costs include construction costs and 20 years of annual O&M (in 2015 dollars) and are not discounted. 2 Alternative project locations have also been identified, but are not included in combined cost opinion DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-30 | Page 2015 FINANCING DISCUSSION The availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Section 7 of this EWMP provides an overview of potentially available funding sources to pay for programs proposed in the EWMP. Examples show that a multi-pronged funding strategy using multiple sources rather than rely on a single storm drain fee may be the most prudent approach. A list of potential fees and charges has been developed, which will be further considered and explored by the Beach Cities WMG in the future: • Vehicle license and vehicle rental fees • Solid waste management surcharge • Water service surcharge (under AB850) • Property assessment • Fines (not a stable source, it is an exemption under Proposition 26) • Financial subsidy to encourage private sector participation to develop local and district projects • One time capital recovery fee • Dedicated storm drain fee • Taxes (e.g. fuel taxes) • A TMDL fee / tax could be developed based on the pollutant contribution from polluters / activities In addition, Public Private Partnerships and alternative delivery and financing methods may facilitate and streamline implementation, and could result in program cost reductions. From the analysis of potential costs in this section as summarized in Table ES-13, it is clear that projected costs of implementing the EWMP are substantial and orders of magnitude higher than have previously been expended by the agencies under the previous MS4 Permit. Thus availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Currently, the Beach Cities do not have sufficient funds or dedicated funding streams to construct and maintain the projects proposed in this EWMP. The Beach Cities agencies are working with the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities and the California Contract Cities Association to partner with other affected agencies to collectively influence State policies, pursue changes in legislation and lobby high level officials for additional stormwater funding. Working together with the other cities will increase effectiveness, communication, collaboration, and reduce redundant efforts. The LACFCD will also work with the Beach Cities in their efforts to address source controls; assess, develop, and pursue funding for structural BMPs, and promote the use of water reuse and infiltration. As regional project scopes are further refined, the LACFCD will determine on a case-by-case basis their contribution to the projects. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-31 | Page 2015 In addition to working with other affected cities on a regional level, the Beach Cities WMG individually and collaboratively are committed to pursue funding sources at a local level including but not limited to: • Grants - Collaboration and coordination between the Beach Cities will be important to increase accessible grant funding opportunities for stormwater projects, however alternative funding sources will also be needed to provide stable O&M revenues since grants typically do not provide for O&M. • Interagency Partnerships – Interagency partnerships, like the Beach Cities WMG, can allow agencies to leverage local funding resources to make cost intensive projects possible. • Local Bond Issuance - Two types of local bonds can be utilized. General Obligation (GO) bonds are issued by local governments and repaid through a property tax surcharge. Revenue bonds are tax-exempt securitized bonds repaid through utility rate increases charged directly to customers. • Local Stormwater Assessments - Stormwater charges are potentially the most critical local funding source to finance stormwater programs. These charges include stormwater fees and taxes. • Direct Subsidies - Direct financial subsidies to local projects 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. These potential sources of funding are discussed in greater detail in Section 7. Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High CostManhattan Beach Infiltration Trench (Shoreline) $3,000,000 $5,800,000 $110,000 $160,000 $5,200,000 $9,000,000Polliwog Park Infiltration Gallery $2,900,000 $4,400,000 $43,000 $50,000 $3,800,000 $5,400,000Distributed Green Streets $1,700,000 $4,500,000 $73,000 $150,000 $3,200,000 $7,500,000SMB-5-02 Alt 2 Combined Costs $7,600,000 $15,000,000 $230,000 $360,000 $12,000,000 $22,000,000Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench $500,000 $1,100,000 $18,000 $32,000 $860,000 $1,700,000Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration $5,500,000 $8,000,000 $81,000 $90,000 $7,100,000 $9,800,000Park #3$1,900,000 $3,000,000 $28,000 $33,000 $2,500,000 $3,700,000Distributed Green Streets $7,000,000 $19,000,000 $310,000 $640,000 $13,000,000 $32,000,000SMB-6-01 Combined Costs $15,000,000 $31,000,000 $440,000 $800,000 $23,000,000 $47,000,000Powerline Easement Infiltration $11,000,000 $16,000,000 $160,000 $180,000 $14,000,000 $20,000,000Artesia Blvd Infiltration $2,000,000 $3,100,000 $30,000 $35,000 $2,600,000 $3,800,000Distributed Green Streets $7,400,000 $20,000,000 $330,000 $670,000 $14,000,000 $33,000,000Dominguez Channel Combined Costs $20,000,000 $39,000,000 $520,000 $890,000 $31,000,000 $57,000,000Wilson Park Infiltration $7,600,000 $10,000,000 $56,000 $57,000 $8,700,000 $11,000,000McMaster Park Infiltration Basin $3,900,000 $5,200,000 $29,000 $29,000 $4,500,000 $5,800,000El Prado Infiltration Basin $500,000 $660,000 $3,600 $3,700 $570,000 $730,000Catch BasinsN/A N/A N/A N/A $380,000 $4,800,000Torrance Combined Costs $12,000,000 $16,000,000 $89,000 $90,000 $14,000,000 $22,000,000Total Costs$54,600,000$101,000,000$1,279,000$2,140,000$80,000,000$148,000,000Table 1Total BMP CostsMachado Lake/TorranceTorranceSanta Monica BaySMB-5-02 SMB-6-01Dominguez ChannelDominguez ChannelWatershed Analysis Region BMPConstruction CostAnnual O&MTotal 20-Year Life-Cycle Table 2 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High Cost Low Cost High CostBeach Cities% Tributary Area$54,600,000$101,000,000$1,279,000$2,140,000$80,000,000$148,000,000Manhattan Beach12%$6,552,000$12,120,000$153,480$256,800$9,600,000$17,760,000Redondo Beach19%$10,374,000$19,190,000$243,010$406,600$15,200,000$28,120,000Hermosa Beach4%$2,184,000$4,040,000$51,160$85,600$3,200,000$5,920,000Torrance65%$35,490,000$65,650,000$831,350$1,391,000$52,000,000$96,200,000Table 3Beach Cities Proportional BMP Cost DistributionTotal 20-Year Life-CycleAnnual O&MConstruction Cost TABLE 4 EWMP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE SANTA MONICA BAY Category Pollutant Date Action 1: Highest Priority Dry Weather Bacteria N/A All compliance deadlines have passed Wet Weather Bacteria 7/15/2018 Interim: 50% single sample ED reduction 7/15/2021 Final: Geometric Mean [GM] targets met Final: Single sample AED targets met Trash/Debris 3/20/2016 Interim: 20% load reduction 3/20/2017 Interim: 40% load reduction 3/20/2018 Interim: 60% load reduction 3/20/2019 Interim: 80% load reduction 3/20/2020 Final: 100% load reduction DDTs N/A Since the TMDL effectively implements an anti-degradation approach (i.e., historic low MS4 concentrations or loads must be kept the same or lower), and the Beach Cities EWMP Agencies are currently presumed to be achieving the WLAs (thus negating the need for RAA), no compliance schedule is PCBs N/A proposed. 2: High Priority N/A N/A N/A 3: Medium Priority N/A N/A N/A DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL Category Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action 1: Highest Priority Toxicity Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Wet Current Interim: Comply with the interim WQBELs as listed in the TMDL March 2032 Final: Comply with the final WQBELs as listed in the TMDL 2: High Priority Indicator Bacteria Dry December 2023 Interim: Achieve 50% of the TLR December 20251 Final: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 1. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (5 days during the dry weather period); or 2. Meet the allowed exceedance percentage (1.6% during a dry weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. Wet December 2016 Document planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 1.4% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Document installation of 80 catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2017 Interim Milestone: Achieve 10% of the TLR through the implementation of proposed non-structural BMPs and green streets designed to treat runoff from 1.4% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Document installation of 120 catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2018 Document planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Document installation of 160 catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2019 Begin construction on planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Document installation of 200 catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2020 Develop concept reports for regional BMPs December 2021 Submit grant application for any one of the three proposed regional TABLE 4 EWMP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Category Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action projects December 2022 Interim Milestone: Achieve 25% of the TLR through the implementation of proposed non-structural BMPs and green streets designed to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2023 Document planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 7% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2024 Begin construction on planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 7% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2025 Release Request for Proposals for regional BMP designs December 2026 Complete construction on planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 7% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2027 Interim Milestone: Achieve 50% of the TLR through the implementation of proposed non-structural BMPs and green streets designed to treat runoff from 7% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2028 Produce regional BMP design reports; document planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 14% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2029 Begin regional BMP permitting process December 2030 Begin construction on planned green streets implementation to treat runoff from 14% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2031 Begin regional BMP construction December 2032 Final Milestone: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 1. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (10 days during a wet weather period, plus high flow suspension days) 2. Meeting the target load reduction (33%); or 3. Meeting the allowed exceedance percentage (19% during a wet weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 3: Medium Priority Cyanide pH Selenium Mercury Cadmium N/A N/A As required by the Permit, monitoring for these pollutants will occur under the CIMP. If monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities Agencies’ MS4s may cause or contribute to exceedances of these pollutants in the receiving water3, these contributions will be addressed through modifications to the EWMP as a part of the adaptive management process, as described in Permit section VI.C.2.a.iii. Table 5 Structural BMP Project Implementation Timeline Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2018 2020 2022 2023 2026 2032 Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench (Shoreline) Catch Basin Retrofits Polliwog Park Infiltration Gallery Green Streets Application in SMB 5-02, Alternative Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration Park #3 Green Streets Application in SMB 6-01 Dominguez Channel Watershed Powerline Easement Artesia Infiltration Green Streets Application in non-Torrance Areas Machado Lake Watershed and Torrance Catch Basin Inserts within Torrance Wilson Park Infiltration Basin McMaster Park Infiltration Basin El Prado Infiltration Basin Interim Target: 50% Wet Weather Bacteria Reduction by 2018 20% Annual Trash Load Reduction Per Year - 2016 thru 2020 Final Target - Santa Monica Bay: 100% Wet Weather Bacteria Reduction by 2021 Final Target - Dominguez Hills: 100% Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria Reduction by 2021 Final Target: Toxicity, Copper, Lead, Zinc by 2032 DRAFT ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds) Submitted to: Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Submitted by: Beach Cities EWMP Group June 2015 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Table of Contents i | Page 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................... ES-6 Dominguez Channel Watershed ....................................................................................................................... ES-15 Compliance Schedule ............................................................................................................................................ ES-24 Planning Level Cost Opinion .............................................................................................................................. ES-28 Financing Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. ES-30 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Applicability of EWMP ................................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 EWMP Development Process ................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Report Organization ..................................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5 Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................................... 1-7 2 Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Identification of Water Quality Priorities............................................................................................ 2-4 2.3 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices ................................................................ 2-15 2.4 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Approach ...................................................................................... 2-19 2.5 Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions .................................................................................. 2-30 2.6 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................... 2-34 2.7 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 2-65 2.8 Multiple Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 2-68 2.9 Parallel Compliance Efforts .................................................................................................................... 2-69 3 Dominguez Channel Watershed ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Identification of Water Quality Priorities............................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices ................................................................ 3-12 3.4 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Approach ...................................................................................... 3-13 3.5 Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions .................................................................................. 3-23 3.6 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 3-39 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Table of Contents ii | Page 2015 3.8 Multiple Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 3-43 3.9 Parallel Compliance Efforts .................................................................................................................... 3-43 4 Implementation Schedule.................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Compliance Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Project Sequencing ....................................................................................................................................... 4-5 5 Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework ............................................................................... 5-1 6 Financial Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 BMP Cost Methodology and Assumptions .......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Proposed Structural BMPs ........................................................................................................................ 6-3 7 Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy ................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Grant Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Project-Specific Interagency Partnerships ......................................................................................... 7-4 7.3 Local Bond Issuance ..................................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.4 State Revolving Funds ................................................................................................................................. 7-5 7.5 Local Public Funding Opportunities and Approval Procedures ................................................ 7-6 7.6 Public Private Partnerships ...................................................................................................................... 7-9 7.7 Financial Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 7-11 8 Legal Authority ........................................................................................................................................................ 8-1 9 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Figures iii | Page 2015 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area ...................................................................................................................... ES-5 Figure ES-2. Analysis Regions and Compliance Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................... ES-8 Figure ES-3. Proposed Project Sequencing in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ................................ ES-15 Figure ES-4. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ............................................................................................................................................. ES-18 Figure ES-5 Project Sequencing in the Dominguez Channel Watershed ................................................. ES-24 Figure 1-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 2-1. Beach Cities WMG MS4 Infrastructure within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............ 2-2 Figure 2-2. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed .............................. 2-3 Figure 2-3. Process for Categorizing Water Body-Pollutant Combinations ................................................ 2-9 Figure 2-4. Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Program ................................................................................ 2-18 Figure 2-5. Analysis Regions and Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................................................................ 2-21 Figure 2-6. SBPAT Model Data Flow ......................................................................................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-7. SBPAT Monte Carlo Method Components ...................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-8. SBPAT Rain and Stream Gauges .......................................................................................................... 2-25 Figure 2-9. Annual Runoff Volumes for Topanga Creek Subwatershed: Modeled vs. Observed, 2001-2012 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-28 Figure 2-10. Correlation between Modeled Fecal Coliform Loads and Observed Exceedance Days (each point represents one TMDL year, 2005-2013) ............................................................................. 2-30 Figure 2-11. IGP and Caltrans Area within the Santa Monica Bay portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-50 Figure 2-12. Existing and Proposed Regional BMPs within EWMP Area .................................................. 2-51 Figure 2-13. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMP Locations within the EWMP Area. ................ 2-52 Figure 2-14. Proposed Regional Projects, Analysis Region SMB-5-02 ....................................................... 2-59 Figure 2-15. Proposed Regional Projects, Analysis Region SMB-6-01 ....................................................... 2-61 Figure 3-1. Beach Cities WMG MS4 Infrastructure within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ....... 3-2 Figure 3-2. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ......................... 3-3 Figure 3-3. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-4. Annual Runoff Volumes Predicted by LSPC and SBPAT ............................................................ 3-20 Figure 3-5. Comparison of Fecal Coliform High Density Residential EMC Values between SCCWRP Measurements (n=7) and Multi-Family Residential EMC distribution in SBPAT ............... 3-21 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Figures iv | Page 2015 Figure 3-6. Comparison of Total Zinc Multi Family Residential EMC Values between Los Angeles County Measurements (n=4) and Multi-Family Residential EMC distribution in SBPAT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-7. IGP and Caltrans Area within the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3-8. Proposed Distributed BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ......................... 3-32 Figure 3-9. Proposed Regional BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed ............................... 3-33 Figure 3-10. Proposed Regional BMPs, DC-RB/MB Analysis Region .......................................................... 3-36 Figure 4-1. Proposed Project Sequencing ................................................................................................................. 4-6 Figure 5-1. Adaptive Management Approach .......................................................................................................... 5-3 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Tables v | Page 2015 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency ............................................... ES-4 Table ES-2. Water Body-Pollutant Combination Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................................................................................ ES-6 Table ES-3. Water Quality Targets for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed .................................................. ES-7 Table ES-4. TLRs for Fecal Coliform in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ................................................. ES-9 Table ES-5. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed ........................................ ES-11 Table ES-6. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance ............................................................................................................... ES-14 Table ES-7. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed ............. ES-15 Table ES-8. Water Quality Targets for the Dominguez Channel Watershed .......................................... ES-16 Table ES-9. TLRs for the Dominguez Channel Watershed ............................................................................. ES-19 Table ES-10. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed ................................ ES-20 Table ES-11. Dominguez Channel Watershed – Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance ................................................................................................................................... ES-23 Table ES-12. Compliance Schedule for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds ....................................................................................................................................................................... ES-25 Table ES-13. Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs in Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds ............................................................................................................................. ES-29 Table 2-1. Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area Distribution by Participating Agency .................................... 2-1 Table 2-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area - Santa Monica Bay Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-3. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area .................................................................................................................................. 2-10 Table 2-4. Rainfall Summary at Manhattan Beach Precipitation Gauge (Station ID 1070) ............... 2-26 Table 2-5. BMPS and Constituents Modeled in SBPAT1 .................................................................................... 2-27 Table 2-6. TLRs for Fecal Coliform for each Modeled Analysis Region in Santa Monica Bay Watershed - TMDL Year 1995 ..................................................................................................................................... 2-33 Table 2-7. MCM Modifications and Agency-Specific Enhancements for Beach Cities EWMP Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-37 Table 2-8. Estimated Annual Redevelopment Rates ......................................................................................... 2-45 Table 2-9. Redevelopment and Public Retrofit Incentives Model Assumptions ................................... 2-48 Table 2-10. Non-MS4 Parcels – Modeled as Treated by Treatment Plants (i.e., BMPs that will treat stormwater to the Water Quality Objectives)............................................................................................ 2-49 Table 2-11. Parameters and Performance for Existing Regional BMPs Modeled as Infiltration Basins .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-56 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Tables vi | Page 2015 Table 2-12. Parameters and Performance for Existing Regional BMPs Modeled as Wet Ponds with Extended Detention............................................................................................................................................... 2-57 Table 2-13. Parameters and Performance for Proposed Regional BMPs Modeled as Infiltration Basins ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-62 Table 2-14. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMPs ...................................................................................... 2-64 Table 2-15. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMP Performance ............................................................. 2-65 Table 2-16. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform RAA Results – Interim and Final Compliance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-66 Table 2-17. Dry Weather RAA Evaluation of Santa Monica Bay Watershed CMLs .............................. 2-68 Table 3-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency ................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. LACDPW Monitoring Results Summary ............................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area ..................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-5. RAA Models Used in the Dominguez Channel Watershed ......................................................... 3-16 Table 3-6. Wet Weather Permit Limits (Final Compliance Limits for Modeled Pollutants).............. 3-17 Table 3-7. Mean Annual Volume Predicted by SBPAT and LSPC and Measured at the S28 Stream Gauge ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-8. Baseline Loads for Pollutants in the Dominguez Channel Watershed for the Critical Condition .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-23 Table 3-9. Target Load Reductions for Pollutants in the Dominguez Channel Watershed for the Critical Condition ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Table 3-10. Estimated Annual Redevelopment Rates ...................................................................................... 3-28 Table 3-11. Parameters and Performance for Proposed Regional BMPs Modeled as Media Filters ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-37 Table 3-12. Dominguez Channel Watershed – RAA Results – Interim and Final Compliance .......... 3-42 Table 4-1. Compliance Deadlines associated with Santa Monica Bay Watershed WBPCs .................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Implementation Actions and Dates associated with Dominguez Channel Watershed WBPCs .............................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Table 6-1. Range of Soft Costs for Proposed Structural BMP Projects as a Percent of Capital ............ 6-2 Table 6-2. Proposed BMP Design Assumptions for Conceptual Cost Opinions ......................................... 6-4 Table 6-3. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-5-02, Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-4. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-5-02, Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-5. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-6-01 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6-10 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Tables vii | Page 2015 Table 6-6. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region DC-RB/MB1.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6-12 Table 6-7. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region DC-Torrance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6-13 Table 6-8. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Catch Basin Retrofits ........................................ 6-14 Table 6-9. Capital, O&M, and 20-year Life-Cycle Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs by Analysis Region ........................................................................................................................................................... 6-18 Table 7-1. Relevant Grant Opportunities listed in the 2015 Funding Fairs Handbook (California Financing Coordinating Committee [CFCC], 2015) ........................................................................ 7-2 Table 7-2. Added Benefits of Interagency Partnership for Stormwater Management ........................... 7-4 Table 7-3. Local Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 7-7 Table 7-4. Local Funding Approval Mechanisms.................................................................................................... 7-8 Table 7-5. Selected Cities that provide Financial Subsidies to encourage the Development of Stormwater Infrastructure in Private Properties ............................................................................................... 7-10 Table 7-6. Funding Approach Summary ................................................................................................................. 7-11 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Appendices viii | Page 2015 LIST OF APPENDICES A. Notice of Intent B. Reasonable Assurance Analysis for Dominguez Channel Watershed within the City of Torrance C. Machado Lake Work Plan D. Machado Lake Implementation Plan E. Walteria Basin Supplementary Write-Up F. City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Management Plan G. Background Information on the LACFCD H. Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances I. Land Use-Based Wet Weather Pollutant EMC s J. BMP Effluent Concentrations K. Sample TLR Calculations L. MCM Customization Summary M. LID Ordinances N. Green Streets Policies O. Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables P. Documentation of Legal Authority Q. Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Acronyms ix | Page 2015 LIST OF ACRONYMS AED Allowable Exceedance Days ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers BMP Best Management Practice Caltrans California Department of Transportation CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act CFCC California Financing Coordinating Committee cfs Cubic feet per second CIMP Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program CML Compliance Monitoring Location CNT Center for Neighborhood Technology COMM Commercial and Sport Fishing CSMP Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan CTR California Toxic Rules cu-ft Cubic feet CWA Clean Water Act CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund DC Dominguez Channel DCu Dissolved Copper DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DP Dissolved Phosphorus as P DZn Dissolved Zinc EIFD Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts EMC Event Mean Concentration EWMP Enhanced Watershed Management Program FAA Federal Aviation Administration FC Fecal coliform FIB Fecal Indicator Bacteria ft Foot GIS Geographic Information System GM Geometric Mean GO General Obligation gpm Gallons per minute HFS High Flow Suspension HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran IBD International BMP Database IC/ID Illicit Connection/Illicit Discharge IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination IGP Industrial General Permit in inch IND Industrial Service Supply in/hr Inches per hour IPM Integrated Pest Management DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Acronyms x | Page 2015 J5&6 Jurisdictional Groups 5 and 6 JPA Joint Powers Authority LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board lb Pound LID Low Impact Development LSPC Loading Simulation Program C++ MAR Marine Habitat MB Manhattan Beach MCM Minimum Control Measure MEP Maximum Extent Practical MIGR Migration of Aquatic Organisms min Minute MPN Most Probable Number MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply NAV Navigation NH3 Ammonia as N NO3 Nitrate as N NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operations and Maintenance OM&R Operations, Maintenance, and Replacement PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PIPP Public Information and Participation Program RAA Reasonable Assurance Analysis RARE Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species RB Redondo Beach REC-1 Water Contact Recreation REC-2 Non-Contact Water Recreation RWL Receiving Water Limitation SBPAT Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Watershed Research Project SCPWA Southern California Public Water Authority SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SHELL Shellfish Harvesting SMB Santa Monica Bay SMBBB Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria SPWN Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Management Program SWMM Storm Water Management Model, originally developed by USEPA SWQDv Storm Water Quality Design Volume SWQPA State Water Quality Protection Area SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | List of Acronyms xi | Page 2015 TAC Technical Advisory Committee TCu Total Copper TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N TP Total Phosphorus TPb Total Lead TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation TLR Total Load Reduction TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total Suspended Solids TZn Total Zinc USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat WBPC Water Body-Pollutant Combination WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WER Water Effects Ratio WERF Water Environment Research Foundation WET Wetland Habitat WHAT Web-Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool WILD Wildlife Habitat WLA Waste Load Allocation WMA Watershed Management Area WMG Watershed Management Group WMMS Watershed Management Modeling System WMP Watershed Management Program WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitation DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-1 | Page 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 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 Watershed areas within their jurisdictions (referred to herein as the Beach Cities EWMP Area). The Machado Lake Watershed is being addressed separately by the City of Torrance, and is not addressed in this EWMP2. This EWMP is intended to facilitate effective, watershed-specific Permit implementation strategies in accordance with Permit Part VI.C. Watershed Management Program. This EWMP: • Summarizes watershed-specific water quality priorities identified by the Beach Cities WMG; • Outlines the program plan, including specific strategies, control measures and best management practices (BMPs)3, 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 Section VI.C.4.b of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) a Notice of Intent (NOI) (Appendix A) to develop an EWMP on June 28, 2013, with a revised NOI submitted December 17, 2013 in response to comments received from LARWQCB staff. On March 27, 2014, the Beach Cities WMG received a letter from the Executive Officer of the LARWQCB approving the revised NOI submittal. 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 The City of Torrance developed a Special Study Work Plan for the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL (City of Torrance, 2011) (Appendix C), which was approved by the LARWQCB. On January 28, 2015, the City of Torrance submitted to the LARWQCB the BMP Implementation Plan for the Machado Lake Nutrient and Toxics TMDL (City of Torrance, 2014). For reference, the Implementation Plan is attached to this EWMP as Appendix D, but it should be reviewed separately from this EWMP. A separate discussion of the Walteria Basin is also attached as Appendix E. Previous work also includes the City of Torrance’s Stormwater Quality Master Plan, which is included as Appendix F. LACFCD infrastructure in the Machado Lake Watershed is covered under this EWMP as explained in Attachment G. 3 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-2 | Page 2015 In compliance with Section VI.C.4.c.iv of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG then submitted a draft EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014. LARWQCB comments were not received on the EWMP Work Plan; therefore work proceeded on EWMP development consistent with the approach outlined in the EWMP Work Plan. The Beach Cities WMG was required by Section VI.C.4.c.iv of the Permit to submit a draft EWMP no later than June 30, 2015. This document has been developed to serve as the Beach Cities Draft EWMP and is consistent with the Work Plan previously submitted to the LARWQCB. Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) are a voluntary opportunity afforded by Section VI.C.1 of 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. Enhanced WMPs (EWMPS) are WMPs which 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. Where it is not feasible for regional projects to retain the 85th percentile 24 hour storm, the EWMP must demonstrate through a Reasonable Assurance Analysis, that applicable water quality targets should be achieved. Permittees within the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (WMA) have elected to prepare an EWMP. The EWMP allows 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 and 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). Per Permit Section VI.C.1.e, WMPs and EWMPs are to be developed based on the LARWQCB’s WMAs or subwatersheds thereof. Consistent with Permit requirements, this EWMP is written to: 1. Be consistent with Permit provisions for EWMPs in Part VI.C.1.a.-f and Part VI.C.5-C.8; 2. Incorporate applicable State agency input on priority setting and other key implementation issues; 3. Provide for meeting water quality standards and other Clean Water Act obligations; 4. Include multi-benefit regional projects which retain stormwater from the 85th percentile 24 hour storm where feasible; 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; DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-3 | Page 2015 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. This EWMP is applicable to the Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area, 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 ES-1). This area includes portions of two distinct HUC-12 watersheds4, Santa Monica Bay Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed, as summarized in Table ES-1. The Wylie Sump, Bishop Montgomery Basin, and Ocean Basin are all retention basins with no outlet. Therefore, their drainage areas have been excluded from the EWMP, with no analyses required. • The western portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area consists of approximately 7,840 acres of land that drains to Santa Monica Bay (SMB). This accounts for 52% 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. This portion of the study area is hereinafter referred to as the “SMB Watershed”. • The northeastern portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area is tributary to Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Carson Channel) and is comprised of approximately 7,380 acres of land. This watershed accounts for 48% 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 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 Watershed”. 4 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-4 | Page 2015 Table ES-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency Participating Agency Area (acres) Santa Monica Bay Watershed Dominguez Channel Watershed Total EWMP Area (% of total) City of Redondo Beach 2,614 1,217 3,831 (25%) City of Manhattan Beach 2,078 350 2,428 (16%) City of Hermosa Beach 832 - 832 (5%) City of Torrance 2,314 5,812 8,126 (53%) Total 7,837 7,379 15,217 (100%) 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 Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014) and also leverages previous efforts where relevant models have already been developed. The individual water quality targets, BMPs, Reasonable Assurance Analyses, schedules, and costs for each of the watersheds are summarized in watershed-specific sections that follow. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-5 | Page 2015 Figure ES-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-6 | Page 2015 SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED Receiving waters for stormwater runoff from the Beach Cities EWMP Area were screened for water quality priorities by reviewing Total Maximum Daily Loads (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 water body-pollutant combination. Water body-pollutant combinations were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section VI.C.5(a).ii of the Permit. Table ES-2 presents the prioritized water body-pollutant combinations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Water body-pollutant combinations categorized below are subject to change based on future data collected as part of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) or other monitoring program. Table ES-2. Water Body-Pollutant Combination Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Category Water Body Pollutant Reason/Justification 1: Highest Priority Santa Monica Bay Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria TMDL Wet Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL Santa Monica Bay Trash/Debris SMB Debris TMDL DDTs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL PCBs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 2: High Priority N/A None No other 303(d) listings exist for the Beach Cities portion of SMB 3: Medium Priority N/A None Outfall and receiving water monitoring data are not available for the Beach Cities portion of SMB The Reasonable Assurance Analysis was performed on bacteria in each of the defined analysis regions (Figure ES-2), as it was the controlling pollutant within the SMB Watershed. Bacteria targets are summarized in Table ES-3. The MS4 compliance targets for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethanes (DDTs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) established in the Santa Monica Bay DDT & PCB TMDL were based on the assumption that the existing stormwater pollutant loads for DDT and PCBs were lower than what was needed to protect the Santa Monica Bay from these legacy pollutants (i.e., based on data used in the TMDL, no MS4 pollutant load reduction is expected to be required). Therefore, no reductions in DDT and PCB loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s are required to meet the TMDL and therefore, no Reasonable Assurance Analysis is required. Trash was not modeled as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis, instead the Reasonable Assurance Analysis describes how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the TMDL through their Trash Monitoring and Reporting Programs which are aimed at meeting the zero trash discharge definition in the TMDL. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-7 | Page 2015 Table ES-3. Water Quality Targets for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Water Body Pollutant RWL/WQBEL from the Permit Note on Modeling Assumptions Santa Monica Bay Beaches Fecal Coliform (modeled as surrogate for all three fecal indicator bacteria in the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria [SMBBB] TMDL) Allowable Exceedance Days per season per year (varies by beach Compliance Monitoring Location) Used 90th percentile rain year (based on wet days) as the critical condition. Accounted for site-specific exceedance rates and the number of discharge days modeled for each Compliance Monitoring Location. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-8 | Page 2015 Figure ES-2. Analysis Regions and Compliance Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-9 | Page 2015 Targets – Santa Monica Bay Target load reductions (TLRs) represent a numerical expression of the Permit compliance metrics that can be modeled and can serve as a basis for confirming, with reasonable assurance, that implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in attainment of the applicable TMDL-based WQBELs and RWLs in the Permit for Category 1 pollutants, or the Water Quality Objectives for Category 2 and Category 3 pollutants. For bacteria the target load reductions are expressed as Allowable Exceedance Days (AEDs) per year. TLRs for both interim and final compliance deadlines are presented for all analysis regions including both open beach and point zero compliance monitoring locations (CMLs) (Table ES-4). Table ES-4. TLRs for Fecal Coliform in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Analysis Region Baseline Annual Load (1012 Most Probable Number [MPN]) Interim Target Load Reduction Final Target Load Reduction Absolute (1012 MPN) % of baseline annual load Absolute (1012 MPN) % of baseline annual load SMB-5-011 7.4 Interim target load reduction assessed on a watershed-wide basis 0 0% SMB-O-06 23.0 0 0% SMB-5-02 534.8 247.6 46.3% SMB-5-02/SMB-5-032 34.9 0 0% SMB-5-031 29.0 0 0% SMB-5-03/SMB-5-042 89.3 0 0% SMB-5-041 17.1 0 0% SMB-5-04/SMB-5-052 8.2 0 0% SMB-5-051 182.8 0 0% SMB-5-05/SMB-6-012 6.7 0 0% SMB-6-013 706.6 312.1 44.2% BCSump3 379.4 178.0 46.9% SMB-6-01/ SMB-6-022 162.5 0 0% SMB-6-021 99.6 0 0% SMB-6-03 62.2 0 0% SMB-6-04 209.9 0 0% SMB-6-051 90.9 0 0% SMB-O-08 138.9 0 0% SMB-6-061 6.7 0 0% SMB Watershed-Wide 3875.9 368.9 13% 737.7 26% 1 Anti-degradation site 2 For the unmonitored tributary areas located in-between the CML tributary areas, TLRs were assigned from the geographically smaller of the two adjacent CML analysis regions. 3 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-10 | Page 2015 Nine CMLs were assigned zero TLRs to reflect their historic good water quality (consistent with anti-degradation-based wet weather allowable exceedance days). Although the SMBBB TMDL requires only the maintaining of beach water quality at anti-degradation compliance locations, the Beach Cities EWMP will seek to implement nonstructural and Low Impact Development (LID)- based BMPs within the SMB portion of their EWMP area; this will further protect and potentially improve water quality at these beaches and is consistent with the Jurisdictional Group 5 and 6 (J5&6) Implementation Plan (Geosyntec Consultants, 2011). BMPs – Santa Monica Bay EWMPs offer Permittees the opportunity to identify and implement focused strategies, control measures and BMPs to achieve applicable water quality targets (WQBELs and RWLs) and to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. In order to demonstrate reasonable assurance, BMPs were identified and prioritized. Prioritization was based on cost (low cost BMPs were prioritized); BMP effectiveness for the pollutants of concern (BMPs that had greater treatment efficiency for the specific pollutants of concern were prioritized); and implementation feasibility as determined by the Beach Cities agencies. In general, nonstructural (e.g., programmatic) BMPs were prioritized over structural BMPs due to their lower relative cost. The following is an overview of the types of BMPs contemplated in this EWMP within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. Programmatic BMPs: These source controls 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 agency’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan consistent with Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements [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 this EWMP. Public Retrofit Incentives: These BMPs include programs directed at incentivizing the public to decrease the amount of stormwater runoff from their property, specifically via downspout disconnection programs that redirect roof runoff to vegetated or otherwise pervious areas. Redevelopment: Beginning in 2001, redevelopment projects were required by the Permit (via the Standard Urban Stormwater Management Program [SUSMP]) to incorporate stormwater treatment BMPs into their projects if their project size exceeded specified thresholds. The 2001 MS4 Permit SUSMP redevelopment requirements were applied between 2003 (the point at which the Bacteria TMDL was implemented) and 2015 for the SMB EWMP area. Additionally, the 2012 MS4 Permit established new criteria for redevelopment projects, requiring certain sized projects to capture, retain, or infiltrate the 85th percentile design storm or the 0.75-inch design storm, whichever is greater, via the implementation of LID BMPs. These were taken into account as well. Non-MS4 Permitted Parcels or Areas: In general, this BMP assumes that regulated parcels/areas would be in compliance with the NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit Waste Discharge DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-11 | Page 2015 Requirements (WDRs) from State of California Department of Transportation (Order No. 2012- 0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the California NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Industrial General Permit [IGP], Order 2014- 0057-DWQ). Structural BMPs: Both existing and proposed regional and distributed structural BMPs are included in this EWMP to address water quality targets in the SMB Watershed. Because bacteria were identified as the controlling pollutant of concern, infiltration BMPs were prioritized as they are most effective for addressing bacteria. General design criteria for proposed structural BMPs are summarized in Table ES-5. Table ES-5. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Analysis Region Project Name Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) SMB-5-02 Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench2 Located along the coast of Manhattan Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 2 ac, an average depth of 2 ft with a diversion rate of 160 cfs and an infiltration rate under the trench of 13 in/hr. 198,000 1,4751 SMB-5-02 Distributed Green Streets The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 5% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 205,500 66 SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Located along the coast of Hermosa Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 0.2 ac, an average depth of 1.7 ft, a diversion flowrate of 25 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 12.5 in/hr. 13,300 2,0001 SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration2 Located in Hermosa Beach, between Valley Dr. and Ardmore Ave., the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 1.5 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 48 cfs, and an assumed infiltration rate of 12 in/hr. 319,000 1,8001 SMB-6-01 Park #3 Located northwest of Blossom Lane and 190th street, the sub-surface infiltration basin has a potential surface area of 0.5 ac, an average depth of 5ft , a diversion flowrate of 13 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 1 in/hr. 87,000 1,4301 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-12 | Page 2015 Analysis Region Project Name Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) SMB-6-01 Distributed Green Streets The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 25% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 605,200 190 1 This includes upstream BMPs and associated tributary drainage areas 2 Alternative project locations have also been identified Distributed green streets BMPs are proposed and were modeled as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis within select analysis regions, at analysis region-specific implementation levels (e.g., runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses would be treated by green streets BMPs). It should be noted that if at any time in the future, specific distributed green streets or regional/centralized BMPs are found to be infeasible for implementation, alternative BMPs or operational changes will be planned within the same subwatershed and within the same timeline, to meet an equivalent subwatershed load reduction. In addition, if monitoring data indicate that more easily implementable, alternative BMPs can provide equivalent (or superior) load reductions, these alternative BMPs may be implemented at the discretion of the WMG Agencies. Demonstration of Compliance – Santa Monica Bay To demonstrate wet weather compliance, a Reasonable Assurance Analysis was conducted in which the following steps were taken: 1. For each analysis region, develop TLRs for 90th percentile year based on Permit requirements and LARWQCB guidance; 2. Identify structural and non-structural BMPs that were either implemented after applicable TMDL effective dates or are planned for implementation in the future: a. Assume a load reduction for non-modeled non-structural (or programmatic) BMPs (five percent of baseline pollutant load); b. Calculate load reductions for public incentives for retrofits on private property (e.g., downspout disconnects) and redevelopment (e.g., low impact development requirements); c. Calculate load reductions attributable to anticipated new permit compliance activities of non-MS4 Permittees (e.g., Industrial General Permit holders and California Department of Transportation [Caltrans]); and d. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional BMPs that were identified in existing plans; 3. Compare total estimated load reduction for each analysis region with the TLRs; and DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-13 | Page 2015 4. Meet the TLRs by backfilling the remaining load reduction with new regional or distributed green streets BMPs, and with green streets that address a certain percentage of specific developed land uses. Results of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis for each analysis region in the SMB watershed are presented in Table ES-6 below. The values provided correspond to the load reductions attributable to the BMP types following the applicable final and interim compliance deadlines. As shown, the final TLR is met in all SMB watershed analysis regions with varying applications of non-structural and regional BMPs. The interim 50% TLR is met through a combination of nonstructural and existing regional BMPs. For dry weather bacteria compliance, a qualitative analysis was conducted to show compliance at each of the CMLs. Many CMLs have an effective diversion such that they are consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the surf zone during year-round dry weather days. For the remaining smaller outfalls a systematic screening conducted in 2002 demonstrated that there was no discharge to the wave wash during summer dry weather from these storm drains. Rescreening of outfalls will be conducted as part of the Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring in the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program and will include both summer dry weather and winter dry weather screening. For the CMLs in the SMB Watershed that have anti-degradation based allowed exceedance days for both winter-dry and summer-dry weather, reasonable assurance is assumed to be demonstrated through the basis that the TMDL established their allowed exceedance days based on historic conditions (i.e., no water quality improvements were necessary). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-14 | Page 2015 Table ES-6. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance Analysis Region Implementation Benefits (average load reduction as % of baseline load for critical year)TLR Compliance (TLR Met)? Non-Structural BMPs (Non-Modeled) Public Retrofit Incentives + RedevelopmentNon-MS4 Regional BMPs Distributed BMPs Distributed BMP Implementation Level Estimated Load ReductionSMB-5-01 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-O-06 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-5-02 5% 4% 2% 36% 3% 5% MFR/COM/SFR 50% 46% Yes SMB-5-02/5-03 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% N/A8% 0%YesSMB-5-03 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% N/A8% 0%YesSMB-5-03/5-04 5% 4% 0% 5% 0% N/A15% 0%YesSMB-5-04 5% 5% 0% 1% 1%2N/A12% 0%YesSMB-5-04/5-05 5% 4% 0% 2% 0% N/A11% 0%YesSMB-5-05 5% 4% 5% 3% 0% N/A18% 0%YesSMB-5-05/6-01 5% 3% 0% 2% 0% N/A10% 0%YesSMB-6-01+ BCSump1 5% 3% 3% 33% 2% 25% MFR/COM/SFR 46% 45% Yes SMB-6-01/6-02 5% 2% 4% 0% 0% N/A11% 0%YesSMB-6-02 5% 3% 1% 4% 0% N/A13% 0%YesSMB-6-03 5% 3% 5% 10% 0% N/A23% 0%YesSMB-6-04 5% 4% 3% 0% 0% N/A12% 0%YesSMB-6-05 5% 3% 6% 0% 0% N/A15% 0%YesSMB-O-08 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-6-06 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% N/A10% 0%YesFinal Compliance Deadline (2021) 5% 3% 3% 21% 1% N/A 33% 26% Yes Interim Compliance Deadline (2018) 2.5% 0.8% 1.5% 9.6% 0% N/A 14.4% 13% Yes 1 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). 2 Distributed green street BMP load reduction in SMB-5-04 is a result of the existing filter/infiltration boxes retrofitted on the east side of Hermosa Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-15 | Page 2015 Schedule – Santa Monica Bay In order to meet the compliance deadlines for the water body-pollutant combinations discussed above based on load reduction projections in the Reasonable Assurance Analysis, the proposed structural BMPs within the SMB Watershed would be implemented as described in Figure ES-3. Figure ES-3. Proposed Project Sequencing in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Project Name Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Catch basin retrofits Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench* Green streets application in SMB-5-02 Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration* Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Park #3 Green streets application in SMB-6-01 * Alternative project locations have also been identified DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED Within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, water body-pollutant combinations were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section VI.C.5(a).ii of the Permit. Table ES-7 presents the prioritized water body-pollutant combinations within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Water body-pollutant combinations categorized below are subject to change based on future data collected as part of the CIMP or other monitoring program. Table ES-7. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Toxicity Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Copper Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Lead Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Zinc Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Indicator Bacteria 303(d) List 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Cyanide Historic exceedances of the California Toxics Rule (CTR) continuous concentration water quality objective (5.2 ug/L) pH Historic exceedance of the Basin Plan Objective (6.5 – 8.5) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-16 | Page 2015 Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization Selenium Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (5.0 ug/L) Mercury Historic exceedances of the CTR human health criterion for organisms only (0.051 ug/L) Cadmium Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (2.2 ug/L) For the purposes of the wet weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis, the EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel was combined into a single analysis region to establish TLRs and into two analysis regions, one including the portion of the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach (Dominguez Channel – Redondo Beach/Manhattan Beach [DC–RB/MB]) and one including the portion of the City of Torrance (DC – Torrance), to evaluate the performance of BMPs. For the purposes of the dry weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis for which bacteria are the only water body-pollutant combination, the EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel was combined into the same single analysis region. The Dominguez Channel watershed analysis regions are shown in Figure ES-4. The wet weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis was performed on copper, lead, zinc, and bacteria (fecal coliform) within the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Water quality targets were identified for Dominguez Channel watershed in the same manner as in SMB Watershed. The water quality targets for prioritized water body-pollutant combinations are summarized in Table ES-8 below. Table ES-8. Water Quality Targets for the Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Body Pollutant RWL/WQBEL from the Permit or Assumed Based on Other Similar Los Angeles Region TMDLs Approach for Applying the Critical Period Dominguez Channel Fecal Coliform 19% allowed exceedance of the REC-1 water quality objective, (400 MPN/100mL) on non-high flow suspension days 90th percentile year (based on wet days) was used as the critical condition. Allowable number of wet weather exceedance days for the critical year was set to 19% of non-high flow suspension wet days, rounding down. Total Copper WQBEL=9.7 ug/L Waste load allocation (WLA)= Concentration*Daily Volume 90th percentile daily load during wet weather was used as the critical condition. This calendar day was identified for each metal by ranking daily loads for metal wet days between 2003 and 2012. Total Lead WQBEL=42.7 ug/L WLA= Concentration*Daily Volume Total Zinc WQBEL=69.7 ug/L WLA= Concentration*Daily Volume Although toxicity was identified as a Category 1 water body-pollutant combination, it was not modeled for Dominguez Channel and the Torrance Lateral since it is not a wet weather parameter that can be modeled using currently available Reasonable Assurance Analysis tools for the Los Angeles Region. Instead, the Reasonable Assurance Analysis qualitatively describes how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the TMDL WQBELs. Toxicity will continue to be monitored DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-17 | Page 2015 under the Beach Cities’ CIMP. Although ammonia was identified as a Category 2 water body- pollutant combination, monitoring data since 2003 show that all water quality samples at monitoring locations S28 and TS19 meet the freshwater Basin Plan Objective for ammonia, and as a result, ammonia was not modeled as part of the Beach Cities’ Reasonable Assurance Analysis. Similarly, the Category 3 water body-pollutant combinations cyanide, pH, selenium, mercury, and cadmium, all within the Torrance Lateral, were not modeled either due to a lack of demonstrated MS4 linkage or due to data limitations. These parameters will be monitored under the Beach Cities’ CIMP and if future monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to cadmium exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised to address these pollutants. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-18 | Page 2015 Figure ES-4. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-19 | Page 2015 Targets – Dominguez Channel As discussed previously, TLRs represent a numerical expression of the Permit compliance metrics (e.g., allowed mass per day for metals for wet weather and allowable exceedance days per year for bacteria) that can be modeled and can serve as a basis for confirming, with reasonable assurance, that implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in attainment of the applicable TMDL-based WQBELs and RWLs in the Permit for Category 1 pollutants, or the Water Quality Objectives for Category 2 and Category 3 pollutants. TLRs were developed for the single combined analysis region (Table ES-9). Table ES-9. TLRs for the Dominguez Channel Watershed Pollutant Units Baseline Annual Load Interim Target Load Reductions Final Target Load Reductions Compliance Deadline Absolute % of baseline annual load Absolute % of baseline annual load Copper 2032 lb 21 N/A 13 62% Lead 2032 lb 8.7 0 0% Zinc 2032 lb 230 175 76% Fecal coliform 2022 1012 MPN 1,498 124 8.3% - - 2027 1012 MPN 1,498 255 17% - - 2032 1012 MPN 1,498 - - 493 33% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-20 | Page 2015 BMPs – Dominguez Channel Both existing and proposed regional and distributed BMPs are included in this EWMP to address water quality targets in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Distributed green streets BMPs are proposed and were modeled as part of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis within the DC-RB/MB analysis region, at an implementation level of 14% (i.e., runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial land uses would be treated by green streets BMPs). General design criteria for proposed structural BMPs are summarized in Table ES-10. Table ES-10. Proposed Structural BMPs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed Analysis Region Project Name Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) DC – MB/RB Powerline Easement Infiltration* Located along powerline easements and/or adjacent to Marine Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard, the sub-surface biofilter has a potential surface area of 7.2 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 132 cfs, and a negligible infiltration rate. N/A (Flow- through BMP) 1,500 DC – MB/RB Artesia Blvd. and Hawthorne Blvd. Filtration Located near the intersection of Artesia Blvd. and Hawthorne Blvd., the sub-surface biofilter has a potential surface area of 1 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 13.6 cfs, and a negligible infiltration rate. N/A (Flow- through BMP) 130 DC- MB/RB Distributed Green Streets BMPs The distributed green streets (to address runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi- family residential, commercial, and industrial land uses) are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 636,300 200 DC- Torrance Catch Basin Inlet Filters The City of Torrance plans to retrofit catch basins with inlet filters. N/A 5,760 *Alternative project location has also been identified It should be noted that if at any time specific distributed green streets or regional/centralized BMPs are found to be infeasible for implementation, or new innovative BMPs are developed, alternative BMPs or operational changes will be planned within the same analysis region and within the same timeline, to meet an equivalent analysis region load reduction. The performance of the proposed catch basin inlet filters within the City of Torrance will also be evaluated as potential alternatives to the proposed structural BMPs within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-21 | Page 2015 Demonstration of Compliance – Dominguez Channel To demonstrate wet weather compliance, the Reasonable Assurance Analysis was performed according to the following steps: 1. For each analysis region, develop TLRs for the critical condition (90th percentile year for bacteria and 90th percentile load day for metals) based on Permit requirements and LARWQCB guidance; 2. Identify structural and non-structural BMPs that were either implemented after applicable TMDL effective dates or are planned for implementation in the future: a. Assume a load reduction for non-modeled non-structural (or programmatic) BMPs (five percent of baseline pollutant load); b. Calculate load reductions for public incentives for private retrofit (e.g., downspout disconnects) and redevelopment; c. Calculate load reductions attributable to anticipated new permit compliance activities of non-MS4 entities (e.g., Industrial General Permit holders and Caltrans); and d. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional BMPs that were identified in existing plans; 3. Compare total estimated load reduction for each analysis region with the TLRs; and 4. Meet the TLRs by backfilling the remaining load reduction with new regional or distributed green streets BMPs, with green streets modeled by assuming treatment of runoff from a percentage of specific developed land uses. Within the DC-Torrance analysis region, an estimated load reduction attributable to distributed catch basin inlet filters was derived from a review of literature/studies on their performance (Appendix B). If the estimated performance is supported by future monitoring data, these filters may be used as alternative BMPs in other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Results of the wet weather Reasonable Assurance Analysis for each analysis region are presented in Table ES-11 below. The values provided correspond to the load reductions attributable to the BMP types following the applicable compliance deadline. As shown, the TLRs are predicted to be met in the DC-RB/MB analysis region for metals and fecal coliforms with varying applications of non-structural and regional BMPs as described previously. Within the DC-Torrance analysis region, the TLRs will be met through implementation of catch basin inlet filters as needed. Monitoring and subsequent adaptive management will be employed to evaluate the achieved load reductions prior to each of the compliance deadlines, installing additional filters as needed until compliance is achieved for every applicable WQBEL or RWL. For dry weather, bacteria is the only applicable pollutant in the Dominguez Channel watershed, and it is a Category 2 water body-pollutant combination (i.e., 303(d)-listed but not currently subject to a TMDL). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-22 | Page 2015 The City of Torrance’s dry weather load reduction strategy will focus on non-structural source control and pollution prevention measures that are designed to reduce the amount of pollutants and understand the effect of pollutants entering runoff though education, enforcement and behavioral modification programs. Within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, the implementation of the two regional BMPs at both outlets from the DC-RB/MB analysis region to address wet weather pollutants will control dry weather flows by capturing the small flows in the pre-treatment volume and either retaining them or treating them in the media filter. In addition, each of the EWMP WMG cities has water conservation regulations which will reduce dry weather runoff at its source. Collectively, by controlling dry weather MS4 flows prior to entering Dominguez Channel using the proposed suite of BMPs, bacteria will be addressed. If necessary, the EWMP Group agencies retain the option of installing low flow diversions sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the receiving water year-round dry weather days. Therefore, reasonable assurance of meeting the applicable RWLs was demonstrated in this EWMP through a qualitative assessment of the proposed BMPs and their overall approach of eliminating or substantially reducing MS4 discharges during dry weather. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-23 | Page 2015 Table ES-11. Dominguez Channel Watershed – Reasonable Assurance Analysis Results – Interim and Final Compliance Pollutant Date Implementation Benefits (average load reduction as % of baseline for the critical condition1) TLR Compliance(TLR Met)?Non-Structural BMPs (Non-Modeled) Public Retrofit Incentives + RedevelopmentNon-MS4 Regional BMPs Distributed BMPs Distributed BMP Implementation Level Estimated Load Reduction Analysis Region DC-RB/MB Zinc 2032 (Final) 5% 9% 6% 39% 20% 14% SFR, MFR, COM, IND 79% 76% Yes Copper 2032 (Final) 24%2 0% 5% 30% 26% 85% 62% Yes Fecal coliform 2022 (Interim) 2.1% 1.5% 0.7% 0% 4.1% 3% SFR, MFR, COM, IND8.4% 8.3% Yes 2027 (Interim) 3.5% 2.4% 1.3% 0% 10% 7% SFR, MFR, COM, IND 17% 17% Yes 2032 (Final) 5% 3.2% 1.8% 45% 20% 14% SFR, MFR, COM, IND74% 33% Yes Analysis Region DC-Torrance Zinc 2032 (Final) 5% 0% 0% 0% 75% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 76% See note 3 Copper 2032 (Final) 14%2 0% 0% 0% 75% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 62% See note 3 Fecal coliform 2022 (Interim) 2.1% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 8.3% See note 3 2027 (Interim) 3.5% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 17% See note 3 2032 (Final) 5% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 33% See note 3 1 The critical condition is TMDL year 1995 for fecal coliform, 11/30/2007 for copper, 2/5/2010 for lead, and 2/26/2006 for zinc. 2 Load reduction attributable to copper brake pad phase-out, after accounting for other BMPs, up to 55%. 3 Load reduction sum cannot be estimated at this time. The individual load reduction for each inlet filter’s drainage area is shown under the “Distributed BMPs” column. Initially, 200 of 643 catch basins are planned to be retrofitted in high priority catchments. Therefore, the total load reduction from inlet filters will be evaluated in the future through monitoring, and the BMPs will be modified through the adaptive management process, with additional filters installed as necessary to meet the TLRs by the compliance deadlines. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-24 | Page 2015 Schedule – Dominguez Channel In order to meet the compliance deadlines for the water body-pollutant combinations based on load reduction projections in the Reasonable Assurance Analysis, the proposed structural BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed would be implemented per the timeline provided in Figure ES-5 . Figure ES-5 Project Sequencing in the Dominguez Channel Watershed Project Name Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Catch basin inlet filters in DC-Torrance Green streets application in DC-RB/MB Powerline Easement Filtration* Artesia Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard Filtration *Alternative project location has also been identified COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE Table ES-12 summarizes the existing and proposed implementation actions and dates within the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel watersheds, for each identified water body-pollutant combination. The compliance schedule for Category 1 water body-pollutant combinations is consistent with the associated TMDLs. The compliance schedule for the Category 2 water body- pollutant combinations has been selected to achieve the proposed wet and dry weather bacteria milestones, with implementation actions not exceeding one year, in accordance with the Permit (Section ii(5)9B). As described in Table ES-12, the compliance schedule for the Category 3 water body-pollutant combinations will be dependent on the results of the CIMP. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-25 | Page 2015 Table ES-12. Compliance Schedule for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds Category Watershed Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel Toxicity Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Wet Current Interim: Comply with the interim water quality-based effluent limitations as listed in the TMDL March 2032 Final: Comply with the final water quality-based effluent limitations as listed in the TMDL Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry N/A Final compliance in effect and attained through diversions and non-structural BMPs. Wet July 2018 Interim: 50% single sample ED reduction July 2021 Final: Geometric Mean [GM] targets met Final: Single sample AED targets met Trash/Debris N/A March 2016 Interim: 20% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2017 Interim: 40% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2018 Interim: 60% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2019 Interim: 80% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders March 2020 Final: 100% load reduction met through implementation of trash excluders DDTs N/A N/A Since the TMDL effectively implements an anti-degradation approach (i.e., historic low MS4 concentrations or loads must be kept the same or lower), and the Beach Cities EWMP Agencies are currently presumed to be achieving the WLAs (thus negating the need for Reasonable Assurance Analysis), no compliance schedule is proposed. PCBs N/A N/A 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel Bacteria Dry December 2023 Interim: 50% load reduction December 2025 Final: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 1. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (5 days during the dry weather period); or 2. Meet the allowed exceedance percentage (1.6% during a dry weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 3. Diversions are in place such that they are consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the receiving water year-round dry weather days. Wet December 2016 Provide documentation supporting minimum control measure (MCM) enhancements implemented over the past year December 2017 Provide documentation supporting MCM enhancements implemented over DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-26 | Page 2015 Category Watershed Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action the past year December 2018 Identify planned green streets locations to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2019 City Council approval of Plans & Specifications for green streets to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Begin installation of catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2020 Develop concept reports for regional BMPs in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Begin construction on green streets to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2021 Submit grant application for any one of the proposed regional projects in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2022 Interim Milestone: 25% of target load reduction December 2023 Identify planned green streets locations to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2024 Begin construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Continue installation of catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2025 Release Request for Proposals for regional BMP designs in Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach December 2026 Complete construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2027 Interim Milestone: 50% of target load reduction December 2028 Produce regional BMP design reports; identify locations for green streets implementation to treat runoff from an additional 7% (14% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2029 Begin regional BMP permitting process for project in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach. December 2030 Begin construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 7% (14% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-27 | Page 2015 Category Watershed Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2031 Begin regional BMP construction of project in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach. December 20321 Final Milestone: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 1. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (10 days during a wet weather period, plus high flow suspension days) 2. Meeting the target load reduction (33%); or 3. Meeting the allowed exceedance percentage (19% during a wet weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel Cyanide pH Selenium Mercury Cadmium N/A N/A As required by the Permit, monitoring for these pollutants will occur under the CIMP. If monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities Agencies’ MS4s may cause or contribute to exceedances of these pollutants in the receiving water,2 these contributions will be addressed through modifications to the EWMP as a part of the adaptive management process, as described in Permit section VI.C.2.a.iii. 1 The final compliance date for wet weather bacteria was selected to be consistent with the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL (RWQCB, 2011). 2 This will be assumed to be the case if monitoring data show that outfall concentrations and receiving water concentrations are in excess of the applicable water quality criteria for the same monitoring event. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-28 | Page 2015 PLANNING LEVEL COST OPINION Planning-level cost opinions associated with implementation of the proposed structural best management practices within the Beach Cities WMG area are provided based on results from the Reasonable Assurance Analysis for the Beach Cities EWMP. Cost opinions 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 budget forecasts are order-of magnitude opinions, and 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 water body-pollutant combination. EWMP planning-level cost opinions were developed for the proposed structural BMPs in addition to programmatic costs. Costs approximated for structural BMPs include “hard” costs for tangible assets and “soft” costs, which include considerations such as design and permitting. Table ES-13 summarizes the total 20-year life-cycle costs for each proposed structural BMP, which are composed of the cost to construct or implement each structural BMP plus the associated annual O&M costs over 20 years. In order to account for possible variations in BMP design, BMP configurations, and site-specific constraints, as well as for uncertainties in available BMP unit costs from literature or estimated BMP unit costs, a range of costs is presented. These cost opinions are provided for information only, and it is recognized that should monitoring information demonstrate that alternative, less-expensive BMPs are equally (or superior) to those described herein, that these alternative BMPs may be implemented at the discretion of the WMG agencies. Not included in these costs are the annual monitoring costs for implementing the CIMP or the costs associated with implementing baseline and enhanced MCMs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-29 | Page 2015 Table ES-13. Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs in Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds Watershed/ Analysis Region Location of BMP Project Name Construction Cost Range Annual O&M Range Total 20-Year Life-Cycle1 Range Low High Low High Low High Santa Monica Bay Watershed SMB-5-02, Alternative 1 Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench2 $3.7M $6.8M $140K $190K $6.5M $11M Manhattan Beach Distributed Green Streets $2.4M $6.5M $110K $220K $4.6M $11M SMB-5-02 Alternative 1 Combined Costs $6.1M $13M $250K $410K $11M $22M SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench $500K $1.1M $18K $32K $860K $1.7M Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration2$5.5M $8.0M $81K $90K $7.1M $9.8M Redondo Beach Park #3 $1.9M $3.0M $28K $33K $2.5M $3.7M Hermosa Beach Distributed Green Streets $7.0M $19M $310K $640K $13M $32M SMB-6-01 Combined Costs $15M $31M $440K $800K $23M $47M All Analysis Regions Hermosa Beach Trash exclusion devices $160K $430K $50K $64K $1.1M $1.7M Redondo Beach Trash exclusion devices $1.1M $3.1M $360K $460K $8.3M $12M Manhattan Beach Trash exclusion devices $590K $1.7M $210K $270K $4.8M $7.1M Combined Costs in Santa Monica Bay Watershed $23M $50M $1.3M $2.0M $49M $90M Dominguez Channel Watershed DC-RB/MB Redondo Beach Powerline Easement Infiltration2 $11M $16M $160K $180K $14M $20M Redondo Beach Artesia Blvd Infiltration $2.0M $3.1M $30K $35K $2.6M $3.8M Redondo Beach + Manhattan Beach Distributed Green Streets $7.4M $20M $330K $670K $14M $33M DC-RB/MB Combined Costs $20M $39M $520K $890K $31M $57M DC-Torrance Torrance Catch basin inlet filters $240K $360k $130K $170k $2.8M $3.7M DC-Torrance Combined Costs $240K $360k $130K $170k $2.8M $3.7M Combined Costs in Dominguez Channel Watershed $20M $39M $650K $1.1M $33M $61M Combined Costs of All Proposed Structural BMPs $43M $89M $2.0M $3.1M $82M $150M M = Million dollars, K = Thousand dollars 1 Life-cycle costs include construction costs and 20 years of annual O&M (in 2015 dollars) and are not discounted. 2 Alternative project locations have also been identified, but are not included in combined cost opinion DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-30 | Page 2015 FINANCING DISCUSSION The availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Section 7 of this EWMP provides an overview of potentially available funding sources to pay for programs proposed in the EWMP. Examples show that a multi-pronged funding strategy using multiple sources rather than rely on a single storm drain fee may be the most prudent approach. A list of potential fees and charges has been developed, which will be further considered and explored by the Beach Cities WMG in the future: • Vehicle license and vehicle rental fees • Solid waste management surcharge • Water service surcharge (under AB850) • Property assessment • Fines (not a stable source, it is an exemption under Proposition 26) • Financial subsidy to encourage private sector participation to develop local and district projects • One time capital recovery fee • Dedicated storm drain fee • Taxes (e.g. fuel taxes) • A TMDL fee / tax could be developed based on the pollutant contribution from polluters / activities In addition, Public Private Partnerships and alternative delivery and financing methods may facilitate and streamline implementation, and could result in program cost reductions. From the analysis of potential costs in this section as summarized in Table ES-13, it is clear that projected costs of implementing the EWMP are substantial and orders of magnitude higher than have previously been expended by the agencies under the previous MS4 Permit. Thus availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Currently, the Beach Cities do not have sufficient funds or dedicated funding streams to construct and maintain the projects proposed in this EWMP. The Beach Cities agencies are working with the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities and the California Contract Cities Association to partner with other affected agencies to collectively influence State policies, pursue changes in legislation and lobby high level officials for additional stormwater funding. Working together with the other cities will increase effectiveness, communication, collaboration, and reduce redundant efforts. The LACFCD will also work with the Beach Cities in their efforts to address source controls; assess, develop, and pursue funding for structural BMPs, and promote the use of water reuse and infiltration. As regional project scopes are further refined, the LACFCD will determine on a case-by-case basis their contribution to the projects. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section ES | Executive Summary ES-31 | Page 2015 In addition to working with other affected cities on a regional level, the Beach Cities WMG individually and collaboratively are committed to pursue funding sources at a local level including but not limited to: • Grants - Collaboration and coordination between the Beach Cities will be important to increase accessible grant funding opportunities for stormwater projects, however alternative funding sources will also be needed to provide stable O&M revenues since grants typically do not provide for O&M. • Interagency Partnerships – Interagency partnerships, like the Beach Cities WMG, can allow agencies to leverage local funding resources to make cost intensive projects possible. • Local Bond Issuance - Two types of local bonds can be utilized. General Obligation (GO) bonds are issued by local governments and repaid through a property tax surcharge. Revenue bonds are tax-exempt securitized bonds repaid through utility rate increases charged directly to customers. • Local Stormwater Assessments - Stormwater charges are potentially the most critical local funding source to finance stormwater programs. These charges include stormwater fees and taxes. • Direct Subsidies - Direct financial subsidies to local projects 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. These potential sources of funding are discussed in greater detail in Section 7. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-1 | Page 2015 1 INTRODUCTION Following adoption of the 2012 Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit5 (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), Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake Watershed 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 Permit Part VI.C. 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)6, 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 Section VI.C.4.b of 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 Section VI.C.4.c.iv of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG then submitted a draft EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014. Comments were not received. As the next step in EWMP development, the Beach Cities WMG was required by Section VI.C.4.c.iv of the Permit to submit a draft EWMP no later than June 30, 2015. This document has been developed to serve as the Beach Cities Draft EWMP and is consistent with the Work Plan previously submitted to the LARWQCB. 1.1 PURPOSE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) are a voluntary opportunity afforded by Section VI.C.1 of 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. Enhanced WMPs (EWMPS) are WMPs which 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 5 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. 6 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-2 | Page 2015 background for NPDES Permit and Water Quality Standards and the Permit specifics of WMPs and EWMPs are provided below. 1.1.1 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 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 except for the City of Long Beach MS4 are subject to the waste discharge requirements set forth in Order No. R4-2012-0175 Permit No. CAS004001. 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. 1.1.2 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLS) The CWA also required that the RWQCB 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 September 15, 2009. 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-3 | Page 2015 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 2010 CWA Integrated Report and updated 303(d) list were approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on August 4, 2010 and by the USEPA on October 11, 2011. Provisions regarding TMDLs are included in NPDES Permits once they have been developed and adopted. Specific TMDLs applicable to the Beach Cities EWMP Area are discussed in more detail in Sections 2 and 3. 1.1.3 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). Per Permit Section VI.C.1.e, 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 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 in Part VI.C.1.a.-f and Part VI.C.5-C.8, 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-benefit7 regional projects which retain stormwater from the 85th percentile 24 hour storm 7 Potential multiple benefits include neighborhood greening, water conservation and/or supply, groundwater recharge, public education and/or awareness, etc. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-4 | Page 2015 5. Include watershed control measures which achieve compliance with all interim and final WQBLs 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. 1.2 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 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 (Figure 1-1), with the exception of the Machado Lake Watershed which is being addressed separately by the City of Torrance, and is not addressed in this EWMP8. 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, Bishop Montgomery Basin, and Ocean Basin are all retention basins with no outlet. Therefore, their drainage areas have been excluded from the EWMP, with no analyses required. 8 The City of Torrance developed a Special Study Work Plan for the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL (City of Torrance, 2011) (Appendix C), which was approved by the LARWQCB. On January 28, 2015, the City of Torrance submitted to the LARWQCB the BMP Implementation Plan for the Machado Lake Nutrient and Toxics TMDL (City of Torrance, 2014). For reference, the Implementation Plan is attached to this EWMP as Appendix D, but it should be reviewed separately from this EWMP. A separate discussion of the Walteria Basin is also attached as Appendix E. Previous work also includes the City of Torrance’s Stormwater Quality Master Plan, which is included as Appendix F. LACFCD infrastructure in the Machado Lake Watershed is covered under this EWMP as explained in Attachment G. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-5 | Page 2015 Figure 1-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-6 | Page 2015 1.3 EWMP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Section VI.C.1.f.v of 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 public 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. 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 has, and will continue to, actively participate 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. 1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION This Beach Cities EWMP addresses the required EWMP elements from Section VI.C. of the Permit for both the SMB and Dominguez Channel Watersheds. Because the SMB and Dominguez Channel watersheds 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 summarizes the technical aspects of the EWMP for Santa Monica Bay watershed while Section 3 covers the same technical elements for Dominguez Channel Watershed. Section 4 presents individual EMWP implementation schedules for both watersheds. In Section 5, the adaptive management process proposed by the Beach Cities WMG is described, and in Section 6, the cost opinions associated with EWMP implementation are summarized. Section 7 describes potential funding sources and financial strategies. Sections 8 and 9 include the legal authority and references, respectively. Discussion of the Machado Lake watershed in the context of Permit compliance and water quality target achievement is excluded from the main body of this EWMP document. Instead, it is addressed within the following Appendices: The Machado Lake Special Study Work Plan is DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 1 | Introduction 1-7 | Page 2015 included as Appendix C, the Machado Lake Implementation Plan is included as Appendix D, and a supplementary write-up describing the Walteria Basin is included as Appendix E. 1.5 TERMS OF REFERENCE This work was conducted by Geosyntec Consultants for the Beach Cities WMG with the purpose of developing a comprehensive control plan to facilitate Permit compliance and achievement of water quality standards and serves as the deliverable for Task 4.5 of the Beach Cities WMP contract. This work was managed by Ken Susilo, P.E., D.WRE., CPSWQ, with support from Megan Otto, P.E., Stacy Luell, P.E, Stacey Schal, Curtis Fang, and Scott Mansell, Ph.D. Peer review was provided by Megan Otto, P.E., and Lucas Nguyen. Senior review was provided by Brandon Steets, P.E., Kathleen McGowan, P.E. and Ken Susilo, P.E., in accordance with Geosyntec's quality assurance policies. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-1 | Page 2015 2 SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED 2.1 BACKGROUND 2.1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT The western portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area consists of approximately 7,840 acres of land that drains to SMB. This accounts for 52% 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 (Figure 2-1). This portion of the study area is hereinafter referred to as the SMB Watershed. The majority of the SMB Watershed consists of residential land uses (Figure 2-2). 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 G. Table 2-1 provides a breakdown of the Beach Cities EWMP Area by agency and watershed. This section of the EWMP focuses on the SMB Watershed only. Table 2-1. Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area Distribution by Participating Agency Participating Agency Area (acres) Santa Monica Bay Watershed Dominguez Channel Watershed Total EWMP Area (% of total) City of Redondo Beach 2,614 1,217 3,831 (25%) City of Manhattan Beach 2,078 350 2,428 (16%) City of Hermosa Beach 832 - 832 (5%) City of Torrance 2,314 5,812 8,126 (53%) Total 7,837 7,379 15,217 (100%) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-2 | Page 2015 Figure 2-1. Beach Cities WMG MS4 Infrastructure within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-3 | Page 2015 Figure 2-2. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-4 | Page 2015 2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES As part of the EWMP, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. To accomplish this per Permit Section VI.C.5.a, the Beach Cities WMG conducted the following for the Santa Monica Bay watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area: 1. Characterize the water quality of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water bodies; 2. Prioritize water body-pollutant combinations (WBPCs); and 3. Assess sources for high priority water body. A summary of results is provided below. 2.2.1 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION The Basin Plan (LARWQCB, 1995, updated 2011) 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, 2012) 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-5 | Page 2015 • 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). • 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 salt water, 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, 2012), “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: DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-6 | Page 2015 • 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 2-2 summarizes the existing beneficial uses for the Santa Monica Bay water bodies in the Beach Cities WMG Area, as designated in the Basin Plan. Table 2-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area - Santa Monica Bay Watershed 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-7 | Page 2015 2.2.2 WATER BODY-POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION Receiving waters for stormwater runoff 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 WBPC. WBPCs were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section VI.C.5(a).ii of the Permit. No 303(d) listings exist beyond the TMDL WBPCs, and no other recent monitoring data are available beyond the SMBBB TMDL Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan (CSMP) data; therefore, no Category 2 or 3 WBPCs have been identified for the Beach Cities portion of SMB at this time. 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 in Part VI.E and Attachments L through R of [the Permit].” These WBPCs include: • SMB beaches for bacteria (wet and dry weather): These are considered Category 1 due to the SMBBB TMDL. • SMB offshore/nearshore for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethanes (DDTs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)9: These are considered Category 1 due to the USEPA TMDL for DDT and PCBs for SMB Offshore/Nearshore. However, 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). Therefore, no reductions in DDT and PCB loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s are required to meet the TMDL WQBELs and therefore, no RAA is required. • SMB offshore/nearshore for debris: This is considered Category 1 due to the TMDL for Debris for SMB Offshore/Nearshore. Section VI.E.5.b(i) of 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 will not be modeled as part of the RAA, the RAA will qualitatively describe how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the TMDL WQBELs by providing details on the planned implementation of the methods listed above, primarily through their Trash Monitoring and Reporting Programs. “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 be reevaluated based on results from the future water 9 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-8 | Page 2015 quality monitoring efforts conducted under the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (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, 2004) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment.” There are no Category 2 WBPCs in the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area. 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.” There are no Category 3 WBPCs in the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area. The Beach Cities WMG agencies understand that data collected as part of their approved CIMP may result in future Category 3 designations in instances when RWLs are exceeded and MS4 discharges are identified as contributing to such exceedances. Under these conditions, the Beach Cities WMG agencies will adhere to Section VI.C.2.a.iii of the Permit and the EWMP will be updated. Figure 2-3 provides a brief conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-9 | Page 2015 Figure 2-3. Process for Categorizing Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Table 2-3 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-10 | Page 2015 Table 2-3. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area Category Water Body Pollutant Reason/Justification 1: Highest Priority SMB Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria TMDL Wet Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL SMB Trash/Debris SMB Debris TMDL DDTs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL PCBs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 2: High Priority N/A None No other 303(d) listings exist for the Beach Cities portion of SMB 3: Medium Priority N/A None Outfall and receiving water monitoring data are not available for the Beach Cities portion of SMB Sections VI.C.2 and VI.C.3 of the Permit describes how compliance with RWLs/WQBELs is attained for the prioritized WBPCs identified. Appendix H sets forth the EWMP framework for evaluating and addressing receiving water exceedances and a brief summary is included below. Different actions are required to demonstrate compliance for different types of WBPCs. Specifically; the following classifications are addressed by the Permit: • WBPCs addressed by a TMDL. • 303(d)-listed WBPCs: Pollutants in the same class as those identified in a TMDL and for which the water body is 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.i), and pollutants not in the same class as those identified in a TMDL, but for which the water body is 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.ii). • Non 303(d)-listed WBPCs: Pollutants for which there are exceedances of RWLs, but for which the water body is not 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.iii). For Category 1 WBPCs, adherence to all implementation actions and compliance dates identified in the approved EWMP will constitute compliance with applicable TMDL-based interim water quality based effluent limits and interim receiving water limits. For any Category 2 and 3 WBPCs that are identified in the future through the adaptive management process, adherence to all implementation actions, milestones, and compliance schedules identified in the updated EWMP will constitute compliance with applicable receiving water limits. This approach is outlined in Appendix H. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-11 | Page 2015 2.2.3 SOURCE ASSESSMENT The following data sources were reviewed as part of the 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; • TMDL source investigations; • Watershed model results; • Findings from the Permittees’ monitoring programs, including but not limited to TMDL compliance monitoring and receiving water 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 SMBBB TMDLs for dry and wet weather were the first bacteria TMDLs adopted by the LARWQCB. The SMBBB TMDLs were recently opened for reconsideration, although the source assessment was not part of this update. 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. Limited natural runoff and groundwater may also potentially contribute to elevated bacterial indicator densities during winter dry weather” (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 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-12 | Page 2015 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 surfzone 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 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).” In 2009, a dry weather bacterial source identification study was undertaken at the Redondo Beach Pier (Los Angeles County Sanitation District [LACSD], 2009). This study implemented a multi- tiered toolbox approach to investigate sources of dry weather fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) exceedances near Redondo Beach Pier (CSMP monitoring location SMB 6-02).). Utilizing microbial source tracking, the sampling focused on the shoreline near the pier, a storm drain under the pier, and ponded water near the storm drain. Investigators found a lack of human fecal markers within the surfzone: “Lack of detectable human viruses and the de minimus quantities detection of human- associated Bacteridales in the ocean water strongly implied that a human source was not present. Other sources of FIB may include bacterial persistence in the sand and sea wrack, as well as endogenous sea life and birds. Tide, wave action, wind, and other natural fluctuations may be affecting FIB levels at the shoreline monitoring locations next to the pier.” However, the study also indicated that, “…the storm drain under the pier and the pond that forms at the storm drain outlet are probably impacted by human fecal pollution but are not contributing to microbial contamination of the ocean water during the dry season. This conclusion is most strongly supported by the differences between the FIB concentrations and Bacteroidales populations at the shoreline sites compared to the pond and storm drain samples, particularly with respect to human-associated Bacteroidales.” DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-13 | Page 2015 Another dry weather MS4 microbial source tracking study was conducted in 2010, focusing on two high priority analysis regions (SMB-5-02 and 6-01) within the Beach Cities EWMP Area (Geosyntec Consultants, 2010). Although both of these shoreline monitoring locations are served by low flow diversions, the purpose of the study was to investigate FIB sources to inform identification of new source control measures. Observational results indicated that non-human sources include pet waste, irrigation runoff, and in-drain sources (i.e., re-growth, sediment, etc.). Similar to the Redondo Beach pier study, human Bacteroidales marker (HBM) was also identified in some MS4 dry weather samples, suggesting that human fecal sources may also be present. Although specific sources of human waste were not definitively identified in the study, “sources were surmised to include direct contamination (i.e., illicit connections, RV discharges, homeless deposits), and indirect contamination (i.e., sewer exfiltration).”10 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 seven low flow diversions are operational within the Beach Cities EWMP area. No wet weather bacteria source identification studies have been conducted in the Beach Cities EWMP area to date. 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. Additional local monitoring data will be needed to quantify the contribution of MS4 discharges – particularly relative to the many other identified sources that have been documented along SMB beaches – to the elevated bacteria concentrations measured at Beach Cities WMG compliance monitoring locations during dry and wet weather. Additional data are also needed to identify the sources of bacteria within MS4 discharges as well as their potential to contribute to recreational illness risks; such source tracking data have the potential to affect the TMDL waste load 10 The LACSD and Geosyntec microbial source tracking studies predate the 2013 California Source Identification Pilot Project, which identifies and recommends new, more definitive microbial source tracking markers for multiple source types, including human waste. Therefore new analytical methods may need to be applied to these previously studied areas to verify or update prior findings. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-14 | Page 2015 allocations (WLAs) through a future reopener11. And the combination of MS4 outfall monitoring (through the CIMP) and source identification (through special studies) could support future BMP planning and EWMP updates. DDT and PCBs As stated previously, limited data are available characterizing DDT and PCBs within Santa Monica Bay, particularly since direct discharges of these pollutants from publically owned treatment works (POTWs) have ceased. The largest concentration of DDT and PCBs within SMB is contained within the Palos Verdes shelf, which is being addressed by the USEPA as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) site. Loadings from the shelf to the bay are large and have been well characterized (USEPA, 2012). 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.” However, the TMDL also states that current detection limits used to analyze DDT and PCB concentrations are too high to appropriately assess the water quality. Despite a lack of supporting data, however, EPA assumed that stormwater inputs of DDT and PCBs come from urban areas (USEPA, 2012). No other data or source information are available at this time. Once three years of water quality data are collected under the CIMP and evaluated consistent with the recommendations by USEPA in the TMDL to utilize a three-year averaging period, then further source assessment will be considered and the categorization and prioritization of PCB and DDTs as MS4-related pollutants of concern will be reevaluated. 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 assumed to be applicable to the Beach Cities WMG, as the respective Agencies have applied to be exempt from this portion of the TMDL. 2.2.4 PRIORITIZATION Based on the water quality characterization above, the WBPCs have been classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section IV.C.5(a)ii of the Permit: highest priority, high priority, and medium priority (Table 2-3). 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, as there are no Category 2 or 3 pollutants in the SMB Watershed 11 For example, if human fecal sources are found to be undetected in MS4 discharges to SMB beaches using a rigorous sampling design, the latest analytical markers, and a credible laboratory, then TMDL revisions may be proposed. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-15 | Page 2015 within the Beach Cities WMG. WBPCs will be further prioritized based on the applicable compliance schedules, as discussed in Section 4. 2.3 SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 2.3.1 OBJECTIVES 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. 2.3.2 DEFINITION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 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, or designed to reduce the volume of stormwater or non-stormwater discharged to the receiving water.” These BMPs may include: 1. Structural and/or non-structural BMPs and operation and maintenance procedures that are designed to achieve applicable WQBELs and/or RWLs; 2. Retrofitting areas of existing development known or suspected to contribute to the highest water quality priorities with regional or sub-regional BMPs; 3. Stream and/or habitat rehabilitation or restoration projects where stream and/or habitat rehabilitation or restoration are necessary for, or will contribute to demonstrable improvements in the physical, chemical, or biological receiving water conditions and restoration and/or protection of water quality standards in 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 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-16 | Page 2015 BMPs, defined by the runoff area treated by the BMP: regional BMPs12 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 swales, bioretention facilities, biofiltration facilities, and cisterns, among others. Relevant regional and distributed structural BMPs are described below. 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 by private parties. 2.3.3 INCORPORATED PROVISIONS Permit Section VI.C.5.b.iv sets forth the provisions regarding the types of BMPs that must be considered in development of the EWMP. These provisions are described in more detail below. 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 are already being implemented by the Beach Cities WMG as prescribed under the previous MS4 Permit (Order 01-182), and 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 Section 2.6.2 (Santa Monica Bay Watershed) and Section 3.6.2 (Dominguez Channel Watershed). 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 12 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-17 | Page 2015 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. As previously stated, the Beach Cities WMG agencies currently operate seven low flow diversions to eliminate non-stormwater discharges. The non-stormwater screening process consists of the steps shown in Figure 2-4. Further details on the Beach Cities WMGs approach to meet this requirement are provided in the CIMP for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, 2014). TMDL-Specific Control Measures The Beach Cities WMG has evaluated BMPs that have been previously identified in TMDLs and corresponding implementation plans. Those BMPs that have been constructed are discussed in Section 2.6.4 (Santa Monica Bay Watershed) and Section 3.6.4 (Dominguez Channel Watershed). Other measures identified in TMDLs and TMDL implementation plans were evaluated as part of the RAA process in order to determine what combination of measures would achieve compliance with Permit-specified WQBELs and/or RWLs. Additional BMPs In addition to the MCMs, non-stormwater discharge measures, and TMDL control measures, the Beach Cities WMG has identified additional BMPs to achieve compliance with Permit-specified WQBELs and/or RWLs. These BMPs are discussed in more detail in Section 2.6 (Monica Bay Watershed) and Section 3.6 (Dominguez Channel Watershed) below. Demonstration of BMP Performance – Introduction to the Reasonable Assurance Analysis 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 WBPC identified in Section 2.2. The RAA process demonstrates that implementation of EWMP-defined activities should result in the attainment of applicable Permit-specified WQBELs, and will also prevent discharges from causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable RWLs. Since the modeling conducted as part of the RAA serves as the basis not only for BMP evaluation but also BMP identification, Section 2.4 is devoted to providing details on the RAA process. Results from the RAA are presented in Section 2.7. Legal Authority The Permit-required legal authority that the Beach Cities WMG has to implement the BMPs identified in the EWMP is discussed in Section 8. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-18 | Page 2015 Figure 2-4. Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Program DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-19 | Page 2015 2.4 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS APPROACH The following subsections provide a summary of the modeling tools and approach, modeling data, calibration, and validation. 2.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF MODELING TOOLS AND APPROACH The approaches for performing the RAA in both dry and wet weather are described below. Dry Weather Demonstrating “reasonable assurance” of compliance with dry weather limits for the SMBBB TMDL requires a methodology that accounts for many factors which cannot be accurately modeled based on urban runoff processes alone (Thoe et al, 2014), despite the extensive summer- dry and winter-dry weather beach-specific monitoring datasets that are available. Therefore, to perform the RAA for dry weather for the Beach Cities WMG area, a semi-quantitative methodology has been developed to follow a permit compliance structure, as independent lines of evidence for demonstrating that MS4 discharges could not be causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances at the beaches. Because FIB are considered the “controlling” pollutants of concern during dry weather in the Beach Cities WMG area (i.e., if MS4 discharges are compliant for bacteria during dry weather, they will be compliant for all TMDL and 303(d) pollutants during dry weather), the methodology was developed to focus on bacteria (Beach Cities WMG, 2014). The following criteria form the proposed dry weather RAA methodology. This methodology was presented to LARWQCB staff on April 9, 2014, and verbal feedback received at the time was supportive. If one criterion is met for CSMP compliance monitoring location (CML), then “reasonable assurance” is considered to be demonstrated. 1. A dry weather low flow diversion, disinfection system, or infiltration system is located at the CML. To meet this criterion, any such system should have records to show that it is consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate freshwater surface discharges to the surf zone during year-round dry weather days. 2. There are no MS4 outfalls owned by the Beach Cities WMG Agencies within the CML’s drainage area, and therefore MS4 discharges could not be contributing to pollutant concentrations at the CML. 3. Non-stormwater MS4 outfall discharges do not reach the wave wash and thus are effectively eliminated within the CML’s drainage area. For this criterion to be met, supporting records from the non-stormwater outfall screening program should be supplied. Wet Weather The wet-weather RAA process consists generally of the following steps: • Identify WBPCs for which the RAA will be performed; DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-20 | Page 2015 • Identify the MS4 service area (exclude lands of agencies not party to this EWMP such as separately-permitted lands, Federal land, State land, etc.); • For each analysis region (Figure 2-5), develop target load reductions (TLRs) for 90th percentile year for bacteria in SMB watershed based on LARWQCB RAA Guidelines, limit expressions in the Permit, and critical periods identified in the TMDLs; • Identify structural and non-structural BMPs that were either implemented after applicable TMDL effective dates or are planned for implementation in the future; • Evaluate the performance of these BMPs in terms of annual pollutant load reductions; • Compare these estimates with the TLRs; and • Revise the BMP implementation scenario until TLRs are met. TLRs, as discussed previously, represent a numerical expression of the Permit compliance metrics (e.g., bacteria allowable exceedance days [AEDs] per year for wet weather) that can be modeled and can serve as a basis for confirming, with reasonable assurance, that implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in attainment of the applicable TMDL-based WQBELs and RWLs in the Permit for Category 1 pollutants, or the Water Quality Objectives for Category 2 and Category 3 pollutants. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-21 | Page 2015 Figure 2-5. Analysis Regions and Monitoring Locations within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-22 | Page 2015 Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT) Model The recommended RAA approach leverages the strengths of the publicly available, Permit- approved, Geographical Information System (GIS)-based model that has already been developed for the region and previously utilized in Jurisdictional Group 5 and 6 (J5&6): the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT)13. SBPAT is a public domain, “open source,” GIS-based water quality analysis tool intended to: 1) facilitate the prioritization and selection of BMP project opportunities and technologies in urbanized watersheds; and 2) quantify benefits, costs, variability, and potential compliance risk associated with stormwater quality projects. The decision to use SBPAT for the SMB EWMP RAA in the manner described below is based on the model capabilities and the unique characteristics of the SMB, specifically: 1. Modeling of SMB hydrologic and watershed processes – SBPAT utilizes EPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) as the hydrologic engine, and SBPAT has been calibrated to local rainfall and Santa Monica Bay (SMB) stream flow gauges, consistent with requirements of the RAA Guidelines; 2. SMB pollutants of concern and their compliance metric expression – SBPAT has been utilized for planning applications related to Bacteria TMDL compliance (and specifically exceedance-day predictions, based on SMB criteria), including a demonstrated linkage of modeled bacteria loads to measured exceedance days; 3. Availability of new open space water quality loading data – Recently developed EMC data are consistent with SBPAT and were also updated to reflect new data developed in SMB as part of this RAA-development effort; 4. Capability to conduct opportunity and constraints screening – SBPAT was designed to support structural BMP placement, prioritization, and cost-benefit quantification, and was previously successfully used for such purposes in the SMB EWMP Group area and other nearby SMB subwatersheds; 5. Characterization of water quality variability – SBPAT is capable of quantifying model output variability and confidence levels, which is a requirement of the LARWQCB’s RAA Guidance; and 6. Supports quantification of both structural and non-structural BMPs, and demonstrating compliance at both interim and final compliance dates – SBPAT’s modeling framework is easily compatible with methods for addressing non-structural BMPs and provides quantitative results for multiple BMP phasing milestones, as required by the Permit. 13 SBPAT is specifically referenced in the MS4 Permit Part VI.C.5.b.iv and was presented at the first two Permit Group TAC RAA Subcommittee meetings. Furthermore, SBPAT has been used for reasonable assurance analysis purposes in the Los Angeles region for four TMDL Implementation Plans, two WMPs, four EWMPs, and, in the San Diego region, for two Combined Load Reduction Plans and two Water Quality Improvement Plans. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-23 | Page 2015 The quantification analysis component of SBPAT includes a number of features. The model: • Calculates and tracks inflows to BMPs, treated discharge, bypassed flows, evaporation, and infiltration at each 10 minute time step; • Distinguishes between individual runoff events by defining six-hour minimum inter- event time in the rainfall record (in order to track rain events), while also tracking inter- event antecedent conditions; • Tracks volume captured by and bypassing BMPs, and summarizes and records these volumes by storm event; and • Produces a table of each BMP’s hydrologic performance, including concentrations and loads by storm event, and consolidates these outputs on an annual basis. 2.4.2 MODELING DATA Data used for the quantification/analysis module include both fixed and stochastic parameters. The model utilizes Los Angeles region land use EMCs, USEPA SWMM, USEPA/American Society of Civil Engineers/Water Environment Research Foundation (USEPA/ASCE/WERF) International BMP Database (IBD) BMP effluent concentrations, watershed/GIS data, and a Monte Carlo approach (relying on repeated random sampling) to quantify water quality benefits and uncertainties. Model data flow is provided below in Figure 2-6. Figure 2-6. SBPAT Model Data Flow Each model simulation integrates Monte Carlo methods that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results. Model simulations are run 20,000 to 50,000 times to calculate a distribution of outcomes that can support the definition of confidence levels and quantify variability. Consistent with the SBPAT usage, Monte Carlo methods are used in physical and mathematical problems when it is difficult to obtain a closed-form expression or when a deterministic algorithm is not desired. A schematic of SBPAT’s Monte Carlo process is provided in Figure 2-7. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-24 | Page 2015 Model documentation, as well as links to related technical articles and presentations, is provided at www.sbpat.net. Figure 2-7. SBPAT Monte Carlo Method Components The spatial domain of the RAA includes the land within the Beach Cities EWMP area tributary to SMB and Dominguez Channel. Adjustments were made to account for contributions from agencies not party to this EWMP (e.g., State/Federal, California Department of Transportation [Caltrans], Industrial General Permit holders, etc.) and are described in more detail later in this document. GIS layers used in SBPAT included, but were not limited to, the following: • Storm drains; • Soils; • Rain gauge polygons; • Parcels; • Land use; and • Catchments. SBPAT utilizes a customized version of SWMM for continuously simulating study area hydrology and BMP hydraulics. Long-term, hourly rainfall data and average monthly evapotranspiration DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-25 | Page 2015 values are used along with land use-linked catchment imperviousness and soil properties to estimate runoff volumes. Revised and recalibrated SBPAT database values and EWMP-defined BMP information are used to estimate the volume of runoff generated from watershed areas and captured by BMPs. Storm events are individually tracked for the entire simulation so that the volumes of runoff infiltrated, evapotranspired, captured, and released (if applicable) by BMPs are estimated for every storm event. Hourly rainfall data from LAX (NCDC ID45114) were used in the portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area draining to Santa Monica Bay. Hourly rainfall data from a Los Angeles County rainfall gauge at Manhattan Beach (Station ID 1070) was used for the portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel. Rain gauges are shown in Figure 2-8. Figure 2-8. SBPAT Rain and Stream Gauges Critical Condition Definition Consistent with the SMBBB TMDL and the LARWQCB RAA Guidance Document, the RAA was performed on the 90th percentile critical year. This year was determined by evaluation of local rainfall records for all four EWMP Groups located along Santa Monica Bay over the 1989 to 2011 period of record, evaluating “TMDL years” as defined by the SMBBB TMDL (i.e., November 1 – October 31). Of the local rain gauges evaluated, the Manhattan Beach gauge (Station ID 1070) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-26 | Page 2015 (Figure 2-8), was determined to be the most representative of the Beach Cities WMG area. The rainfall record was analyzed to determine the 90th percentile year based on both the number of wet days (days with >=0.10-inch for rainfall and the three days following, per the SMBBB TMDL) as well as total annual rainfall. Table 2-4 below presents these results. The 90th percentile year was determined to be either 1995 or 2005 based on wet days (73 total). TMDL year 1995 was selected to be the most conservative of these two years because while it is the 90th percentile year based on number of wet days, 1995 also had slightly more total rainfall than 2005. Therefore, the RAA was performed on TMDL year 1995. Although detailed results are only provided for the Beach Cities WMG, the 90th percentile year was determined to be 1995 across all four SMB EWMP Groups (Santa Monica Bay, North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds, Beach Cities, and Peninsula). A summary of annual rainfall data for the gauge above is provided in Appendix Q. Table 2-4. Rainfall Summary at Manhattan Beach Precipitation Gauge (Station ID 1070) 90th Percentile TMDL Year (Type) TMDL Year Wet Days* Total Rainfall (in) Number of Wet Days 1995 73 22.0 Total Annual Rainfall 2005 73 21.9 *Compliance with the wet weather SMBBB TMDL is based on the number of allowable exceedance days. The priority WBPCs for the Beach Cities EWMP area, combined with data availability, establishes the specific WBPCs addressed by the RAA. As previously described, SBPAT links the long-term hydrologic output from SWMM to a stochastic Monte Carlo water quality model to develop statistical descriptions of stormwater quantity and quality. Through this approach, the predicted runoff volumes for each storm are randomly sampled from the long-term storm event runoff volume record produced by SWMM. Land use-based wet weather pollutant EMC values (see Appendix I) and BMP effluent concentrations (see Appendix J) for each storm are then randomly sampled from their lognormal statistical distributions. The runoff volumes (including volumes treated and bypassed by BMPs), land use EMCs, and BMP effluent concentrations are combined to determine the total pollutant loads and load reductions (i.e., difference between existing and post- BMP load estimates) for each sampled storm event. This procedure is then repeated thousands of times, each time recording the volume, pollutant concentrations, loads, and load reductions for each selected storm event. The statistics of these recorded results are then used to characterize the average daily values as well as the average (mean) values for the annual volume, pollutant loads, and pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff from the modeled area, with and without BMPs implemented. The IBD is a comprehensive source of BMP performance information (www.bmpdatabase.org), 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. Water quality performance data from the IBD were used to develop effluent concentrations (averages and standard deviations) for the BMPs and constituents in Table 2-5. As with land use EMCs, the effluent quality of BMPs is highly variable. To account for this variability in SBPAT, effluent quality data were analyzed and descriptive statistics were generated for use in the Monte Carlo statistical sampling technique. Appendix J contains detailed information on the BMP effluent statistics. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-27 | Page 2015 Table 2-5. BMPS and Constituents Modeled in SBPAT1 BMPs Constituents Constructed Wetland / Retention Pond (with Extended Detention) Constructed Wetland / Retention Pond (without Extended Detention) Dry Extended Detention Basin Hydrodynamic Separator Media Filter Subsurface Flow Wetland Treatment Plant Bioswale Bioretention with underdrain Bioretention (volume reduction only)2 Cistern (volume reduction only)2 Green Roof (volume reduction only)2 Porous Pavement (volume reduction only)2 Low Flow Diversion (volume reduction only)2 Fecal Coliform (FC) Total lead (TPb) Total suspended solids (TSS) Total phosphorus (TP) Dissolved phosphorus as P (DP)3 Ammonia as N (NH3) Nitrate as N (NO3) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen as N (TKN) Dissolved copper (DCu) Total copper (TCu) Dissolved zinc (DZn) Total zinc (TZn) 1 Constituents are addressed for BMPs that provide treatment (i.e., excluding those identified as “volume reduction only”). 2 For these BMPs, it is assumed that 100% of pollutant loads associated with the volume of water infiltrated is treated by the BMP. Water that bypasses or otherwise discharges from the BMP is assumed to receive no treatment. 3 Dissolved phosphorus and orthophosphate datasets were combined to provide a larger dataset and because the majority of orthophosphate is typically dissolved and many datasets either report dissolved phosphorus or orthophosphate, but not both. 2.4.3 CALIBRATION Hydrology The hydrology component of SBPAT was calibrated for the only location in the entire greater SMB watershed where all data requirements (daily flow, hourly precipitation, and daily beach bacteria concentrations) were met - the Topanga Creek subwatershed. No other SMB areas have sufficient data available. The Topanga Creek subwatershed is located north of the Beach Cities WMG area. Since primary output for SBPAT’s prediction of the SMB watershed are annual volumes and pollutant loads, the calibration focused on accurate prediction of annual discharge volumes from the Topanga Creek subwatershed outlet, with estimated baseflow removed. Hourly rainfall data were used for the nearby Lechuza Patrol Station #72 gauge (gauge reference ID 352b, see Figure 2-8, in Malibu, with these data adjusted upward based on an annual rain depth ratio between the higher elevation Topanga Fire Station #69 gauge (gauge reference ID 6) and the coastal Lechuza gauge. Los Angeles County’s Topanga Creek streamflow gauge (gauge reference ID F54C-R) was used to estimate measured annual discharge volumes for comparison with modeled volumes. The effective impervious percentage for the open space land use category and the saturated hydraulic conductivity of all mapped soil types served as calibration parameters. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-28 | Page 2015 Previous hydrologic calibration reported in the Beach Cities EWMP Work Plan (Beach Cities WMG, 2014) was refined to include additional precipitation and streamflow data. The refined calibration used a vacant undifferentiated land use effective imperviousness value of 1 percent. The refined calibration required the evaluation of various saturated hydraulic conductivity multipliers that would result in increased model runoff (i.e., each soil type’s original hydraulic saturated conductivity was multiplied by the same value). The calibration was performed iteratively with multipliers ranging from 0.1 to 2.0 until the average annual modeled volume produced an acceptable error value when compared to the average annual observed volumes. A multiplier of 0.20 was selected as most appropriate. Figure 2-9 is a depiction of the refined hydrologic calibration results, including the 0.20 saturated hydraulic conductivity multiplier. The emphasis of the calibration effort focused on accurate, unbiased prediction of “non-extreme” annual conditions (annual volumes exceeding a 25-year frequency, 4 percent probability, were excluded from the calibration effort). Based on available data, the period of calibration was 12 years, between 2001 and 2012, with water years 2005 and 2008 excluded due to outlying streamflow measurement results14. These calibrated input parameter values were used throughout the SMB watersheds in the wet weather RAAs. Figure 2-9. Annual Runoff Volumes for Topanga Creek Subwatershed: Modeled vs. Observed, 2001-2012 14 The stream gauge annual volume measurement in 2008 was unexplainably high (corresponding to a runoff coefficient greater than one), and the 2005 year included a 15-day period of near-record rainfall levels that were anomalously high (where the mean annual rainfall depth fell between December 27 and January 10, and major landslides were reported in nearby coastal Ventura County). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-29 | Page 2015 Following calibration, average relative prediction error (or the percent differences between the average annual observed and modeled annual runoff volume) was calculated to be -0.24%. According to the LARWQCB’s RAA Guidance Document, which is based on Donigian, 2000, SBPAT model performance with respect to hydrology as a result of this calibration is in the “very good” category. Water Quality The RAA Guidelines require water quality calibration based on available monitoring data from each analysis region over the most recent 10 years. However, in the SMB EWMP analysis regions, freshwater (i.e., mass emission type) monitoring stations with fecal coliform data15 are not available from a recent 10 year period. Therefore, calibration that meets the guidelines is not possible at this time. After several years of CIMP monitoring data have been collected, this may be reevaluated as part of the EWMP adaptive management process. Also, since a conventional water quality calibration was not possible at this time, a validation of baseline exceedance day output was performed for the Leo Carrillo reference watershed using recent beach bacteria monitoring results, as described below. The reference watershed was used for this validation because it is the basis of the TMDL Waste Load Allocations, which the RAA TLRs are intended to represent. 2.4.4 VALIDATION A validation step was performed to demonstrate that modeled annual fecal coliform loads are indeed predictive of the compliance metric, or annual exceedance days for fecal indicator bacteria. For bacteria modeling, verifying the linkage between modeled fecal coliform loads (i.e., discharged from the watershed outlets) and total observed wet weather exceedance days (in the receiving water, based on REC1 daily maximum water quality objectives) was critical to establish reasonable assurance that CMLs would be in compliance with the Permit limits. To establish this linkage, an analysis was conducted using shoreline monitoring data at Topanga Canyon16 (SMB-1- 18) between 2005 and 2013. Figure 2-10 illustrates that decreasing fecal coliform loads should result in measurable reductions in exceedance days, and that there is a reasonable correlation between total annual modeled fecal coliform loads and total annual observed wet weather exceedance days. Each point shown represents one TMDL year. 15 Fecal coliform data and objectives were used to represent all fecal indicator bacteria because fecal coliform has the most robust land use and BMP effluent EMC datasets. 16 This subwatershed is 88 percent open space and was selected for water quality validation due to it being the hydrologic calibration subwatershed as well as because it had daily shoreline monitoring data, which was necessary in order to have a sufficiently robust dataset of annual wet weather exceedance days. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-30 | Page 2015 Figure 2-10. Correlation between Modeled Fecal Coliform Loads and Observed Exceedance Days (each point represents one TMDL year, 2005-2013) 2.5 BASELINE LOADS AND TARGET LOAD REDUCTIONS The process for establishing TLRs for the modeled WBPC (bacteria in Santa Monica Bay) is described in the following section. For analysis regions with SMBBB TMDL 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 which acknowledges that historic bacteria exceedance rates for each of these analysis regions are lower than that of the reference beach, on average. This assumption of zero target load reduction applies for seven of the 11 total SMBBB TMDL CMLs in this Beach Cities watershed – 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 (2005 – 2013) at these sampling locations confirm this understanding, as the long-term exceedance rate at all seven sites varies between 6.4 and 22%, below the long-term wet weather exceedance rate at the reference beach (26%). Bacteria reductions were still modeled using SBPAT in these analysis regions, but BMP modeling results were not compared with a target load reduction; i.e., quantification only serves to express the additional water quality benefits of existing and proposed BMPs in these analysis regions. 2.5.1 BACTERIA In order to establish a TLR for each modeled Santa Monica Bay analysis region, a modeling methodology was developed and tested to relate the annual number of modeled calendar days with rainfall-generated runoff (or “discharge days”) to the expected annual bacteria exceedance DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-31 | Page 2015 days, which is the Permit’s WQBEL expression for the SMBBB TMDL. To be consistent with the SMBBB TMDL for wet weather, which established the allowed exceedance day Waste Load Allocations based on monitoring results from the Leo Carrillo reference beach, this modeling methodology was first tested on Leo Carrillo and its Arroyo Sequit subwatershed for the same critical year as the TMDL (TMDL year 1993). The goal of this analysis was to validate the modeling methodology by comparing its predicted exceedance days for Leo Carrillo with the 17 exceedance days from the TMDL, for TMDL year 1993. This analysis occurred in three steps: 1. The calibrated SBPAT model, using the nearby Lechuza Patrol Station gauge for TMDL year 1993 (consistent with the TMDL), resulted in 59 discharge days for Arroyo Sequit. 2. Based on 2003 to 2013 Leo Carrillo monitoring data, 27% of wet weather samples exceeded the single sample recreational Water Quality Objectives on days with rainfall greater than 0.10-in. In other words, 27% of wet weather days when runoff discharges might be expected (i.e., days with rainfall), FIB concentrations at the beach exceeded the objectives. 3. Multiplying 59 discharge days by the 27% exceedance percentage results in 16 predicted wet weather exceedance days for Leo Carrillo for TMDL Year 1993. This result is within 6% of the 17 exceedance days that were determined through the original analysis in the SMBBB wet weather TMDL, thereby validating the proposed exceedance day calculation methodology. After validation of the modeling methodology using the reference watershed, it was applied to all SMB analysis regions to predict baseline exceedance days for the 90th percentile year, or TMDL year 1995. Once baseline exceedance days were estimated for every analysis region, the exceedance day count was compared with allowed exceedance days from the TMDL (i.e., 17 for all non-anti-degradation compliance monitoring beaches). To determine the TLR necessary for each analysis region to meet the allowed exceedance days, a virtual retention BMP was modeled at the outlet of each analysis region. This approach was presented to LARWQCB staff on June 6, 2014 and verbal feedback received during the meeting was supportive. Each virtual retention BMP included a diversion with a virtual hydraulic capacity that results in in a model-derived bypass frequency (or number of discharge days), during TMDL year 1995 that meets the allowable exceedance day criteria. Each diversion is modeled as a full capture system. The net load reduction resulting from this BMP scenario (i.e., baseline analysis region load minus analysis region load with the diversion system and retention BMP in place) for the 90th percentile year (1995) becomes the TLR for each analysis region. For the RAA, reasonable assurance of compliance is established when load reductions associated with proposed BMPs equal the TLR for each analysis region. In summary, the following approach was implemented to calculate a TLR for each modeled analysis region (see Appendix K for example calculation): 1. Each analysis region was modeled in SBPAT for the 90th percentile year (TMDL 1995). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-32 | Page 2015 2. The existing, baseline condition (i.e., without any outlet retention BMP) was modeled for each analysis region, resulting in a mean baseline fecal coliform (FC) load for the 90th percentile year (baseline load). 3. The exceedance percentage of samples collected during days with precipitation greater than 0.1 inches was determined for each analysis region. 4. The allowable number of discharge days for each analysis region was calculated by dividing 17 TMDL allowable exceedance days by the exceedance percentage calculated in Step 3. 5. An instream diversion to a large virtual retention BMP at the outlet of each analysis region was iteratively sized so that it only bypasses during the number of allowable discharge days determined in Step 4. 6. Each diversion and virtual retention BMP was then modeled in SBPAT to produce a mean FC 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. By implementing the steps described above, TLRs were developed for all analysis regions within the MS4, including both open beach and point zero CMLs. These TLRs are presented in Table 2-6 for both the interim and final compliance deadlines. TLRs for the interim compliance deadlines are assumed to be 50% of the final TLR. TLRs for analysis regions located between two point zero CMLs, but not representing an open beach site, were assigned the TLR of the geographically smaller of the two adjacent CML analysis regions. It should be noted that a zero percent TLR was calculated in the analysis region draining to CML SMB-6-03. This analysis region and CML had a lower average wet weather exceedance rate than the reference watershed based on a recent nine year period (2005-2013), produced relatively few modeled stormwater discharge days, and had few years with measured wet weather exceedance days greater than allowable exceedance days (i.e., only three of the recent nine years exceeded the allowed days, and each year by just one exceedance day). Similarly, a zero percent TLR was also calculated in the analysis region draining to CML SMB-6-04. The frequency of exceedance at SMB-6-04 (27.6%) was lower than that of the surrounding anti- degradation sites SMB-6-02 (33.3%) and SMB-6-05 (31.0%) and also lower than the exceedance rate of SMB-6-03 (37.9%), which was calculated to have a TLR of zero. Further, SMB-6-04 is an open beach CML with no major MS4 outfall at the sampling location. As stated earlier, nine CMLs with anti-degradation-based wet weather allowable exceedance days were assigned zero TLRs to reflect their historic good water quality. Although the SMBBB TMDL requires only that beach water quality at anti-degradation compliance locations be maintained, the Beach Cities EWMP will seek to implement nonstructural and Low Impact Development (LID)- based BMPs within the SMB portion of their EWMP area which will protect and potentially improve water quality at these beaches and is consistent with the J5&6 Implementation Plan (Geosyntec Consultants, 2011) for the SMBBB TMDL. These measures, though not required for RAA demonstration, are quantified in Section 2.6.3 below. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-33 | Page 2015 Table 2-6. TLRs for Fecal Coliform for each Modeled Analysis Region in Santa Monica Bay Watershed - TMDL Year 1995 Analysis Region 2003-2013 Historical Exceedance Frequency (Daily Rainfall >0.10-in) Allowable Discharge Days (Daily Rainfall > 0.10-in) Diversion Flowrate (cfs) Baseline Load (1012 Most Probable Number [MPN]) Interim (2018) Target Load Reduction Final (2021) Target Load Reduction Absolute (1012 MPN) % of baseline annual load Absolute (1012 MPN) % of baseline annual load SMB-5-011 10.3% 4 0 7.4 Interim target load reduction assessed on a watershed-wide basis 0 0% SMB-O-06 N/A 4 0 23.0 0 0% SMB-5-02 67.9% 17 53 534.8 247.6 46.3% SMB-5-02/SMB-5-032 N/A 12 0 34.9 0 0% SMB-5-031 17.2% 6 0 29.0 0 0% SMB-5-03/SMB-5-042 N/A 9 0 89.3 0 0% SMB-5-041 31.0% 12 0 17.1 0 0% SMB-5-04/SMB-5-052 N/A 10 0 8.2 0 0% SMB-5-051 31.0% 8 0 182.8 0 0% SMB-5-05/SMB-6-012 N/A 13 0 6.7 0 0% SMB-6-013 63.9% 17 70 706.6 312.1 44.2% BCSump3 63.9% 17 40 379.4 178.0 46.9% SMB-6-01/ SMB-6-022 N/A 16 0 162.5 0 0% SMB-6-021 33.3% 14 0 99.6 0 0% SMB-6-03 37.9% 17 0 62.2 0 0% SMB-6-04 27.6% 17 0 209.9 0 0% SMB-6-051 31.0% 11 0 90.9 0 0% SMB-O-08 N/A 7 0 86.0 0 0% SMB-6-061 10.3% 3 0 6.7 0 0% SMB Watershed-Wide N/A N/A N/A 3875.9 368.9 13% 737.7 26% 1 Anti-degradation site 2 For the unmonitored tributary areas located in-between the CML tributary areas, TLRs were assigned from the geographically smaller of the two adjacent CML analysis regions. 3 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-34 | Page 2015 2.6 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 2.6.1 METHODS TO SELECT AND PRIORITIZE BMPS In order to demonstrate reasonable assurance, BMPs were identified in a prioritized manner. Prioritization was based on cost (low 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. In general, nonstructural BMPs were prioritized over structural BMPs due to their lower relative cost, and then structural BMPs were identified that would likely result in the greatest load reduction per dollar. The RAA was performed according to the following steps: 1. Calculate load reductions associated with existing structural BMPs; 2. Assume a load reduction for non-modeled non-structural BMPs(five percent of baseline pollutant load); 3. Calculate load reductions for public retrofit incentives (e.g., downspout disconnects) and redevelopment; 4. Calculate load reductions attributable to anticipated new permit compliance activities of non-MS4 entities (e.g., Industrial General Permit holders and Caltrans); 5. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional BMPs that were identified in existing plans; and 6. Meet the TLR by backfilling the remaining load reduction with new regional or distributed green streets BMPs, with green streets modeled by assuming treatment of runoff from a percentage of specific developed land uses. The following schedule assumptions were made: • Only BMPs implemented after the TMDL effective date (2003) were included; • Redevelopment BMPs were assumed to use different sizing criteria before and after 2015 (EWMP submittal date), consistent with the Permit’s post-construction requirements; and • Modeled load reduction output are reported for both the interim (2018) and final (2021) TMDL compliance dates. 2.6.2 RECOMMENDED MCMS AND NONSTRUCTURAL 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 (per Section IV.C.5.b.iv.1(c). Customized measures, once approved as part of the EWMP, will replace in part or in whole the prescribed MCMs in the DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-35 | Page 2015 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. The Permit-specified MCMs (baseline MCMs) build upon the MCMs in the previous MS4 Permit (Order 01-182). Although similar in many ways to the previously required MCMs, in most cases the baseline MCMs contain more prescriptive record-keeping and/or implementation requirements. Summary assessments of each MCM contained in the Permit are provided in Table 2-7, as well as a determination as to whether the Beach Cities WMG will implement the MCM provisions as defined in the Permit, or whether modifications will be made. Additional modifications may also be made through the Adaptive Management Process, outlined in Section 5. General Framework for MCM Customization An approach for evaluating existing institutional MCMs was developed as part of the Beach Cities 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., Clean Bay Restaurant 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-36 | Page 2015 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. 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 Group’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 2-7 summarizes the proposed MCM modifications common to the Beach Cities EWMP WMG, which include promotion of Ocean Friendly Landscaping Workshops as part of the residential outreach permit requirement, distribution of a Clean Bay Restaurant Program brochure to promote public education, establishment of a stormwater website for J5&6, implementation of the Clean Bay Restaurant Program as an assistance program for small businesses, and annual restaurant inspection as commercial pollutant sources. The LACFCD will implement the MCMs identified in VI.D.44 of the MS4 Permit with no additional modifications. In addition to the MCM modifications being implemented by the WMG as a group, the Beach Cities WMG has identified additional individual city-specific MCM enhancements, which include organization of educational and cleanup-oriented events, installation of pet waste collection stations as a part of the residential outreach requirement, a ban on plastic bags in Manhattan Beach and polystyrene food containers in Hermosa Beach, and development of environmentally oriented city websites. City-specific MCMs enhanced beyond the 2012 Permit requirements are specified in Table 2-7. Details and descriptions of these enhancements are provided in Appendix L. The MCM enhancements shown in Table 2-7 and Appendix L are examples and are not comprehensive. The Beach Cities WMG agencies’ LID Ordinances and Green Street Policies are included as Appendix M and Appendix N, respectively. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-37 | Page 2015 Table 2-7. MCM Modifications and Agency-Specific Enhancements for Beach Cities EWMP Area 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance D.2 Progressive Enforcement (Applies D.6, D.7, D.8, and D.10) Develop and maintain a Progressive Enforcement Policy X X Conduct follow-up inspection within 4 weeks of date of initial inspection X Take progressive enforcement X X Retain records X Refer violations to LARWQCB X Investigate complaints from LARWQCB X Assist LARWQCB with Enforcement Actions X D.5 Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) Participate in a Countywide PIPP, WMP PIPP, or individual PIPP that measurably increases knowledge and changes behavior, and involves a diversity of socio economic and ethnic communities X X Maintain reporting hotline X X Publish hotline info on web, telephone book X ID staff/department that serve as the contact (publish this info) X Organize events (e.g., clean ups) X X X X X X Residential Outreach (Individually or with group): X X X X X X Public Service Announcements X X X X X (Develop) Public education materials on: vehicle fluids; household waste; construction waste; pesticides, fertilizers, and integrated pest management (IPM); green wastes; and animal wastes X X X X Distribute public education materials at points of purchase X X X X X Maintain stormwater website X X X X X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-38 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Provide schools with materials to educate children (K-12); can use state produced materials X X X X D.6 Industrial/ Commercial Track Critical Sources - maintain inventory (watershed based or lat/long recorded) X Educate - notify critical sources of BMP requirements X Implement a Business Assistance Program for select sectors or small businesses - technical assistance, and distribute materials to specific sectors X X X X Inspect Commercial Sources X X X Inspect Industrial Sources - Initial mandatory inspection X N/A N/A X Secondary mandatory inspection X N/A N/A No Exposure - evaluate and conduct 2nd inspection at 25% of facilities X N/A N/A As needed, conduct Progressive Enforcement follow-up inspections (see Part VI.D.2) X D.7 Planning and Land Development Update ordinance/design standards to conform with new requirements (LID) X X X Optional: Establish alternative compliance for technical infeasibility, e.g., allow onsite biofiltration or offsite infiltration or groundwater replenishment or retrofit X Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Develop a prioritized list of offsite mitigation projects X Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Develop a schedule for completion of offsite projects (must be with 4 yr of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first project that contributed funds) X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-39 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Notice offsite projects to RB website X Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: List of mitigation projects descriptions and estimated pollutant and flow reductions X Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Provide aggregated comparison of alternative compliance to results that would have been expected with on-site retention of the SWQDv X Optional: Submit documentation that a previously adopted LID ordinance provides equivalent pollutant loading and flow reduction X Plan Review process - check LID and BMP sizing, etc., X X X X Establish internal agreements with structure for communication and authority for departments overseeing plan approval and project construction X Require O&M plan for LID, treatment and hydromod BMPs X Implement tracking and enforcement program for LID, treatment and hydromod BMPs X Inspect all development sites upon completion and prior to occupancy certificates X Verify O&M of BMPs operated by Permittee through inspection X Develop maintenance inspection checklist X Require private parties that operate BMPs to submit verification of O&M; enforce as needed X As needed, conduct Progressive Enforcement follow-up inspections (see Part VI.D.2) X D.8 Development Construction Program Update erosion and sediment control ordinance/procedures to conform with new requirements X X X Sites < 1 acre; inspect based upon water quality threat X X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-40 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Establish priority inspection process X X Site < 1 acre; Require sites with soil disturbing activities to implement minimum BMPs X Require construction sites to prepare erosion sediment control plan(ESCP); review and approve (≥ 1 acre) X Verify construction sites coverage under the CGP and 401 cert X Develop/implement ESCP review checklist X Require construction sites to adhere to standards and make standards readily available X Conduct inspections at public and private sites (at least 1x/2 weeks for high threat sites (more frequently when rain is predicted or occurs; at least monthly for lower threat; also must inspect during all phases of construction - at least 3 times) X Develop/implement SOPs/inspection checklist X Track number of inspections for inventoried sites and verify minimum inspections are completed X As needed, conduct Progressive Enforcement follow-up inspections (see Part VI.D.2) X Train plan review staff and inspectors X X X Staff must be knowledgeable in QSD/P key objectives, local BMPs standards X D.9 Public Agency Activities Require public construction sites to implement Planning and Land Development requirements, implement Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs, and obtain Construction General Permit coverage X X Maintain inventory of Permittee owned facilities (including parks and recreation facilities,) X Update inventory X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-41 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Develop retrofit opportunity inventory; evaluate and rank X X X Cooperate with private land owners to encourage site specific retrofitting; includes pilot projects and outreach X Obtain IGP coverage for public facilities where appropriate X Develop procedures to assess impact of flood mgmt. projects on water quality of receiving waters; evaluate to determine if retrofitting is feasible X Evaluate existing structural flood control facilities to determine if retrofitting facility to provide additional pollutant removal is feasible X Implement source control BMPs at Permittee owned facilities/activities X Require city-hired contractors to implement source control BMPs X Prevent vehicle/equipment washing discharges to the MS4, including firefighting and emergency response vehicles X X Ensure new/redeveloped/replaced wash facilities are plumbed to the sanitary sewer or self-contained. X Implement IPM program X X Ordinances, policies, and procedures reflect IPM techniques and include commitments and schedules to reduce the use of pesticides that cause impairments X X Annually update in inventory of pesticides used by agency; quantify pesticides used by staff and contractors; demonstrate IPM alternatives to reduce pesticide use X X Use SOPs for pesticide application X X Ensure no application of pesticides or fertilizers when two or more days with a 50% chance of rain is predicted by NOAA; within 48 hr of 1/2 inch of rain; or when water is flowing off the site X Ensure staff applying pesticides are certified or working under supervision of a certified applicator in the appropriate category X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-42 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Update catch basin map add GPS locations and update priority X Inspect/Clean catch basin in areas not subject to Trash TMDL- Priority A: 3x during wet season, 1x during dry 1x; PriorityB:1x during wet 1x and 1x during dry; Priority C: 1x per yr. Maintain records. X Required trash management at public events X X X Place and maintain trash receptacles/capture devices at newly identified high trash generating areas X X X X X Label storm drains X X Inspect labels prior to each wet season X Record and relabel illegible labels within 180 days of inspection X Post signs at access points to water bodies (open channels, creeks; lakes) X In areas not subject to the Trash TMDL, install trash excluders on catch basins or outfalls in areas defined as Priority A, or implement substantially equivalent BMPs X X X X X Inspect and Remove trash and debris from open channels and other drainage structures 1x/yr before rainy season. X Eliminate discharge of contaminants during MS4 maintenance X Implement controls to limit infiltration of seepage from sanitary sewers to the storm drains X Implement routine preventative maintenance for both systems, survey sanitary sewer and MS4. May use SSO General Waste Discharge Requirement [WDR] to fulfill this requirement. X Implement inspection and maintenance program for Permittee owned BMPs X Manage residual water in treatment control BMPs removed during maintenance X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-43 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Street sweeping - Priority A: 2x/mo; B: 1x/mo; C: as needed, not less than 1x/yr X X X X X Implement road construction maintenance BMPs (e.g., restrict paving activity to exclude periods of rain) X Inspect and/or clean Permittee owned parking lots 2x/mo X X Train employees and contractors on stormwater requirements X X Train employees and contractors on pesticide use X D.10 Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Continue IC/ID program X X X X X Written procedures for conducting investigations and eliminations X X Initiate investigation within 72 hours from becoming aware of the discharge X X Implement solutions to eliminate discharge; conduct follow-up investigation to verify elimination; follow Progressive Enforcement Plan (see Part VI.D.2) X X X X X When discharge originates upstream of jurisdiction, notify the upstream jurisdiction and LARWQCB within 30 days X Initiate investigation within 21 days for illicit connection X Permit or document illicit connection that only discharge stormwater or allowed non-stormwater X Eliminate illicit connection within 180 days of investigation X Facilitate public reporting via hotline X X Signage adjacent to open channels provide info re: public reporting X Document calls and actions associated with hotline X X Implement procedures on responding to complaints; evaluate and update procedures X X Implement a spill response plan X X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-44 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement Baseline Requirement Maintained by all Cities General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all Cities) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Train staff and contractors on ID/IC X X Create a list of positions and contractors that require ID/IC training X DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-45 | Page 2015 2.6.3 QUANTIFIED NON-STRUCTURAL BMPS Non-structural BMPs have been categorized as follows for purposes of RAA. Specific model inputs are summarized in tabular format below. Non-Modeled Programmatic BMPs These source controls 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 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 this EWMP. A combined credit of 2.5 – 7.5% load reduction (average of 5%) was applied for all pollutants to represent the cumulative benefit from these BMPs. Modeled Redevelopment Beginning in 2001, redevelopment projects were required by the Permit (via the Standard Urban Stormwater Management Program [SUSMP]) to incorporate stormwater treatment BMPs into their projects if their project size exceeded specified thresholds. The 2001 MS4 Permit SUSMP redevelopment requirements were applied between 2003 (the point at which the Bacteria TMDL was implemented) and 2015 for the SMB EWMP area. Redevelopment in this period was modeled as flow-through media filters at a 0.2 in/hr design event. The 2012 MS4 Permit established new criteria for redevelopment projects, requiring certain sized projects to capture, retain, or infiltrate the 85th percentile design storm or the 0.75-inch design storm, whichever is greater, via the implementation of LID BMPs. To account for these redevelopment requirements, BMPs were modeled in SBPAT assuming land use-specific annual redevelopment rates for projects that triggered former SUSMP requirements or will trigger the Permit’s LID BMP requirements (Table 2-8). Table 2-8. Estimated Annual Redevelopment Rates Land Use Annual Redevelopment Rate (% of total land use area) Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance1 City of Hermosa Beach City of Manhattan Beach Residential 0.18 0.31 0.10 Commercial 0.15 0.79 0.38 Industrial 0.34 0.79 0.38 Education 0.16 0.16 0.16 Transportation 2.7 2.7 2.7 1 Regionally developed redevelopment rates were applied to the City of Torrance and Redondo Beach (City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, 2012). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-46 | Page 2015 Redondo Beach and Torrance areas used regionally developed redevelopment rates. For Hermosa Beach, the recent 4-year rate for redevelopment of residential areas was used based on city- specific LID implementation tracking data. The rate of redevelopment in all commercial land use categories tracked by SUSMP was combined to give an overall rate for both commercial and industrial (as that City has very few light industrial parcels), for historical as well as future redevelopment. For Manhattan Beach, a City-specific redevelopment rate of 3.8 percent for commercial redevelopment was provided based on historical SUSMP data over the past ten years. This value was also assumed for historical industrial redevelopment as well as future commercial and limited industrial redevelopment. For the residential land use, because there are insufficient data to project LID rates, a nominal 0.10 percent was assumed. BMPs were assumed to be implemented and to continue to be implemented in the future, at these rates across two distinct time periods: • 2003 (SMBBB TMDL Effective Date) - 2015: The SUSMP requirements, based on the 2001 MS4 Permit, were assumed to be implemented over this period as flow-through media filters at a 0.2 in/hr design intensity (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2002). • 2015 – 2021 (SMBBB TMDL Final Compliance Deadline): The 2012 MS4 Permit post- construction requirements were assumed to be implemented over this period as 50% biofiltration and 50% bioretention. Biofiltration (bioretention with underdrains) were modeled using bioswale BMP types with effluent EMCs set to bioretention and sized to retain 150 percent of the 1-year, 1-hour design storm (approximately 0.3 in/hr)17 because they do not retain all the design storm volume on site (they are flow-through systems), while bioretention units were sized to retain 100 percent of the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm depth, calculated as the mean for each analysis region. 2015 is used as a transition date since the LID post-construction requirements from the 2012 MS4 Permit are required to be in full effect via local LID ordinances by this time. In order to estimate load reductions associated with these redevelopment BMPs, the land use percentages shown in Table 2-1 were multiplied by the respective land use areas in each analysis region, resulting in an assumed area treated by LID BMPs each year. This area was multiplied by the applicable number of years, since new BMPs are assumed to be implemented each year. The total land use area assumed to be redeveloped for each analysis region was then modeled as being treated by the BMPs described below (Table 2-9) and the total load reduction was quantified. The default design parameter assumptions for the biofiltration redevelopment projects were that the longitudinal slopes were 0.03 ft/ft, Manning’s n was 0.25, hydraulic residence time was 10 min, and water quality flow depth was 4 inches. 17 150% of the 1-year, 1-hour design storm was used per Section VI.D.7.c.iii of the Permit. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-47 | Page 2015 Modeled Public Retrofit Incentives These BMPs include programs directed at incentivizing the public to decrease the amount of stormwater runoff from their property, specifically via downspout disconnects. Public incentives for retrofitting existing development were modeled in SBPAT between 2015, when the EWMP will begin to be implemented, and the respective TMDL final compliance date. Public retrofit incentives were assumed to be a downspout disconnection program, modeled as bioswales sized to a design storm intensity of 0.2 in/hr (Table 2-9). The default design parameter assumptions for the biofiltration redevelopment projects were that longitudinal slopes were 0.03 ft/ft, Manning’s n was 0.25, hydraulic residence time was 10 min, and water quality flow depth was 4 in. It was assumed that 10 percent of single family residential areas would be converted to disconnected downspout systems over 2015 to 2021, and that, based on GIS analysis, 38 percent of the single family residential area consists of rooftops that can be effectively disconnected. Therefore, 3.8 percent of single family residential neighborhoods were modeled as treated by bioswales in order to account for public retrofit incentives. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-48 | Page 2015 Table 2-9. Redevelopment and Public Retrofit Incentives Model Assumptions Implementation Level BMP Type Design Storm Longitudinal Slope (ft/ft) Manning n Hydraulic Residence Time (min) Water Quality Flow Depth (in) Effective Retention Depth (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Redevelopment (2003-2015) Media Filter 0.2 in/hr - - - - - - Redevelopment (2015-2021) Biofilters1 0.3 in/hr 0.03 0.25 10 4 2 Based on analysis region-specific soil typeBioretention 0.75 in - - - - 12 0.15 Public Retrofit Incentives (2015-2021) Bioswales representing downspout disconnects 0.2 in/hr 0.03 0.25 10 4 2 Based on analysis region-specific soil type1 Modeled as bioswales using bioretention effluent EMCs DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-49 | Page 2015 Modeled Non-MS4 Permitted Parcels or Areas SBPAT was used to quantify the load reduction assuming that regulated parcels/areas would be in compliance with the NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from State of California Department of Transportation (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the California NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Industrial General Permit [IGP], Order 2014-0057-DWQ) (Figure 2-11). A load reduction was obtained from these areas by simulating treatment plants sized to treat the IGP’s design storm requirement, the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (0.2 in/hr), with an effluent concentration set equal to the water quality standard (Table 2-10). For fecal coliform, 400 MPN/100mL was used. Table 2-10. Non-MS4 Parcels – Modeled as Treated by Treatment Plants (i.e., BMPs that will treat stormwater to the Water Quality Objectives) Implementation Level BMP Type Treatment Flowrate (cfs) Design Storm (in/hr) Average Basin Depth (ft) Equalization Volume (cu-ft) Diversion Flowrate (cfs) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Non-MS4 Parcels Treatment Plant 10,000 0.20 100.00 1,000 10,000 0.00001 2.6.4 STRUCTURAL BMPS Existing (constructed between 2003 and 2014) and proposed structural BMPs (regional and distributed) were modeled in SBPAT based on best available design information. The following sections outline the structural BMPs that were modeled as well as their drainage areas, design details in SBPAT, and any relevant assumptions. Modeled regional BMPs are depicted in Figure 2-12. Modeled distributed BMPs are depicted in Figure 2-13. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-50 | Page 2015 Figure 2-11. IGP and Caltrans Area within the Santa Monica Bay portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-51 | Page 2015 Figure 2-12. Existing and Proposed Regional BMPs within EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-52 | Page 2015 Figure 2-13. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMP Locations within the EWMP Area. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-53 | Page 2015 Existing Regional BMPs Analysis Regions SMB-5-02 and SMB-5-03/SMB-5-04 The Manhattan Beach Green Belt Infiltration Project tributary area spans analysis regions SMB-5-02 and SMB-5-03/SMB-5-04. The Project, completed in February 2013, utilizes the linear greenbelt parkland that runs through the City to intercept and infiltrate dry weather and wet weather low flows from existing storm drains that intersect the parkway. The Project was designed to reduce the downstream peak flow and runoff volume from the 55.2 acres of contributing developed residential land use while also increasing groundwater recharge and subsequently increasing the effective permeability of the developed area. The 55.2 acre drainage area is part of the 161 acre tributary area that drains to the 1st Street outfall and Santa Monica Bay , which is part of the approximately 205 acres of drainage influencing the SMB-5-04 open beach monitoring site under the CSMP (2004). Analysis Region SMB-5-05 The Pier Avenue Improvement Project captures and treats stormwater/urban runoff from residential areas on surrounding streets and commercial development in the downtown corridor along Pier Avenue (36-acre drainage area). The Project includes drainage improvements for treatment and infiltration of dry and wet-weather flows up to the design storm to reduce pollutant loading at the beach and to reduce flooding. The Hermosa Strand Infiltration Trench project receives runoff from a 76.2-acre, intensely developed mixed commercial and residential coastal subdrainage area conveyed via the Pier Avenue storm drain. The Pier Avenue storm drain was retrofit with a diversion structure and tide gate to direct dry- weather flows and wet weather low flows from the storm drain into a pump well, through a baffle- box pretreatment unit, then into the subsurface infiltration trench 1,000 feet long constructed on the beach adjacent to the Strand. The diversion pump was designed to divert up to 250 gallons per minute (GPM), which is significantly greater than would be required solely to divert dry weather runoff from the drainage area, thereby allowing for diversion of some wet weather flows. Analysis Region SMB-6-01 Three existing regional BMPs were modeled within analysis region SMB-6-01. These include Amie Basin, Entradero Basin, and Henrietta Basin in their post-enhancement state. Since the basins were in existence prior to the 2003 TMDL effective date, pollutant removal credit was not assigned to the basins for their pre-2003 function, rather only the basin improvement design parameters that 1) improved water quality and 2) were implemented post-2003 were DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-54 | Page 2015 modeled. Infiltration rate, depth, volume, and discharge rate of the basins and their extended storage were extracted from analysis of the stage-discharge curves provided in the Stormwater Basin Enhancement Project Design Memorandum (CWE Corp., 2012). Amie Basin, post-enhancements. Amie Detention Basin is an existing BMP that captures runoff from 409 acres of upstream land in analysis region BCSump, which drains to SMB-6- 01. Based on boring test results, the average on-site infiltration rate is reported as 0.0082 in/hr. Due to its limited infiltration capacity, Amie Detention Basin is not designed for the purpose of on-site infiltration. Instead, its primary purpose is to discharge runoff slowly to the downstream Henrietta Detention Basin. The basin enhancements, completed in 2014, increased the extended retention volume by reducing the permanent pool volume by 25% by creating additional flow paths within the basin. Due to the nature of the basin enhancements, Amie Detention Basin was modeled as a wet pond with extended detention capacity. Entradero Basin, post-enhancements. Entradero Detention Basin is an existing BMP that treats runoff from 436 acres of upstream land in analysis region SMB-6-01 and is sized to capture the 0.75 inch storm. Based on boring test results, the average on-site infiltration rate is 1.28 in/hr. To increase the infiltration capacity, the post- enhancement design significantly increased the infiltration surface area from 0.03 acres to 1.44 acres. Entradero Detention Basin was modeled as an infiltration basin. The basin includes a small permanent pool (1500 cubic feet), the volume of which was excluded from the calculation of total storage capacity. Henrietta Basin, post-enhancements. Henrietta Detention Basin is an existing BMP that treats runoff from Amie Detention Basin as well as an additional 153 acres of upstream land in analysis region BCSump for up to 0.75 inches storm. Based on boring test results, the average on-site infiltration rate is 2.1 in/hr. To further increase the infiltration capacity, recent design enhancements increased the maximum basin depth from 23 feet to 30 feet, and created additional flow path within the basin. In SBPAT, the Henrietta basin is modeled as an infiltration basin. The basin included a small permanent pool (6900 cubic feet), the volume of which was excluded from the total storage capacity. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-55 | Page 2015 Analysis Region SMB-6-02 The Alta Vista Park Diversion and Re-Use Project is located in Redondo Beach and is designed to divert wet weather flows up to a rainfall event of 0.3 inches in 24 hours, collected from its 101-acre watershed. HDPE pipes comprise the approximately 100,000 gallons of underground storage. Excess overflows from the tank go into a 4,200 square feet infiltration bed located under the tank. The Project diversion facilities include structures that divert up to 4.5 cfs of the storm flow through a gross pollutant removal device. Analysis Region SMB-6-03 The Sapphire Street Infiltration BMP consists of a low flow diversion and infiltration bed. The low flow diversion is intended to divert all dry weather flow and wet weather runoff from a storm up to 0.1 inches in 24 hours. The diversion facilities include a structure that will divert up to 11 cfs of the storm flow through a CDS unit. A smaller amount, up to 160 gpm, are diverted to a pump station that pumps the water to two stormwater bioretention filtration units, where it is then conveyed to the infiltration bed. Summary of Existing Regional BMPs The existing regional BMPs, including their location, analysis region, model inputs, and expected performance, are summarized in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12 below. Wylie Sump and its tributary area were excluded from the RAA analysis because it is an 85th percentile capture project and also does not produce outflow and would therefore have no impact on the TLR or contribute any loads. The Wylie Sump receives runoff from 38 acres of the City of Manhattan Beach, 20 acres of Hermosa Beach, and 73 acres of Redondo Beach. There are no other 85th percentile capture projects in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-56 | Page 2015 Table 2-11. Parameters and Performance for Existing Regional BMPs Modeled as Infiltration Basins Location of BMP Analysis Region Project Name Model Inputs Expected Performance (load reduction as a % of analysis region baseline load) Treatment Volume (cu-ft) Design Storm (in) Average Depth (ft) Diversion Rate (cfs) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Manhattan Beach SMB-5-03/ SMB-5-04 Manhattan Beach Green Belt Infiltration - 0.45 2.6 6.7 2.1 4.7% SMB5-02 1.1% Hermosa Beach SMB-5-05 Pier Avenue Improvement Project infiltration systems - 0.21 2.6 11 0.77 2.3% Hermosa Beach SMB-5-03/ SMB-5-04 Hermosa Strand Infiltration Trench 1,400 - - 2.9 0.56 0.5% SMB-5-04/ SMB-5-05 1.9% SMB-5-05/ SMB-6-01 2.0% SMB5-04 1.4% SMB5-05 0.9% SMB6-01 0.2% Torrance SMB-6-01 Entradero Detention Basin Enhancement 88,860 - 2.0 16 1.3 2.6% Henrietta Detention Basin Enhancement 383,000 - 12.0 54 2.1 4.6% Redondo Beach SMB-6-02 Alta Vista Park Diversion and Re-Use Project - 0.30 3.0 4.5 0.18 3.8% Redondo Beach SMB-6-03 Sapphire St Infiltration BMP - 0.10 1.5 11 0.74 9.5% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-57 | Page 2015 Table 2-12. Parameters and Performance for Existing Regional BMPs Modeled as Wet Ponds with Extended Detention Location of BMP Analysis Region Project Name Model Assumptions Expected Performance (load reduction as a % of analysis region baseline load) Volume (cu-ft) Surcharge Depth (ft) Surcharge Drawdown Time (hr) Permanent Pool Volume (cu-ft) Permanent Pool Depth (ft) Diversion Flowrate (cfs) Torrance SMB-6-01 Amie Detention Basin Post Enhancement 5,600,000 45 160 99,750 5 46 8.8% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-58 | Page 2015 Proposed Regional BMPs Analysis Region SMB-5-02 Regional BMP Parameters and Criteria One regional BMP (Alternative 1) is being proposed and was modeled within analysis region SMB-5-02 (Figure 2-14) — Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench Project (see Table 2-13). The Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench site is proposed along a public beach adjacent to a walking/bike path and consists of recreational open space. The project has an approximate infiltration footprint of 2.2 acres and drainage area of 1,600 acres. The storage volume of the project was estimated as 4.6 acre-feet, with an estimated drawdown time of 72 hours. An alternative design (Alternative 2) is for a beach infiltration trench at 80% of Alternative 1 in combination with an infiltration-based BMP at Polliwog Park, which would achieve approximately 10% of the target load reduction needed for analysis region SMB-5-02 and could potentially offset 20% of the required storage capacity of the Manhattan Beach Infiltration Project (Figure 2-14). In other words, the load reduction of Polliwog Park infiltration is equivalent to that of Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench at 20% of its full Alternative 1 treatment volume. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-59 | Page 2015 Figure 2-14. Proposed Regional Projects, Analysis Region SMB-5-02 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-60 | Page 2015 Analysis Region SMB-6-01 Regional BMP Parameters and Criteria Three regional BMPs (and one potential alternative) are proposed within Analysis Region SMB-6- 01, as described below, and depicted in Figure 2-15. Park #3. The Park #3 Project was identified as a potentially suitable site for several different BMP types, including infiltration, wetlands, or a detention basin. Park #3 is located northwest of Blossom Ln. and 190th St, and has an approximately footprint of 0.4 acres and drainage area of 1,430 acres. The storage volume of the project was estimated as 87,000 cubic feet. Diversion flowrate was assumed to be 0.015% of the volume for preliminary planning purposes. Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Project. The Greenbelt site in Hermosa Beach was identified as a potentially suitable site for several different BMP types, including infiltration, wetlands, or a detention basin. The Greenbelt is situated between Valley Dr. and Ardmore Ave. and has a potential footprint of 1.5 ac and an approximate tributary area of 1,800 acres. The project storage volume is a function of its footprint. The diversion flowrate was assumed to be 0.015% of the volume for preliminary planning purposes. Powerline Easement. A potential alternative location to the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Project facility is located south of Herondo Street between N. Francisca Ave. and N. Catalina Ave., within a powerline easement.18 Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench. The Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench project has a tributary area of 2000 acres. The project may be designed to reduce downstream water volumes and facilitate compliance with the dry-and wet-weather WLAs allotted in the SMBBB TMDL at the SMB-6-01 CML. If upstream projects (e.g., LID projects) and other City activities are implemented, TMDL compliance may be able to be achieved under reduced design requirements. 18 If this proposed design is to be developed within the powerline easements, certain considerations should be made. 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. Access road clearance should also be maintained and basin depth must be considered for safety and illegal dumping purposes. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-61 | Page 2015 Figure 2-15. Proposed Regional Projects, Analysis Region SMB-6-01 Summary of Proposed Regional BMPs Four regional BMPs are proposed in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. None of these projects could be feasibly sized to meet the 85th percentile design criteria. Proposed regional BMPs, including their location, analysis region, project name, model inputs, and expected performance, are summarized in Table 2-13. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-62 | Page 2015 Table 2-13. Parameters and Performance for Proposed Regional BMPs Modeled as Infiltration Basins Analysis Region Location of BMP Project Name Model Assumptions Expected Performance (load reduction as a % of analysis region baseline load) Treatment Volume (cu-ft) Design Storm (in) Average Depth (ft) Diversion Rate (cfs) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) SMB-5-02 Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench, Alt 1198,000 - 2.1 160 13 36.5% Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench, Alt 2158,400* - 2.1 160 13 32.1%1 Polliwog Park Infiltration, Alt 2 148,000 - 4.0 11 0.7 4.4% SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration 319,000 - 5.0 48 12 15.1% Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench 13,300 - 1.70 25 13 0.4% Redondo Beach Park #3 BMP Project 87,100 - 5.00 410 1.0 1.3% 1 The treatment volume of Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench in Alternative 2 is set at 80% of the Alternative 1 volume so that load reductions achieved by BMP configurations in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are identical. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-63 | Page 2015 Existing Distributed BMPs In 2008-09, the City of Hermosa Beach retrofitted the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 27th and 35th Streets with a series of seven filter/infiltration boxes to intercept, filter, and infiltrate low flows conveyed down side streets from the areas east of Hermosa Avenue prior to entry into catch basin inlets on Hermosa Avenue. The infiltration boxes were modeled in the RAA analysis as two bioretention systems due to their infiltration capabilities and combined into two systems (System A and System B) — one system per analysis region SMB-5-04 and SMB-5-03/SMB-5-04, respectively. The City of Manhattan Beach also replaced several downtown asphalt parking lots with pervious concrete. See Table 2-14 and Figure 2-13 for design assumptions and BMP locations. Proposed Distributed BMPs Proposed distributed BMPs, including green streets, were modeled by assuming that stormwater runoff from high priority land use areas can be treated in the right-of-way, and 50%-50% use of biofilters and bioretention. Biofilters (also known as bioretention with underdrains) were sized to 150% of the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm (0.3 in/hr) because they do not retain on site (they are flow-through systems), while bioretention units were sized to 100% of the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm depth, calculated as the mean for each analysis region. Biofilters were modeled using bioswale volume reduction and bioretention effluent EMCs. Default modeling assumptions included longitudinal slopes of 0.03 ft/ft, Manning’s n of 0.25, hydraulic residence time of 10 min, and water quality flow depth of 4 in. Distributed green streets were implemented at similar rates (as a percentage of land use area) in residential and commercial land uses. Distributed BMPs were applied at levels unique to each analysis region, iteratively determined based on compliance with TLRs, after accounting for load reductions attributable to nonstructural and regional BMPs. They were applied by assuming treatment of stormwater from analysis region-specified percentages of single family, multi-family, and commercial land use areas, until TLRs are met. These land use and BMP type combinations were chosen based on their ability to result in maximum bacteria load reduction. In order to minimize redundancy of BMP coverage and avoid double-counting BMP benefits, distributed BMPs were not applied in the drainage area footprints of existing regional BMPs. However, they were modeled in the drainage area of proposed BMPs, as long as both were included in the same model run to avoid double counting. Performance of existing and proposed distributed BMPs are shown in Table 2-15. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-64 | Page 2015 Table 2-14. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMPs Implementation Level Analysis Region(s) BMP Type Design Storm Longitudinal Slope (ft/ft) Manning n Hydraulic Residence Time (min) Water Quality Flow Depth (in) Effective Retention Depth (in)Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Existing Manhattan Beach Porous Paving Project – El Porto Lot SMB-5-01 Porous Pavement Removal of existing asphalt and replacement with 10 inches of porous concrete Existing Distributed Green Streets BMPs (2003-2015)1 SMB-5-04 (System A) Bioretention0.038 - - - - 35 10 SMB-5-03/SMB-5-04 (System B) Bioretention0.026 - - - - 35 10 Proposed Distributed Green Street BMPs (2015-2021) MFR and COM/SFR land uses in BCSump, SMB-5-02, and SMB-6-01 Biofilters2 0.3 in/hr 0.03 0.25 10 4 2 Based on analysis region-specific soil type BioretentionVaries by analysis region (0.77 to 0.82 in) - - - - 12 0.15 1 In 2008-09 the City of Hermosa Beach retrofit the east side of Hermosa Avenue with a series of seven (7) filter/infiltration boxes to intercept, filter, and infiltrate low flows conveyed down side streets from the areas east of Hermosa Avenue prior to entry into catch basin inlets on Hermosa Avenue. The infiltration boxes were modeled as two bioretention systems due to their infiltration capabilities and combined into two systems (System A and System B) — one system per defined subcatchment. 2Modeled as a bioswale using bioretention EMCs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-65 | Page 2015 Table 2-15. Existing and Proposed Distributed BMP Performance Analysis Region Implementation Level Status Estimated load reduction (as % of analysis region baseline load) SMB-5-04 N/A - Existing Existing 1% SMB-5-03/ SMB-5-04 N/A - Existing Existing 0.1% SMB-5-02 5% on MFR/COM/SFR land uses Proposed 3% SMB-6-01+BCSump1 25% on MFR/COM/SFR land uses Proposed 2% 1 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). 2.7 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS RESULTS 2.7.1 WET WEATHER Quantitative analyses were conducted for each analysis region separately and are summarized below. Average BMP load reduction results for each analysis region are presented in Table 2-16 below. The values provided correspond to the fecal coliform load reductions attributable to the BMP types at both the interim (2018) and final (2021) TMDL compliance deadlines. As shown, the TLRs were met in all analysis regions as a result of varying levels of implementation of non- structural and regional BMPs as described previously. The interim 50% TLR is met through a combination of nonstructural and existing regional BMPs. It should be noted that if at any time specific distributed green streets or regional/centralized BMPs are found to be infeasible for implementation, alternative BMPs or operational changes will be planned within the same subwatershed and within the same timeline, to meet an equivalent subwatershed load reduction, unless the TLRs or compliance schedules are modified. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-66 | Page 2015 Table 2-16. Santa Monica Bay Watershed – Fecal Coliform RAA Results – Interim and Final Compliance Analysis Region Implementation Benefits (average load reduction as % of baseline load for critical year)TLR Compliance (TLR Met)? Non-Structural BMPs (Non-Modeled) Public Retrofit Incentives + RedevelopmentNon-MS4 Regional BMPs Distributed BMPs Distributed BMP Implementation Level Estimated Load ReductionSMB-5-01 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-O-06 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-5-02 5% 4% 2% 36% 3% 5% MFR/COM/SFR 50% 46% Yes SMB-5-02/5-03 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% N/A8% 0%YesSMB-5-03 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% N/A8% 0%YesSMB-5-03/5-04 5% 4% 0% 5% 0% N/A15% 0%YesSMB-5-04 5% 5% 0% 1% 1%2N/A12% 0%YesSMB-5-04/5-05 5% 4% 0% 2% 0% N/A11% 0%YesSMB-5-05 5% 4% 5% 3% 0% N/A18% 0%YesSMB-5-05/6-01 5% 3% 0% 2% 0% N/A10% 0%YesSMB-6-01+ BCSump1 5% 3% 3% 33% 2% 25% MFR/COM/SFR 46% 45% Yes SMB-6-01/6-02 5% 2% 4% 0% 0% N/A11% 0%YesSMB-6-02 5% 3% 1% 4% 0% N/A13% 0%YesSMB-6-03 5% 3% 5% 10% 0% N/A23% 0%YesSMB-6-04 5% 4% 3% 0% 0% N/A12% 0%YesSMB-6-05 5% 3% 6% 0% 0% N/A15% 0%YesSMB-O-08 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A7% 0%YesSMB-6-06 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% N/A10% 0%YesFinal Compliance Deadline (2021) 5% 3% 3% 21% 1% N/A 33% 26% Yes Interim Compliance Deadline (2018)3 2.5% 0.8% 1.5% 9.6% 0% N/A 14.4% 13% Yes 1 “BCSump” was defined as a separate analysis region for modeling purposes. The baseline load for “BCSump” analysis region was combined with the baseline load of the “SMB-6-01” analysis region to equal the total baseline load contributing to the SMB-6-01 CML (“SMB-6-01+BCSump”). 2 Distributed green street BMP load reduction in SMB-5-04 is a result of the existing filter/infiltration boxes retrofitted on the east side of Hermosa Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach. 3 The total interim load reduction is the sum of the load reductions calculated for each analysis region by 2018. The TLR is met through a combination of nonstructural and existing regional BMPs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-67 | Page 2015 Time Series Output Electronic input and output SWMM files and Excel summary spreadsheets will be provided to the LARWQCB upon submittal of this Draft EWMP Consistency with LARWQCB Guidance The approaches described above, including model selection, data inputs, critical condition selection (90th percentile year), calibration performance criteria, and output types were selected for consistency with the LARWQCB RAA Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014). 2.7.2 DRY WEATHER For dry weather bacteria compliance, a qualitative analysis was conducted to show compliance at each of the CMLs. Table 2-17 outlines the results of this analysis. Many CMLs have an effective diversion19 such that they are consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the surf zone during year-round dry weather days. For the remaining smaller outfalls a systematic screening conducted in 2002 demonstrated that there was no discharge to the wave wash during summer dry weather from these storm drains. Rescreening of outfalls will be conducted as part of the Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring in the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program and will include both summer dry weather and winter dry weather screening. For the CMLs in the SMB Watershed that have anti-degradation based allowed exceedance days for both winter-dry and summer-dry weather, reasonable assurance is assumed to be demonstrated through the basis that the TMDL established their allowed exceedance days based on historic conditions (i.e., no water quality improvements were necessary). If following dry weather outfall re-screening, dry weather reasonable assurance has not been demonstrated by the evaluation criteria shown in Table 2-17, the Beach Cities EWMP Group’s compliance approach is consistent with the Permit requirement to eliminate 100 percent of non- exempt dry weather MS4 discharges. The Group’s implementation approach for achieving this is to use a suite of non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced illicit discharge detection and elimination [IDDE] efforts, and enhanced education/outreach and inspection/enforcement to prevent non-exempt sources of stormwater flow) and source investigations. By eliminating flows, this is equivalent to 100 percent load reduction for all pollutants, thereby demonstrating reasonable assurance of meeting all applicable TMDL limits and water quality objectives in the Permit during dry weather. Elimination of discharges is a pathway for compliance with RWLs and WQBELs in the MS4 Permit (per Section VI.E.2.e.i.(3)); without discharges there can be no “cause or contribute” to receiving water issues. Since the dry weather compliance deadlines for the SMBBB TMDL have passed, this analysis is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended to support or justify a new 19 The seven existing low flow diversions include Polliwog Park, SMB 5-2 (28th Street), SMB 5-3 (Manhattan Beach Boulevard), SMB 5-5 (south of Pier Avenue), SMB 6-1 (Herondo Street), SMB 6-3 (Sapphire Street), and SMB 6-5 (Avenue I). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-68 | Page 2015 compliance schedule, additional non-structural or structural BMPs, or an evaluation of whether any newly proposed BMPs will provide a dry weather benefit. Table 2-17. Dry Weather RAA Evaluation of Santa Monica Bay Watershed CMLs CML Effective Diversion/Disinfection at Analysis Region Outlet? WMG MS4 Outfall Absent? NSW MS4 Discharges Absent? Reasonable Assurance Demonstrated? SMB-5-01 No Yes To be determined pending results of non-stormwater screening Yes SMB-5-02 Yes No Yes SMB-5-03 Yes Yes Yes SMB-5-04 No No TBD SMB-5-05 Yes No Yes SMB-6-01 Yes No Yes BCSump Yes No Yes SMB-6-02 Yes No Yes SMB-6-03 Yes No Yes SMB-6-04 No No TBD SMB-6-05 Yes No Yes SMB-6-06 No No TBD 2.8 MULTIPLE BENEFITS Not only is reasonable assurance demonstrated for the water quality objectives, but some of the proposed projects also provide multiple benefits beyond pollutant load reduction. Such benefits are described below. 2.8.1 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENING Increased green space can positively impact the aesthetics, and even the property value, of highly urbanized areas. Property value tends to increase when an urban neighborhood has green space or trees in sight (Center for Neighborhood Technology [CNT], 2010). Green infrastructure and green space can also alleviate urban heat-island effects by reducing temperatures by about 5oF through shade and evaporation (CNT, 2010). Urban heat-island effects describe the process by which urbanized regions become warmer than their rural surroundings due to an increase in black top and hardscape surfaces, an increase in vehicular and industrial emissions, and a reduction in shade and green space. Reduced temperatures will in turn reduce both energy consumption needs and the heat and pollution-related risks to human health (CNT, 2010). 2.8.2 WATER CONSERVATION/SUPPLY Stormwater retained in the regional structural BMPs can be reused for irrigation and other on- site, non-potable uses, thus promoting water conservation and offsetting reliance on the potable water supply. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 2 | Santa Monica Bay Watershed 2-69 | Page 2015 2.8.3 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Stormwater capture may increase groundwater supplies in cases where BMPs are designed for water supply augmentation and captured stormwater is recharged to groundwater basins that are used as drinking water sources. Green infrastructure allows captured runoff to infiltrate to useable groundwater basin storage, thereby reducing contaminated stormwater runoff, lower peak flood elevations, and lessening the erosive potential of surface water flow, and in coastal areas may protect subsurface infrastructure from saline intrusion associated with sea level rise. 2.8.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION/AWARENESS Public education and outreach engages the public’s interest in preventing stormwater pollution and is achieved most effectively through an understanding of the varying levels of public background knowledge about stormwater management and pollution prevention (USEPA, 2014). Public outreach is a major facet of the public retrofit incentives element of the RAA approach, which is directed at incentivizing the public to decrease the amount of stormwater runoff from their property, specifically via downspout disconnects. Outreach for this incentive may occur in the form of direct conversations, a variety of media, and/or short training courses, for example. Structural BMPs proposed in the EWMP will also serve as public education opportunities in the form of on-site educational materials, such as signage posted at construction and completed sites. 2.9 PARALLEL COMPLIANCE EFFORTS During the remaining compliance period, the Beach Cities WMG may also elect to perform special studies to evaluate the SMBBB dry and wet weather WLAs. Various pathways are available to reopen the TMDL and modify the WLAs, including use of microbial source tracking to support a natural source exclusion, and quantitative microbial risk assessment to develop site specific objectives as allowed by the recent USEPA recreational criteria update. Furthermore, TMDL WLA changes are anticipated if the pending statewide bacteria objectives are adopted. The proposed changes for marine water include removal of the total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal-to-total coliform ratio objectives, changing the enterococcus single sample maximum of 104 MPN/100ML to a statistical threshold value (10% allowed exceedances in a 30 day period) of 110 MPN/100mL, and other clarification and implementation guidance. Through the adaptive management process, the RAA may be reevaluated after any changes to the statewide objectives, TMDL WLAs, and/or Permit limits. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-1 | Page 2015 3 DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED 3.1 BACKGROUND 3.1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT The northeastern portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area is tributary to Dominguez Channel20 (including Torrance Carson Channel) and is comprised of approximately 7,380 acres of land (Figure 3-1), the majority of which is comprised of residential land uses (Figure 3-2). This watershed accounts for 48% 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 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 Watershed. 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 G. Table 3-1 provides a breakdown of the Beach Cities EWMP Area by city and tributary watershed. This section of the EWMP focuses on the Dominguez Channel Watershed only. Table 3-1. Beach Cities WMG Area Distribution by Participating Agency Participating Agency Area (acres) Santa Monica Bay Watershed Dominguez Channel Watershed Total EWMP Area (% of total) City of Redondo Beach 2,614 1,217 3,831 (25%) City of Manhattan Beach 2,078 350 2,428 (16%) City of Hermosa Beach 832 - 832 (5%) City of Torrance 2,314 5,812 8,126 (53%) Total 7,837 7,379 15,217 (100%) 20 Other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed, including Los Angeles County Unincorporated areas, are addressed by separate EWMP groups. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-2 | Page 2015 Figure 3-1. Beach Cities WMG MS4 Infrastructure within the Dominguez Channel Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-3 | Page 2015 Figure 3-2. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Dominguez Channel Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-4 | Page 2015 3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES As part of the EWMP, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their EWMP AREA. To accomplish this per Permit Section VI.C.5.a, the Beach Cities WMG conducted the following for the Dominguez Channel watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area: 1. Characterize the water quality of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water bodies; 2. Prioritize WBPCs; and 3. Assess sources for high priority water body. A summary of results is provided below. 3.2.1 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the Basin Plan (LARWQCB, 1995, updated 2011) 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 WMG Area are defined in Section 2.2.1 and summarized in Table 3-2 below. Table 3-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses Water Body MUN IND NAV REC1 REC2 HFS COMM WARM 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 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-5 | Page 2015 3.2.2 WATER BODY-POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION Receiving waters for stormwater runoff 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 Section VI.C.5(a).ii of the Permit, and further detailed in Section 2.2.2 herein. Figure 2-3 in Section 2.2.2 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 in Part VI.E and Attachments L through R of [the Permit].” These WBPCs include: • Dominguez Channel 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 (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 will not be modeled for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral as part of the RAA due to the fact that there is currently a lack of evidence supporting a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of toxicity. Toxicity will continue to be monitored under the Beach Cities’ CIMP. 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, 2004) 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 WBPCWBPC based on the 303(d) listing for indicator bacteria. • Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for ammonia. In conformance with Permit requirements, this qualifies as a Category 2 WBPCWBPC based on the 303(d) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-6 | Page 2015 listing for ammonia. However, monitoring data since 2003 show that all water quality samples at S28 and TS19 meet the freshwater Basin Plan Objective for ammonia. As a result, ammonia will not be modeled as part of the Beach Cities’ RAA. Monitoring for ammonia will occur under the CIMP. If future monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to ammonia exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised accordingly. 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. The annual monitoring reports published by LACDPW list exceedances of each sampled constituent relative to various water quality criteria, including Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) and California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria.21 Raw data from S28 and TS19 have been reevaluated. Aside from the constituents described previously, measured exceedances at S28 and TS19 are summarized in Table 3-3. A single exceedance of the Department of Fish and Game’s chronic criterion for chlorpyrifos (0.05 mg/L) occurred in October 2005 at S28. This exceedance occurred prior to EPA’s December 31, 2005 chlorpyrifos ban. Since this time, 85 total samples from S28 and TS19 have been analyzed for chlorpyrifos and no exceedances have been recorded. Table 3-3. LACDPW Monitoring Results Summary Pollutant Dominguez Channel Mass Emission Station (S28) Torrance Lateral Tributary Station (TS19) Water Quality Criteria (Source) No. of Samples No. of Exceedances % Exceed No. of Samples No. of Exceedances % Exceed Cyanide 61 24 39% 25 8 32% 5.2 ug/L (CTR continuous concentration) pH 66 13 20% 26 11 42% 6.5 – 8.5 (BPO) Selenium 66 3 5% 26 2 8% 5.0 ug/L (CTR continuous concentration) 21 Because of some additional water quality criteria used to evaluate exceedances in the County’s annual monitoring reports (e.g., applying Ocean Plan Objectives to freshwater bodies; applying MUN-specific BPOs to potential-MUN-designated water bodies), exceedances were over-reported. As a result, pollutants evaluated as part of this appendix were limited to those pollutants which had at least one reported exceedance since 2003. For pollutants with a reported exceedance since 2003, all historic water quality data from that time forward was evaluated against appropriate water quality criteria. For pollutants with no reported exceedances, it was assumed that LACDPW’s exceedance analyses were accurate. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-7 | Page 2015 Pollutant Dominguez Channel Mass Emission Station (S28) Torrance Lateral Tributary Station (TS19) Water Quality Criteria (Source) No. of Samples No. of Exceedances % Exceed No. of Samples No. of Exceedances % Exceed Mercury 66 5 8% 26 3 12% 0.051 ug/L (CTR human health criterion, organisms only) Dissolved Oxygena 60 1 2% 25 0 0% 5.0 mg/L (BPO) Cadmium 66 3 5% 26 1 4% 2.2 ug/L (CTR continuous concentration) Although data are not currently available to evaluate a linkage between Beach Cities WMG MS4 discharges and these receiving water exceedances, the following WBPCs are considered Category 3 based on the receiving water exceedances described above: • Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for cyanide, due to exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration criterion for cyanide summarized in Table 3-3. Cyanide will not be modeled for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral due to the fact that there is currently a lack of evidence supporting a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of cyanide. Cyanide will continue to be monitored under the Beach Cities’ CIMP. • Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for pH, due to exceedances of the Basin Plan Objective for pH summarized in Table 3-3. However, due to the fact that there is currently no evidence supporting a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of the pH criteria, pH will not be modeled as part of the Beach Cities’ RAA. Monitoring for pH will occur under the CIMP. If future monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to pH exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised accordingly. • Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for selenium, due to exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration criterion for selenium summarized in Table 3-3. However, due to the fact that there is currently no evidence supporting a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of selenium22, selenium will not be addressed in the Beach Cities’ RAA. Monitoring for selenium will occur under the CIMP. If future monitoring data 22 Water quality results from urban runoff throughout Southern California show average selenium concentrations to be well below the referenced CTR criterion of 5 ug/L. A 2003 study by SCCWRP examined selenium concentrations in runoff from five different developed land uses types. Findings showed that even 90th percentile concentrations for each land use were all below the 5 ug/L threshold, with the largest 90th percentile concentration being 2.9 ug/L from agricultural land (Ackerman and Schiff, 2003). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-8 | Page 2015 suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to selenium exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised accordingly. • Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for mercury, due to exceedances of the CTR human health criterion for mercury summarized in Table 3-3. Mercury will not be modeled for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral as part of the RAA due to the fact that there is currently a lack of evidence supporting a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of mercury. Mercury will continue to be monitored under the Beach Cities’ CIMP. If future monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to mercury exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised accordingly. • Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for cadmium, due to exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration criterion for cadmium summarized in Table 3-3. Cadmium will not be modeled for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral as part of the RAA due to the fact that there is currently a lack of evidence supporting a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of cadmium. Cadmium will continue to be monitored under the Beach Cities’ CIMP. If future monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities’ MS4s may cause or contribute to cadmium exceedances in the receiving water, the EWMP will be revised accordingly. Table 3-4 summarizes the prioritized WBPCs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Table 3-4. Water Body-Pollutant Prioritization for the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area Category Water Body Pollutant Reason/Justification 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral)1 Toxicity Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Copper Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Lead Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Total Zinc Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Indicator Bacteria 303(d) List 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) Cyanide Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (5.2 ug/L) pH Historic exceedance of the water quality objective (6.5 – 8.5) Selenium Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (5.0 ug/L) Mercury Historic exceedances of the CTR human health criterion for organisms only (0.051 ug/L) Cadmium Historic exceedances of the CTR continuous concentration water quality objective (2.2 ug/L) 1 Wet weather only, based on the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-9 | Page 2015 The Beach Cities WMG agencies understand that data collected as part of their approved CIMP may result in future Category 3 designations in instances when RWLs are exceeded and MS4 discharges are identified as contributing to such exceedances. Under these conditions, the Beach Cities WMG agencies will adhere to Section VI.C.2.a.iii of the Permit. Sections VI.C.2 and VI.C.3 of the Permit describe how compliance with RWLs and WQBELs is attained for the prioritized WBPCs identified. Appendix H sets forth the EWMP framework for evaluating and addressing receiving water exceedances and a brief summary is included below. Different actions are required to demonstrate compliance for different types of WBPCs. Specifically; the following classifications are addressed by the Permit: • WBPCs Addressed by a TMDL; • 303(d)-listed WBPCs: Pollutants in the same class as those identified in a TMDL and for which the water body is 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.i), and pollutants not in the same class as those identified in a TMDL, but for which the water body is 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.ii); and • Non 303(d)-listed WBPCs: Pollutants for which there are exceedances of RWLs, but for which the water body is not 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.iii). For WBPCs already addressed by a TMDL, adherence to all requirements and compliance dates as set forth in the approved EWMP will constitute compliance with applicable interim TMDL-based water quality based effluent limits and interim receiving water limits. 303(d)-listed WBPCs are equivalent to the identified Category 2 combinations. For any Category 2 and 3 WBPCs that are identified in the future through the adaptive management process, adherence to all implementation actions, milestones, and compliance schedules identified in the updated EWMP will constitute compliance with applicable receiving water limits. This approach is outlined in Appendix H. 3.2.3 SOURCE 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; • 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 TMDL compliance monitoring and receiving water monitoring; and • Any other pertinent data, information, or studies related to pollutant sources and conditions that contribute to the highest water quality priorities. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-10 | Page 2015 Since sources of pollutants for the various water bodies within the Beach Cities WMG Area are essentially identical based on similarity of land uses (e.g., sources of trash within SMB Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed are believed to be the same), the following source assessment is broken down by pollutants applicable to the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Copper, Lead, and Zinc 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. 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). 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 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-11 | Page 2015 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. 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, right-of-ways), 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 direct discharges of these chemicals to Dominguez Channel, SMB, and other local surface water bodies, except from legacy sources. Additional sources of toxicity within the Dominguez Channel Watershed are unknown at this time. Therefore, toxicity monitoring will be conducted under the Beach Cities CIMP to help assess if MS4 discharges are causing or contributing toxicity exceedances in Dominguez Channel. In addition, a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) will be performed as necessary to identify the compound(s) responsible for any observed toxicity. Indicator Bacteria Although the Dominguez Channel is 303(d) listed for indicator bacteria, a bacteria TMDL has not yet been developed for the watershed. The source assessment for indicator bacteria within the Santa Monica Bay watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area is provided in Section 2.2.3, and many of these urban anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources apply to the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area as well. Additional local monitoring data will be needed to quantify the contribution of MS4 discharges – particularly relative to the many other identified non-anthropogenic sources that have been documented. Additional data are also needed to identify the sources of bacteria within MS4 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-12 | Page 2015 discharges as well as their potential to contribute to recreational illness risks; such source tracking data have the potential to affect the TMDL WLAs through a future reopener. For example, if human fecal sources are found to be undetected in MS4 discharges to Dominguez Channel using a rigorous sampling design, the latest analytical markers, and a credible laboratory, then TMDL revisions may be proposed. And the combination of MS4 outfall monitoring (through the CIMP) and source identification (through special studies) will be essential to support future BMP planning and EWMP updates. 3.2.4 PRIORITIZATION Based on the water quality characterization above, the WBPCs have been classified into one of three categories, in accordance with Section IV.C.5(a)ii of the Permit: highest priority, high priority, and medium priority (Table 3-4). 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 and 2. WBPCs will be further prioritized based on the applicable compliance schedules, as discussed in Section 4. 3.3 SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 3.3.1 OBJECTIVES 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. 3.3.2 DEFINITION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES See Section 2.3.2. 3.3.3 INCORPORATED PROVISIONS Minimum Control Measures See Section 2.3.3. Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-13 | Page 2015 See Section 2.3.3. TMDL-Specific Control Measures See Section 2.3.3. Additional BMPs See Section 2.3.3. Demonstration of BMP Performance – Introduction to the Reasonable Assurance Analysis See Section 2.3.3. Legal Authority The Permit-required legal authority that the Beach Cities WMG has to implement the BMPs identified in the EWMP is discussed in Section 8. 3.4 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS APPROACH The general approach used for Dominguez Channel is described below with references to relevant portions of Section 2 where the approaches or data used in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed are similar (e.g., for calculating bacteria TLRs). 3.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF MODELING TOOLS AND APPROACH The approaches for performing the RAA in both dry and wet weather are described below. Dry Weather For the purposes of the dry weather RAA, the EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel was combined into a single analysis region, for which bacteria are the only WBPC. The Beach Cities WMG dry weather compliance approach for Dominguez Channel is to eliminate non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges using a suite of non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced IDDE efforts, and enhanced education/outreach and inspection/enforcement to prevent sources of non-stormwater flow), source investigations following dry weather outfall screening, and structural BMPs that are primarily designed to support wet weather reasonable assurance demonstration. If monitoring shows that this combination of nonstructural and structural BMPs does not eliminate non-exempt dry weather flows, additional measures such as low flow diversion to sanitary sewers will be constructed as necessary so that dry weather flows are eliminated. By eliminating dry weather flows, this is equivalent to 100% load reduction for all pollutants, thereby demonstrating reasonable assurance of meeting all applicable Permit limitations during dry weather. Elimination of discharges is a pathway for compliance with RWLs and WQBELs in the MS4 permit (per section VI.E.2.e.i.(3)); without discharges there can be no “cause or contribute” to receiving water issues. Wet Weather DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-14 | Page 2015 The modeled wet-weather RAA applied in the Dominguez Channel watershed consists generally of the following steps: • Identify WBPCs for which the RAA will be performed; • Identify the MS4 service area (exclude lands of agencies not party to this EWMP such as Federal land, State land, etc.); • For each analysis region, develop TLRs for the critical condition; • Identify structural and non-structural BMPs that were either implemented after applicable TMDL effective dates or are planned for implementation in the future; • Evaluate the performance of these BMPs in terms of annual pollutant load reductions; • Compare these estimates with the TLRs; and • Revise the BMP implementation scenario until TLRs are met. For the purposes of the wet weather RAA, the EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel was combined into a single analysis region to establish TLRs and into two analysis regions, one including the portion of the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach (Dominguez Channel – Redondo Beach/Manhattan Beach [DC-RB/MB]) and one including the portion of the City of Torrance (DC – Torrance), to evaluate the performance of BMPs. The Dominguez Channel watershed analysis regions are shown in Figure 3-3. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-15 | Page 2015 Figure 3-3. Analysis Regions within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-16 | Page 2015 In general, the approach, including model selection, data inputs, critical condition selection (90th percentile year for bacteria and 90th percentile load day for metals), calibration performance criteria, and output types have been selected for consistency with the LARWQCB RAA Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014) and to leverage previous efforts where relevant models have already been developed. Previous efforts include the development of a Loading Simulation Program C++ (LSPC) model for the LACFCD in connection with Watershed Management Modeling System (WMMS). LSPC is a publically available watershed model that was developed for the LACFCD in connection with WMMS. This model uses Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) algorithms to simulate hydrology, sediment transport, water quality on land, and fate and transport within streams. GIS is used for the spatial component of the analysis in addition to visualization. The LSPC model used for the RAA was recently calibrated by CWE to stream gauge S28 which receives runoff from almost all of the Dominguez Channel Watershed. To leverage these previous calibration efforts, the portion of the LSPC model within the Dominguez Channel watershed EWMP Area was used to calibrate SBPAT’s hydrology. SBPAT was used to establish all TLRs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. SBPAT was also used to perform the RAA for the portion of the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach within the Dominguez Channel watershed. The RAA for the portion of the City of Torrance within the Dominguez Channel watershed was performed using SWMM to determine baseline loading and static spreadsheet-based calculations based on a literature review to estimate load reductions from the proposed BMPs. The SWMM model used for baseline loading was calibrated using the recently calibrated LSPC model. Table 3-5 below summarizes the TLR and RAA models used across the Dominguez Channel watershed for this EWMP. These models are discussed in more detail below. Table 3-5. RAA Models Used in the Dominguez Channel Watershed City Model Selection Set Target Load Reduction Perform RAA Calibration Data Source Manhattan Beach SBPAT SBPAT Recently calibrated LSPC model Redondo Beach SBPAT SBPAT Recently calibrated LSPC model Torrance SBPAT SWMM for baseline/static spreadsheet-based calculations for load reductions Recently calibrated LSPC model As in the Santa Monica Bay watershed, the Beach Cities RAA was conducted within the Dominguez Channel watershed to demonstrate reasonable assurance of compliance with Permit specified TMDL RWLs and WQBELs, as well as other RWLs and water quality objectives for non-TMDL WBPCs. In instances where critical conditions were not explicitly defined in the Permit (e.g., a critical condition of “wet weather” without an associated rainfall or flow-based criterion), steps were taken to establish a link between the expressed Permit limit and the modeled pollutant concentrations and loads (i.e., rainfall, runoff, and pollutant concentrations in the runoff). Table 3-6 summarizes these steps for the modeled WBPC in the Dominguez Channel watershed with a DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-17 | Page 2015 Permit-established limit. Because no evidence currently exists to support a linkage between ongoing MS4 discharges and exceedances of toxicity, mercury, cadmium, cyanide, selenium, or pH in Dominguez Channel, these pollutants were not modeled as part of this analysis. Table 3-6. Wet Weather Permit Limits (Final Compliance Limits for Modeled Pollutants) Pollutant RWL/WQBEL from the Permit or Assumed Based on Other Similar Los Angeles Region TMDLs Approach for Applying the Critical Period Fecal Coliform 19% allowed exceedance of the REC- 1 water quality objective, (400 MPN/100mL) on non-high flow suspension days2. 90th percentile year (based on wet days1) was used as the critical condition. Allowable number of wet weather exceedance days for the critical year was set to % of non-high flow suspension wet days, rounding down. Total Copper WQBEL= 9.7 ug/L *Daily Volume3 90th percentile daily load during wet weather was used as the critical condition. This calendar day was identified for each metal by ranking daily metal loads for wet days1 between 2003 and 2012. Total Lead WQBEL= 42.7 ug/L *Daily Volume3 Total Zinc WQBEL= 69.7 ug/L *Daily Volume3 1 For bacteria, wet days were defined as days with 0.1” or greater of rainfall plus the next three days. For metals, the TMDL defines wet weather as days in which the maximum daily flow at the S-28 gauge on Dominguez Channel is 63 cfs or greater; for the purpose of this RAA, this was assumed to equate to days in which the SBPAT model (which responds to rainfall events greater than 0.1”, had a non-zero flow). 2 High Flow Suspension days are defined based on the criteria used in bacteria TMDLs in the region in which days in which 0.5” or greater of rainfall occurs, and the day following such an event, are both high flow suspension days. 3 The MS4 permit provides both the concentration-based effluent limitations above as well as load based limitations on page N-6 which come from the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. The load-based limitations are based on multiplying the metal concentration-based limitations by the runoff volume on the 90th percentile day. However, the TMDL does not provide quantitative load-based effluent limitations, but instead states that the WLAs are the water quality effluent target multiplied by the daily flow volume. The MS4 permit states that the load-based limitations can be recalculated based on the flow volume at the time of sampling. Therefore, the load-based effluent limitations will change based on the daily flow volume, so the WQBEL is written to account for flow variability. Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach (DC-RB/MB Analysis Region). SBPAT was used for the portion of the Dominguez Channel watershed within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach to evaluate BMP scenarios and demonstrate reasonable assurance of achieving applicable Permit limits. SBPAT was used in the same capacity for the Santa Monica Bay watershed and is described in detail in Section 2.4.1 above. City of Torrance (DC-Torrance Analysis Region). In general, the RAA approach used within the City of Torrance portion of the Dominguez Channel watershed was conducted using static spreadsheet calculations coupled with a literature review on the performance of catch basin inlet filters to determine reasonable removal percentages for metals and bacteria. 3.4.2 MODELING DATA DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-18 | Page 2015 The critical condition definition and a summary of data associated with the models used in the RAA are described below. Critical Condition Definition Bacteria. Consistent with all existing Los Angeles region bacteria TMDLs for freshwater bodies, as well as the LARWQCB RAA Guidance (LARWQCB, 2014), the RAA for bacteria was performed on the 90th percentile critical wet year in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. This was determined in the same manner as the Santa Monica Bay portion of the EWMP area as described in Section 2.4.2 using the same rain gauge and the same period of record. The 90th percentile TMDL year (Nov 1- Oct 31), based on the number of wet days based on gage D1070 was determined to be 1995 (see Appendix Q). Metals. The critical condition for metals is based on the 90th percentile metal load day on wet days (see Appendix Q). Wet days in the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL are defined as days where the maximum daily flow at the S-28 stream gauge in lower Dominguez Channel is 62.7 cfs or greater. Consistent with RAA Guidelines, the most recent 10 year period with available rainfall data was selected; this period was 2003 to 2012 (Nov 1, 2002-Oct 31, 2012). The stream gauge data at this S-28 prior to October 2011 are segmented and do not cover the entire period. This could result in actual wet days that do not get classified as wet days if stream gage data are missing from that day, and could bias the TLR calculations and RAA analysis. Therefore, wet days for this analysis were based on days where the calibrated SBPAT model (which models only wet weather, i.e., no dry weather runoff or baseflows are modeled) predicted non-zero flow. This was compared to the bacteria wet day definition in which days with 0.1” or greater rainfall plus the next three days were counted as wet days. Storms that were greater than 0.1” produced runoff in SBPAT throughout the modeled period, thereby confirming that predicted flow in SBPAT was a reasonable representation of wet days. The calibrated SBPAT model (discussed below) was used to determine the daily metal load on wet days. These days were ranked by their daily metals load for each metal to determine the 90th percentile load day for TLR calculation. The 90th percentile load days were found to be Nov 30, 2007, February 5, 2010, and February 26, 2006 for copper, lead, and zinc, respectively. Other data related to the SBPAT model are discussed in detail in Section 2.4.2. 3.4.3 CALIBRATION Hydrology No stream gauge exists that measures flow from only the Dominguez Channel portion of the EWMP area. However, a stream gauge does exist on lower Dominguez Channel above the Torrance Lateral. This gauge captures flow from 24,275 acres. Approximately 3,687 acres of the EWMP area drain to this gauge. The rest of the EWMP area drains to the Torrance Lateral and is therefore downstream of this gauge. The EWMP area upstream of this gauge constitutes only 15% of the total area draining to the gauge. Therefore, in lieu of local measured stream flow data from within the EWMP area, a Los Angeles County LSPC model of the Dominguez Channel Watershed which had previously been calibrated to the S28 stream gauge on Dominguez Channel was used as DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-19 | Page 2015 a stream flow calibration comparison dataset for SBPAT. As future monitoring data become available, this calibration may be reassessed as part of the EWMP adaptive management process. The Los Angeles County LSPC model was previously calibrated by CWE to gauge S28 for the Dominguez Channel watershed using the calibration parameters in Table 3.0 of the RAA Guidelines. A ten-year calibration period was used (2003-2012). The percent difference for both daily and monthly runoff volumes between the LSPC model and the stream gauge was less than 10%, which is in the ‘very good’ category in the RAA guidelines (CWE, 2015). The mean annual runoff volume in the LSPC model (7,210 acre-ft) was within 12% of the stream gauge volume (8,210 acre-ft) which is in the ‘good’ range in the RAA Guidelines. For modeling the portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area which drains to Dominguez Channel, the calibrated LSPC model was clipped to the Dominguez Channel analysis region (including Torrance, see Figure 1), while keeping all other model parameters unchanged. Because SBPAT only includes storm generated runoff and LSPC includes dry weather flows (irrigation was turned off for the purposes of this analysis), any dry weather flows were first removed from the LSPC annual volumes using the Web-based Hydrograph Analysis Tool (WHAT) for porous aquifers with ephemeral streams; this tool was developed by Purdue University to separate base flows and runoff. Because dry weather flows are minimal in Dominguez Channel Watershed in the LSPC model, this resulted in a decrease in volume of only 6%. The SBPAT calibration of the Dominguez Channel analysis region focused on accurate prediction of annual discharge volumes predicted by the LSPC model for TMDL years 1989-2011. The dominant rain gauge used by LSPC (Manhattan Beach Station ID 1070) was also used by SBPAT. This gage had less than 2% difference in total rainfall volume than the aggregate of the surrounding rain gauges making it a good representative gauge for the EWMP area. The calibration parameters were the soil saturated hydraulic conductivities and the land use imperviousness, which were changed by a uniform multiplier for all soil and land use types in all subcatchments to match the LSPC predictions. Table 3-7 shows the mean annual volume predicted by the calibrated SBPAT model versus the mean annual volume predicted by the calibrated LSPC model for the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area. Figure 3-4 compares the annual volumes predicted by SBPAT to the annual volumes predicted by LSPC for all years between 1989 and 2011. The difference in mean annual volume between LSPC and the calibrated SBPAT model was 2%, and the difference for the 90th percentile year was 1%, both of which are in the “very good” category for calibration in the RAA Guidelines. Table 3-7. Mean Annual Volume Predicted by SBPAT and LSPC and Measured at the S28 Stream Gauge Model/Source Average Annual Volume (acre-ft) SBPAT 2,943 LSPC 2,890 Stream Gauge - Difference (%) 2% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-20 | Page 2015 Figure 3-4. Annual Runoff Volumes Predicted by LSPC and SBPAT Water Quality The RAA Guidelines require water quality calibration based on available monitoring data from the most recent 10 years. However, in the portion of the Beach Cities EWMP draining to Dominguez Channel, recent water quality monitoring data are not available for the applicable pollutants for a nearby receiving water monitoring station (the Dominguez Channel mass emission station S28 [Figure 3-2] is located downstream of a portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area, but upstream of the rest and includes large areas outside the EWMP area), so a conventional water quality calibration was not feasible. In the future as new local monitoring data become available, SBPAT’s water quality input parameters may be calibrated as part of the EWMP adaptive management process. In the meantime, to meet current model verification needs for the RAA, SBPAT’s log- normal land use EMC statistics were compared with the original land use monitoring datasets upon which were based. This land use based comparison is consistent with the calibration method applied for the original county-wide LSPC model (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2010). The land use EMCs used in SBPAT were calculated from data collected by Los Angeles County between 1996 to 2000 (County of Los Angeles, 2000) for metals, and land use-specific data collected by SCCWRP (SCCWRP, 2007) between 2000 to 2005 for fecal coliform. An example of the fecal coliform distribution for high density residential land use from the SCCWRP results and the distributions used in SBPAT for multi-family land use are shown in Figure 3-5 for fecal coliform DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-21 | Page 2015 bacteria. An additional example of the zinc distribution for high density residential land use from Los Angeles County results and the distributions used in SBPAT is shown in Figure 3-6. As shown by the percentiles, the pollutant EMC distribution is well representative of measured data. The example is provided for high density residential land use since this is the dominant developed land use in the Dominguez portion of the Beach Cities WMG area. Modeled EMC values are consistent with the recommended values for land use-specific loading in Table 3.3 of the RAA Guidelines. Figure 3-5. Comparison of Fecal Coliform High Density Residential EMC Values between SCCWRP Measurements (n=7) and Multi-Family Residential EMC distribution in SBPAT23 23 A full log distribution is used by the model, but non-parametric summary statistics are shown for comparison. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-22 | Page 2015 Figure 3-6. Comparison of Total Zinc Multi Family Residential EMC Values between Los Angeles County Measurements (n=4) and Multi-Family Residential EMC distribution in SBPAT24 3.4.4 VALIDATION A validation step was performed to demonstrate that modeled annual fecal coliform loads are indeed predictive of the compliance metric, or annual exceedance days for fecal indicator bacteria. For bacteria modeling, verifying the linkage between modeled fecal coliform loads (i.e., discharged from the watershed outlets) and total observed wet weather exceedance days (in the receiving water, based on REC1 daily maximum water quality objectives) was critical to establish reasonable assurance that CMLs would be in compliance with the Permit limits. To establish this linkage, an analysis was conducted using shoreline monitoring data at Topanga Canyon25 (SMB-1- 18) between 2005 and 2013. As presented in Section 2.4.4, Figure 2-10 in Section 2.4.4 illustrates that decreasing fecal coliform loads should result in measurable reductions in exceedance days, and that there is a reasonable correlation between total annual modeled fecal coliform loads and 24 A full log distribution is used by the model, but non-parametric summary statistics are shown for comparison. 25 Fecal coliform data and objectives were used to represent all fecal indicator bacteria because fecal coliform has the most robust land use and BMP effluent EMC datasets. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-23 | Page 2015 total annual observed wet weather exceedance days. Each point shown represents one TMDL year. 3.5 BASELINE LOADS AND TARGET LOAD REDUCTIONS Baseline loads for the critical period for bacteria and metals from the entire EWMP area draining to Dominguez Channel were computed using SBPAT. For bacteria, the critical period was the 90th percentile wet TMDL year, which was computed to be 1995 as discussed in Section 3.4.2. For metals, the critical condition is the 90th percentile metal load day between 2003 and 2012. These dates were found to be November 30, 2007, February 5, 2010, and February 26, 2006 for copper, lead, and zinc, respectively, as discussed in Section 3.4.2. The computed baseline loads for the critical condition are shown in Table 3-8 below. Table 3-8. Baseline Loads for Pollutants in the Dominguez Channel Watershed for the Critical Condition Pollutant 90th Percentile Critical Condition Baseline Load Copper (lb/day) 11/30/2007 21 Lead (lb/day) 2/5/2010 8.7 Zinc (lb/day) 2/26/2006 230 Bacteria (MPN*10^12/yr) 11/1/1994-10/31/1995 1,498 The process for establishing TLRs for the modeled WBPCs (copper, lead, zinc, and bacteria in Dominguez Channel) is described in the following section. TLRs were set for the entire Dominguez Channel analysis region, including the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Because no evidence currently exists to support a linkage between MS4 discharges and exceedances of toxicity, mercury, cadmium, cyanide, selenium, or pH in Dominguez Channel, these pollutants were not modeled as part of this analysis. This potential linkage will be re-evaluated based on results of future monitoring efforts. 3.5.1 METALS For the Dominguez Channel and Greater LA Harbor Toxics and Metals TMDL, the final WQBELs in the Permit are expressed as allowed daily loading of total copper, total lead, and total zinc during wet weather. The WQBEL loads were calculated as the CTR freshwater chronic criteria-based numeric target concentrations (9.7, 42.7, 62.7 ug/L for total copper, total lead, and total zinc, respectively) multiplied by the daily flow volume at the time of sampling. The following approach was implemented to calculate a wet weather TLR for each metal in the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area: DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-24 | Page 2015 1. The analysis region was modeled in SBPAT for TMDL years 2003 to 2012. 2. Including only wet26 days, the day with the 90th percentile metal load (the critical daily load) was determined (see Appendix Q). 3. The target load was calculated by multiplying the allowed concentration by the runoff volume on that day which is the WQBEL expressed in the permit. 4. The difference between the baseline load (step 2) and the target load (step 3) resulted in a TLR for the 90th percentile load day, which was the load reduction required to meet the allowable TMDL concentration. Appendix K provides an example calculation for this TLR process. Zinc was found to require the greatest TLR and was also found to be the controlling pollutant for BMP implementation, meaning that meeting the zinc requirement required the most stringent BMP implementation, which will likely produce load reductions for the other pollutants greater than the TLR. The TLR for lead was found to be zero because the baseline concentration on the 90th percentile critical day was found to be less than the allowed concentration. TLRs for each of the metals are shown in Table 3-9. 3.5.2 FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA Since no TMDL exists for this WBPC, an approach was developed to compute a wet weather bacteria TLR consistent with freshwater bacteria TMDLs in the region, which use allowable exceedance days (per year) and the 90th percentile critical year as the basis for their WLAs. The TLR calculation for bacteria for Dominguez Channel EWMP area was similar to the method used in the SMB portion. The method relates the annual number of modeled calendar days with rainfall- generated runoff (or “discharge days”) to the expected annual bacteria exceedance days. The validation of this methodology on the Arroyo Sequit reference watershed is described in Section 2.5.1. The TLR-development methodology was applied to the EWMP area to predict the number of baseline exceedance days for the 90th percentile year, or TMDL year 1995. Once the number of baseline discharge days were estimated, the number of allowed discharge days was established. Consistent with other Los Angeles region freshwater bacteria TMDLs, it was assumed that 19% of non-high flow suspension days were allowed to exceed the REC1 single sample limit, or 400 MPN/100mL for fecal coliforms27.The D1070 rain gauge, which was used to determine the 90th percentile year and used to model both the Dominguez Channel and Santa Monica Bay portions of the EWMP area, was used to determine the number of wet days and high flow suspension days in 26 Wet days defined as days in which gauge S28 has flows equal than or greater than 62.7 cfs. Due to insufficient continuous flow data at this gauge, wet days were estimated as days in which flows in SBPAT were non-zero excluding days with less than 0.1 inch of rainfall. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.2. 27 Fecal coliform, and its previous freshwater Basin Plan objective value (400 mpn/100mL), is used as the modeled surrogate for E. coli due to its more robust available modeling datasets. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-25 | Page 2015 TMDL year 1995. Wet day definition and high flow suspension day definition were based on other bacteria TMDLs in the region, where wet days are days in which 0.1” or greater of rainfall occur, plus the following 3 days, and high flow suspension days are days in which 0.5” or greater of rainfall occur plus the following day. In TMDL year, 1995, a total of 73 wet days (19 of which were high flow suspension days) occurred using this methodology. Because the REC1 single sample limits are suspended on high flow suspension days, the total number of applicable wet days is 54. Using the 19% allowable exceedance rate, the number of allowable exceedance days was set to 10 (19% x 54 wet days). Thus, 10 wet days (that are not high flow suspension days) were allowed to exceed 400 MPN/100mL. Any remaining exceedance days must be removed using BMPs. To determine the TLR necessary to meet the allowed discharge days, a virtual retention BMP was modeled in SBPAT at the outlet of the EWMP area. This approach was presented to LARWQCB staff on June 6, 2014 and verbal feedback received during the meeting was supportive. For the outlet virtual retention BMP included a diversion with a virtual hydraulic capacity that results in a model-derived bypass frequency (or number of discharge days), during TMDL year 1995 that meets the allowable exceedance day criteria. The diversion is modeled as a full capture system. High flow suspension days were not included in the number of exceedance days, and the concentration on each discharge day was confirmed to be greater than 400 MPN/100mL to ensure it was actually an exceedance day. The diversion is modeled as a full capture system. The load reduction resulting from this BMP scenario (i.e., baseline analysis region load minus analysis region load with the diversion system and retention BMP in place) became the TLR. “Reasonable assurance” of compliance with the allowed discharge days was then considered to have been met when actual and proposed BMPs combined to achieve the TLR for each analysis region. The calculated TLR for bacteria is shown in Table 3-9. In summary, the following approach was implemented to calculate a wet weather bacteria TLR in the Dominguez Channel analysis region: 1. The analysis region is modeled in SBPAT for the 90th percentile year (TMDL year 1995) (see Appendix Q). 2. The existing, baseline condition (i.e., without any outlet retention BMP) is modeled for the analysis region, resulting in a mean baseline fecal coliform (FC) load for the 90th percentile year (baseline load). 3. The allowable number of non-high flow suspension discharge days is calculated to be 10 (19% of 54 non-high flow suspension wet weather days in TMDL year 1995). 4. An in-stream diversion to a large, virtual retention BMP at the outlet of the analysis region is iteratively sized so that the number of non-high flow suspension discharges meets the criteria established in Step 3. 5. The diversion and retention BMP is then modeled in SBPAT to produce a mean FC load for the 90th percentile year (allowed load). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-26 | Page 2015 6. The difference between the baseline load (step 2) and the allowed load (step 5) results in a TLR for the 90th percentile year, which is the load reduction required to meet the 10 allowable exceedance days for wet weather. 7. In order to meet the allowable exceedance days of 10, the TLR (as a percentage of the baseline 90th percentile year load) is 33%. Table 3-9. Target Load Reductions for Pollutants in the Dominguez Channel Watershed for the Critical Condition Pollutant Baseline Load Allowable Load Target Load Reduction Absolute % of baseline load Copper (lb/day) 21 8.0 13 62% Lead (lb/day) 8.7 32 0 0% Zinc (lb/day) 230 55 175 76% Bacteria (MPN*10^12/yr) 1,498 1,005 493 33% 3.6 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 3.6.1 METHODS TO SELECT AND PRIORITIZE BMPS In order to demonstrate reasonable assurance, BMPs were identified in a prioritized manner. Prioritization was based on cost (low cost BMPs were prioritized); 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 agencies. In general, nonstructural BMPs were prioritized over structural BMPs due to their lower relative cost, and then structural BMPs were identified that would likely result in the greatest load reduction per dollar. The RAA was performed according to the following steps: 1. Calculate load reductions associated with existing structural BMPs; 2. Assume a load reduction for non-modeled non-structural BMPs(five percent of baseline pollutant load); 3. Calculate load reductions for public retrofit incentives (e.g., downspout disconnects) and redevelopment; 4. Calculate load reductions attributable to anticipated new permit compliance activities of non-MS4 entities (e.g., Industrial General Permit holders and Caltrans); 5. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional BMPs that were identified in existing plans; and DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-27 | Page 2015 6. Meet the TLR by backfilling the remaining load reduction with new regional or distributed green streets BMPs, with green streets modeled by assuming treatment of runoff from a percentage of specific developed land uses. The following schedule assumptions were made: • Only BMPs implemented after the TMDL effective date (2012) were included; • Redevelopment BMPs were assumed to use different sizing criteria before and after 2015 (EWMP submittal date), consistent with the Permit’s post-construction requirements; and • Modeled load reduction outputs are reported for the proposed interim bacteria (2018, 2023, and 2027) and final proposed bacteria/toxics TMDL (2032) compliance dates. 3.6.2 RECOMMENDED MCMS AND NONSTRUCTURAL BMPS See Section 2.6.2. All information provided in Table 2-7, excluding the City of Hermosa Beach (which is not in the Dominguez Channel Watershed), also pertains to the Dominguez Channel Watershed. 3.6.3 QUANTIFIED NON-STRUCTURAL BMPS Non-structural BMPs have been categorized as follows. Specific model inputs are summarized below. No modeling of non-structural BMPs was conducted in the City of Torrance, as all load reductions were quantified based on literature references. Non-Modeled Programmatic BMPs These source controls 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, 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 this EWMP. The City of Torrance, for instance, has committed to such BMPs as smart gardening program enhancements, TMDL-specific stormwater training, enhancement of commercial and industrial facility inspections, enhancement escalation procedures, improved street sweeping technology, and reduction of irrigation return flow. A combined credit of 5% load reduction was applied for all pollutants to represent the cumulative benefit from non-modeled programmatic BMPs. In addition, a separate load reduction is assumed for copper due to the 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 draft detailed 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 identifies three possible implementation scenarios, the least aggressive of which estimates that a 55% load reduction in copper will be achieved by 2032 due to the brake pad phase out. Therefore, a 55% load reduction was assumed for copper in the Greater LA Harbor analysis DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-28 | Page 2015 region; however, to avoid double counting load reductions, this reduction was applied to the copper load after accounting for all future nonstructural and structural BMP load reductions. Modeled Redevelopment Beginning in 2001, redevelopment projects were required by the Permit (via the SUSMP) to incorporate stormwater treatment BMPs into their projects if their project size exceeded specified thresholds. The 2001 MS4 Permit SUSMP redevelopment requirements were applied between 2012 (the point at which the Metals TMDL was implemented) and 2015 for the Dominguez Channel EWMP area. Redevelopment in this period was modeled as flow-through media filters at a 0.2 in/hr design event. The 2012 MS4 Permit established new criteria for redevelopment projects, requiring certain sized projects to capture, retain, or infiltrate the 85th percentile design storm or the 0.75-inch design storm, whichever is greater, via the implementation of LID BMPs. To account for these redevelopment requirements in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, BMPs were modeled in SBPAT assuming land use-specific annual redevelopment rates for projects that triggered former SUSMP requirements or will trigger the Permit’s LID BMP requirements (Table 3-10). No load reduction from this non-structural BMP was quantified for the City of Torrance. Table 3-10. Estimated Annual Redevelopment Rates Land Use Annual Redevelopment Rate (% of total land use area) Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance1 City of Manhattan Beach Residential 0.18 0.10 Commercial 0.15 0.38 Industrial 0.34 0.38 Education 0.16 0.16 Transportation 2.7 2.7 1Regionally developed redevelopment rates were applied to the City of Torrance and Redondo Beach (City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, 2012). A City-specific redevelopment rate of 3.8 percent for commercial redevelopment in Manhattan Beach was provided based on historical SUSMP data over the past ten years. This value was also assumed for historical industrial redevelopment and both commercial and industrial redevelopment moving forward. For residential land use, because there are insufficient data to project LID rates, a nominal 0.10 percent was assumed and is subject to change based on the model outcomes and discussions with City staff as the LID ordinance is finalized. BMPs were assumed to be implemented and to continue be implemented in the future, at these rates across five distinct time periods in the Dominguez Channel watershed: • 2012 (Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Effective Date) – 2015: The SUSMP requirements, based on the 2001 MS4 Permit, were assumed to be implemented over this DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-29 | Page 2015 period as flow-through media filters at a 0.2 in/hr design intensity (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2002). • 2015 - 2032 (Final Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Compliance Deadline and Proposed Final Bacteria Compliance Deadline): The 2012 MS4 Permit post- construction requirements were assumed to be implemented over this period as 50% biofiltration and 50% bioretention. Biofiltration (bioretention with underdrains) were modeled using bioswale BMP types with effluent EMCs set to bioretention and sized to retain 150 percent of the 1-year, 1-hour design storm (approximately 0.3 in/hr) because they do not retain all the design storm volume on site (they are flow-through systems), while bioretention units were sized to retain 100 percent of the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm depth, calculated as the mean for each analysis region. 2015 is used as a transition date since the LID post-construction requirements from the 2012 MS4 Permit are required to be in full effect via local LID ordinances by this time. In order to estimate load reductions associated with these redevelopment BMPs, the land use percentages shown in Table 3-10 were multiplied by the respective land use areas in each analysis region, resulting in an assumed area treated by LID BMPs each year. This area was multiplied by the applicable number of years, since new BMPs are assumed to be implemented each year. The total land use area assumed to be redeveloped for each analysis region was then modeled as being treated and the total load reduction was quantified. The default design parameter assumptions for the biofiltration redevelopment projects were that the longitudinal slopes were 0.03 ft/ft, Manning’s n was 0.25, hydraulic residence time was 10 min, and water quality flow depth was 4 in. Modeled Public Retrofit Incentives These BMPs include programs directed at incentivizing the public to decrease the amount of stormwater runoff from their property, specifically via downspout disconnects. Public incentives for retrofitting existing development were modeled in SBPAT between 2015, when the EWMP will begin to be implemented, and the respective TMDL final compliance date. No quantification of these load reductions was done for the City of Torrance, although they may be taken into account in future iterations. Public retrofit incentives were assumed to be a downspout disconnection program, modeled as bioswales sized to a design storm intensity of 0.2 in/hr (see Table 2-9). The default design parameter assumptions for the biofiltration redevelopment projects were that longitudinal slopes were 0.03 ft/ft, Manning’s n was 0.25, hydraulic residence time was 10 min, and water quality flow depth was 4 in. Assumptions included that 10 percent of single family residential areas would be converted to disconnected downspout systems over 2015 to 2021, and that, based on GIS analysis, 38 percent of the single family residential area consists of rooftops that can be effectively disconnected. Therefore, 3.8 percent of single family residential neighborhoods were modeled as treated by bioswales in order to account for public retrofit incentives. Modeled Non-MS4 Permitted Parcels or Areas DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-30 | Page 2015 SBPAT was used to quantify the load reduction assuming that regulated parcels/areas would be in compliance with the NPDES Statewide Storm Water Permit Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from State of California Department of Transportation (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003) and the California NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Industrial General Permit [IGP], Order 2014-0057-DWQ) (Figure 3-7). The load reduction from these areas was quantified in analysis region DC-RB/MB. This load reduction was obtained from these areas by simulating treatment plants sized to treat the IGP’s design storm requirement, the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event, with an effluent concentration set equal to the water quality standard (see Section 2.6.3). For fecal coliform, 400 MPN/100mL was used. In the Dominguez portion of the Beach Cities EWMP, these constituted only a small fraction of the total area. 3.6.4 STRUCTURAL BMPS Structural BMPs have been categorized as follows. Proposed distributed BMPs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed area of the Beach Cities EWMP are shown in Figure 3-8, and existing and proposed regional BMPs are shown in Figure 3-9. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-31 | Page 2015 Figure 3-7. IGP and Caltrans Area within the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-32 | Page 2015 Figure 3-8. Proposed Distributed BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-33 | Page 2015 Figure 3-9. Proposed Regional BMPs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-34 | Page 2015 Existing Regional BMPs There are no existing regional BMPs in either Dominguez Channel analysis region; as such, none were modeled in SBPAT. Proposed Regional BMPs Two regional BMPs are being proposed in the Dominguez Channel watershed, both within the City of Redondo Beach in Analysis Region DC-RB/MB. Analysis Region DC – RB/MB Two proposed regional BMPs in the DC-RB/MB analysis region were modeled in SBPAT based on conceptual design information and discussions with the Beach Cities WMG (Figure 3-10). While the BMPs are conceptual at this point, they will include media filtration such as proprietary media filters or bioretention. Infiltration is not feasible due to the low saturated flow rates in the areas where regional BMPs could be constructed (0.3-0.4 in/hr). Powerline Easement Filtration. This regional BMP would include a filtration system (i.e., media filter, biofilter, or bioretention with underdrains) or systems along the powerline easement. This BMP could be constructed to capture runoff from the EWMP areas draining towards the intersection of Manhattan Beach Blvd and Inglewood Ave. In order to determine a conservative estimate of the footprint available for this BMP, an analysis was conducted along the powerline easement and along Manhattan Beach Blvd that included the following criteria: • 100 ft away from large utility poles; and • 25 ft away from roads, railroads, and buildings. These criteria aim to address some of the concerns with BMP construction within a powerline easement, as was previously described. The resulting approximate footprint shown in Figure 3-10 should be considered approximate and large enough to allow for construction in the roadway right-of-way or easement or both. It is noted that this is meant to be a conservative estimate given the above criteria and would be sited to capture runoff from the drainage area shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The total footprint area calculated for this BMP was 313,500 square feet. It was assumed that approximately 15% of this area would be used for pretreatment (10%) and side slopes (5%) so only 85% of the area was used as the footprint available for filtration. The BMP was modeled as a flow through BMP, with the only storage available being the pretreatment. A media filter was chosen to represent this BMP. The treatment rate was set to 10 inches per hour multiplied by the available footprint. This constitutes a design flow of approximately 48% of the 0.2 in/hr 85th percentile design intensity in the Permit. The BMP was assumed to be 5 feet deep, and the diversion flow rate was estimated based on the flow rate from 0.2 in/hr on the drainage area using the rational method. Modeling criteria are shown in Table 3-11. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-35 | Page 2015 A potential alternative location to the Powerline Easement Filtration facility is the green space adjacent to Manhattan Beach Blvd and Marine Avenue. Due to limited spatial availability, high- capacity filter media would be required for the alternative location in order to achieve the same reduction objective as the Powerline Easement Filtration facility. Artesia Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd Filtration. This regional BMP would include a filtration system or systems near the intersection of Artesia Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd. It was assumed that this BMP could be constructed to capture runoff from the EWMP areas draining towards this intersection. A conceptual footprint was developed based on the space available in medians, park strips, and areas that could be converted for subsurface filtration systems. The approximate footprint is shown in Figure 3-10. The total footprint area calculated for this BMP was 43,700 square feet. It was assumed based on other similar BMPs in the Los Angeles region that approximately 15% of this area would be used for pretreatment (10%) and side slopes (5%), so only 85% of the area was used as the footprint available for filtration. The BMP was modeled as a flow-through BMP, with the only storage available being the pretreatment. A treatment plant type BMP was chosen for the modeling, and the EMCs from distributed media filters were assigned to the treatment plant to simulate a regional media filter. The treatment rate was set to 10 inches per hour multiplied by the available footprint. This constitutes a design flow of approximately 63% of the 0.2 in/hr intensity in the Permit. The BMP was assumed to be 5 feet deep, and the diversion flow rate was estimated based on the flow rate from 0.2 in/hr on the drainage area using the rational method. Modeling criteria are shown in Table 3-11. Analysis Region Dominguez Channel – Torrance (DC-Torrance) No regional BMPs are proposed in the DC-Torrance analysis region. Summary of Proposed Regional BMPs Two regional BMPs are proposed in the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. None of these projects could be feasibly sized to meet the 85th percentile design criteria. Proposed regional BMPs, including their location, analysis region, project name, model inputs, and expected performance, are summarized in Table 3-11. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-36 | Page 2015 Figure 3-10. Proposed Regional BMPs, DC-RB/MB Analysis Region DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-37 | Page 2015 Table 3-11. Parameters and Performance for Proposed Regional BMPs Modeled as Media Filters Location of BMP Analysis Region Project Name Model Assumptions Expected Performance (load reduction as a % of analysis region baseline load) Design Storm (in/hr)Treatment Flow Rate (cfs) Average Basin Depth (ft) Equalization Volume (cu-ft) Diversion Flow Rate (cfs) Infiltration Rate (in/hr)1 Redondo Beach DC-RB/MB Powerline Easement Filtration 0.09 62 5 141,086 132 0.00001 Fecal coliform: 36% Zinc: 34% Copper: 26% Redondo Beach DC-RB/MB Artesia Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd. Filtration 0.13 8.6 5 19,682 13.6 0.00001 Fecal coliform: 9% Zinc: 5% Copper: 4% 1 Model requires some infiltration, but infiltration minimized to essentially 0. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-38 | Page 2015 Existing Distributed BMPs No existing distributed BMPs were accounted for or modeled in the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area. Proposed Distributed BMPs Proposed distributed BMPs are depicted in Figure 3-8. Distributed green streets BMPs are proposed and were modeled as part of the RAA within the DC-RB/MB analysis region, at an implementation level of 14% (i.e., runoff from 14% of single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial land uses would be treated by green streets BMPs designed as described in Section 2.6.4). Approximately 200 catch basin inlet filters (media filtration devices with a variety of media types and configurations such as cartridge filters, vertical bed filters, etc.) are proposed within the DC- Torrance analysis region. Infiltration of runoff is not feasible in the DC-Torrance analysis region due to the prevalence of Montezuma Clay Adobe soils. Roads represent a potentially significant source of pollutant loads, and therefore treating road runoff is considered a key strategy for multi- pollutant TMDL implementation. Implementing catch basin inlet filters throughout the DC- Torrance Watershed is highly applicable because of the high density of catch basins. The predicted load reduction attributable to catch basin inlet filters was estimated on a percent load removal basis, extracted from a review of relevant literature. Fact sheets and literature available on commercially available catch basin inlet filters suggest that catch basin inlet filters are effective at capturing and removing pollutants from stormwater runoff including sediments, heavy metals, and bacteria. A study titled, Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface by the University of California, Irvine, Department of Environmental Health (2005), estimated a 99% removal efficiency of lead concentrations by a grate inlet skimmer box/round curb inlet basket. Another study conducted by the City of El Monte at Longo Toyota in 2002 concluded that the grate inlet skimmer box/round curb inlet baskets were effective in removing 95% of zinc and copper concentrations and 87% of lead concentrations. A more recent independent test conducted in 2013-2014 by the City of Lake Forest showed that the tested catch basin inlet filters achieve 75% removal of heavy metals. The product tested was the Ultra Filter Sock Heavy Metal Drain Filter. For bacteria, the 2005 UC Irvine study found a fecal coliform removal efficiency of 33% by the grate inlet skimmer box/round curb inlet basket. In addition, the City of Torrance is in the process of developing the Green Street Program and the ordinances to implement green street design features as part of street redevelopment. While implementing redevelopment of arterial streets, the City of Torrance would assess opportunities for Green Street design features to facilitate treatment through filtration or infiltration. Green street elements may include infiltration trench that provides water quality treatment, reduction in peak flow discharges, and potential groundwater recharge. Other green street elements that may DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-39 | Page 2015 be considered include bioretention/biofiltration practices to achieve water quality treatment through filtration by vegetation and soils to remove pollutants with perforated underdrain to convey the treated runoff. The City of Torrance is committed to developing the Green Street Policy by July 2015, as required by the MS4 Permit. 3.7 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS RESULTS 3.7.1 DISCUSSION OF LIMITING POLLUTANTS Zinc was determined to be the controlling pollutant, therefore the cumulative BMP load reductions for copper, lead and bacteria are each greater than their respective TLRs. 3.7.2 WET WEATHER For all pollutants in the DC-RB/MB analysis region, cumulative load reductions are predicted to meet the interim and final TLRs. The non-structural BMPs achieve a relatively minor load reduction for zinc compared to the regional BMPs and the distributed green streets. After accounting for the load reductions attributed to non-modeled programmatic, public incentives and redevelopment, non-MS4 compliance, and regional BMPs, the implementation of distributed green street BMPs to treat stormwater from 14% of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach was required to meet the zinc TLR (the limiting pollutant). Table 3-12 below summarizes the estimated load reductions achieved by the proposed BMPs for both the interim and final compliance deadlines. Within the DC-Torrance analysis region, cumulative load reductions are dependent on the level of implementation of the planned catch basin inlet filters. At this time, inlet filters are planned for 200 of 643 catch basins in the analysis region, targeting high priority areas. Since the estimated load reduction is applicable per filter, and not to the entire analysis region, monitoring and subsequent adaptive management will be employed to evaluate the achieved load reductions prior to each of the compliance deadlines, installing additional filters as needed until compliance is achieved for every applicable WQBEL or RWL. At this time, the City of Torrance is not committing to any regional or distributed BMPs, aside from catch basin inlet filters and a review of green streets opportunities. It should be noted that if at any time specific distributed green streets or regional/centralized BMPs are found to be infeasible for implementation, alternative BMPs or operational changes will be planned within the same analysis region and within the same timeline, to meet an equivalent load reduction. The performance of the proposed catch basin inlet filters within the City of Torrance will also be evaluated as potential alternatives to the proposed structural BMPs within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Zinc The zinc load reductions were quantified on the 90th percentile wet load day which was determined during TLR calculations (Table 3-12). Load reductions vary by day due to storm timing and size and due to some variability in the randomly generated pollutant concentrations in the model. To ensure that the load reductions estimated on the 90th percentile load day are not DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-40 | Page 2015 significantly greater than typical daily load reductions, and to get an idea of the variability, the average of the daily load reductions during the 10 year modeling period were also calculated. The predicted zinc load reduction achieved on the 90th percentile load day in the DC-RB/MB analysis region is estimated to be 79%, which is greater than the TLR of 76%. Most of the zinc reduction comes from the proposed regional infiltration BMPs. For comparison, the average daily load reduction was 98%. Because the 90th percentile day has more flow than an average day, the capture rate of the BMPs would be expected to be lower on this day than for smaller storms, thereby justifying the decreased load removal on the 90th percentile day. The estimated zinc load reduction in analysis region DC-Torrance is 85%, including both non- structural and distributed (catch basin inlet filters) BMPs, which is greater than the TLR of 76%. As noted above, the estimated load reduction cannot be applied to the entire analysis region. Therefore, adaptive management will be strongly employed to evaluate the achieved load reductions prior to each of the compliance deadlines, installing additional filters as needed. Copper The copper load reductions were quantified on the 90th percentile wet load day which was determined during TLR calculations (Table 3-12). Similar to zinc, the average of the daily load reductions during the 10 year modeling period are also shown to account for variability. The load reduction achieved on the 90th percentile load day in the DC-RB/MB analysis region is predicted to be 85%, which is greater than the TLR of 62%. The estimated copper load reduction in the DC-Torrance analysis region is predicted to be 89%, which also exceeds the copper TLR of 62%. As noted above, the estimated load reduction cannot be applied to the entire analysis region. Therefore, adaptive management will be strongly employed to evaluate the achieved load reductions prior to each of the compliance deadlines, installing additional filters as needed. Fecal Coliform The average bacteria load reduction for TMDL year 1995 was quantified and compared to the TLR calculated for the 90th percentile critical year (1995) (Table 3-12). The predicted load reduction of 74% within the DC-RB/MB analysis region is greater than the TLR of 33%. Most of the reduction comes from the regional BMP filtration systems. In the City of Torrance, the estimated bacteria load reduction is 38%, which is greater than the TLR of 33%. As noted above, the estimated load reduction cannot be applied to the entire analysis region. Therefore, adaptive management will be strongly employed to evaluate the achieved load reductions prior to each of the compliance deadlines, installing additional filters as needed. Lead Although the load reductions for lead were not quantified because no load reductions were required to meet the TMDL WQBEL, the implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in similarly substantive load reductions for lead as for other metals. FAA and USEPA efforts to phase out lead from Avgas will further reduce lead in stormwater runoff in the future. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-41 | Page 2015 Time Series Output Electronic input and output SWMM files and Excel summary spreadsheets will be provided to the LARWQCB upon submittal of this Draft EWMP. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-42 | Page 2015 Table 3-12. Dominguez Channel Watershed – RAA Results – Interim and Final Compliance Pollutant Date Implementation Benefits (average load reduction as % of baseline for the critical condition1)TLR Compliance (TLR Met)? Non-Structural BMPs (Non-Modeled) Public Retrofit Incentives + RedevelopmentNon-MS4 Regional BMPs Distributed BMPs Distributed BMP Implementation Level Estimated Load Reduction Analysis Region DC-RB/MB Zinc 2032 (Final) 5% 9% 6% 39% 20% 14% SFR, MFR, COM, IND 79% 76%Yes Copper 2032 (Final) 24%2 0% 5% 30% 26% 85% 62%Yes Fecal coliform 2022 (Interim) 2.1% 1.5% 0.7% 0% 4.1% 3% SFR, MFR, COM, IND8.4% 8.3%Yes 2027 (Interim) 3.5% 2.4% 1.3% 0% 10% 7% SFR, MFR, COM, IND 17% 17%Yes 2032 (Final) 5% 3.2% 1.8% 45% 20% 14% SFR, MFR, COM, IND74% 33%Yes Analysis Region DC-Torrance Zinc 2032 (Final) 5% 0% 0% 0% 75% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 76%See note 3 Copper 2032 (Final) 14%2 0% 0% 0% 75% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 62%See note 3 Fecal coliform 2022 (Interim) 2.1% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 8.3%See note 3 2027 (Interim) 3.5% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 17%See note 3 2032 (Final) 5% 0% 0% 0% 33% per filter Catch basin inlet filtersSee note 3 33%See note 3 1 The critical condition is TMDL year 1995 for fecal coliform, 11/30/2007 for copper, 2/5/2010 for lead, and 2/26/2006 for zinc. 2 Load reduction attributable to copper brake pad phase-out, after accounting for other BMPs, up to 55%. 3 Load reduction sum cannot be estimated at this time. The individual load reduction for each inlet filter’s drainage area is shown under the “Distributed BMPs” column. Initially, 200 of 643 catch basins are planned to be retrofitted in high priority catchments. Therefore, the total load reduction from inlet filters will be evaluated in the future through monitoring, and the BMPs will be modified through the adaptive management process, with additional filters installed as necessary to meet the TLRs by the compliance deadlines. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 3 | Dominguez Channel Watershed 3-43 | Page 2015 3.7.3 DRY WEATHER For dry weather, bacteria is the only applicable pollutant in the Dominguez Channel watershed, and it is a Category 2 water body-pollutant combination (i.e., 303(d)-listed but not currently subject to a TMDL). The City of Torrance’s dry weather load reduction strategy will focus on non-structural source control and pollution prevention measures that are designed to reduce the amount of pollutants and understand the effect of pollutants entering runoff though education, enforcement and behavioral modification programs. Within the Cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, the implementation of the two regional BMPs at both outlets from the DC-RB/MB analysis region to address wet weather pollutants will control dry weather flows by capturing the small flows in the pre-treatment volume and either retaining them or treating them in the media filter. In addition, each of the EWMP Group cities has water conservation regulations which will reduce dry weather runoff at its source. Collectively, by controlling dry weather MS4 flows prior to entering Dominguez Channel using the proposed suite of BMPs, bacteria will be addressed. If necessary, the EWMP Group agencies retain the option of installing low flow diversions sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the receiving water year-round dry weather days. Therefore, reasonable assurance of meeting the applicable RWLs was demonstrated in this EWMP through a qualitative assessment of the proposed BMPs and their overall approach of eliminating or substantially reducing MS4 discharges during dry weather. 3.8 MULTIPLE BENEFITS The proposed projects in the Dominguez Channel watershed not only demonstrate reasonable assurance for the water quality objectives, but also provide multiple benefits beyond pollutant load reduction. Multiple benefits provided by the projects proposed in the Santa Monica Bay watershed are also applicable to those proposed in the Dominguez Channel watershed, including neighborhood greening, water conservation/supply, and public education and awareness (see Section 2.8 for more detail). However, infiltration in Dominguez Channel watershed is infeasible due to low saturated flowrates of the soil at the potential structural BMP locations; therefore, groundwater recharge is not considered an added benefit to the proposed structural BMPs in the Dominguez Channel watershed. 3.9 PARALLEL COMPLIANCE EFFORTS During the remaining compliance period, the Beach Cities WMG may also elect to perform special studies to evaluate the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL WLAs and/or REC-1 indicator bacteria RWLs. For example, a reevaluation of the site-specific Water Effects Ratio (WER) used to calculate the targets for copper and zinc may result in modifications to the target load and TLR. Another example might include the application of a non-structural pollutant load reduction credit in the case that state legislation restricting zinc in manufactured rubber tires is passed. Through the adaptive management process, the RAA may be reevaluated after any changes to bacteria statewide objectives, TMDL WLAs, and/or Permit limits. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 4 | Implementation Schedule 4-1 | Page 2015 4 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 4.1 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE The following sections present the proposed compliance schedules and project sequencing necessary to meet the interim and final compliance deadlines for the Beach Cities EWMP WPBCs. 4.1.1 SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED Bacteria, debris, and PCBs and DDTs have been identified as Category 1 WBPCs in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. No Category 2 or 3 WBPCs are specified in this watershed. The interim and final compliance deadlines in the Santa Monica Bay watershed are summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1. Compliance Deadlines associated with Santa Monica Bay Watershed WBPCs Category Pollutant(s) Date Action 1: Highest Priority Dry Weather Bacteria N/A Final compliance in effect and attained through diversions and non-structural BMPs. Wet Weather Bacteria 7/15/2018 Interim: 50% single sample ED reduction 7/15/2021 Final: Geometric Mean [GM] targets met Final: Single sample AED targets met Trash/Debris 3/20/2016 Interim: 20% load reduction 3/20/2017 Interim: 40% load reduction 3/20/2018 Interim: 60% load reduction 3/20/2019 Interim: 80% load reduction 3/20/2020[28] Final: 100% load reduction DDTs N/A Since the TMDL effectively implements an anti- degradation approach (i.e., historic low MS4 concentrations or loads must be kept the same or lower), and the Beach Cities EWMP Agencies are currently presumed to be achieving the WLAs (thus negating the need for RAA), no compliance schedule is proposed. PCBs N/A 2: High Priority N/A N/A N/A 3: Medium Priority N/A N/A N/A The final wet weather compliance deadline for the SMBBB TMDL is proposed to be met through a combination of non-structural, distributed green streets BMPs, and existing, planned, and proposed regional BMPs. The interim compliance deadline for the SMBBB TMDL requires a 50 percent reduction in exceedance days by July 2018; this will be met by achieving 50 percent of the 28 Manhattan Beach will receive three additional years to meet the final deadline for having enacted all three bans specified in the TMDL prior to the stated deadline, these include bans on plastic bags, restaurant take out polystyrene, and smoking in public places. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 4 | Implementation Schedule 4-2 | Page 2015 final bacteria TLR (13.2%) on a watershed-wide basis, through a combination of non-structural BMPs including redevelopment, public retrofit incentives, non-MS4 parcels/areas NPDES Permit compliance, and programmatic BMPs, as well as and existing regional BMPs. Neither the load reductions from distributed green streets BMPs, nor planned/proposed regional BMPs, are necessary to meet the interim TLR. Table 2-16 previously summarized the breakdown of estimated load reductions at the interim and final compliance deadlines. At the time of the interim compliance deadline, 2018, a 14.4% load reduction is estimated based on a combination of existing regional BMPs and existing and proposed non-structural BMPs, which is greater than the interim TLR of 13.2%. Compliance with the Debris TMDL will be met through a phased retrofit of all catch basins throughout the Beach Cities EWMP Area to meet each interim and final compliance deadline. 4.1.2 DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED Toxicity, copper, lead, and zinc have been identified as Category 1 WBPCs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Additionally, indicator bacteria have been identified as a Category 2 WPBC, and cyanide, pH, selenium, mercury, and cadmium have been identified as Category 3 WBPCs. The compliance schedules associated with each WBPC are summarized in Table 4-2. The compliance schedule for Category 1 WBPCs is consistent with the associated TMDL. The compliance schedule for the Category 2 WBPC has been selected to achieve the proposed wet and dry weather bacteria milestones, with implementation actions not exceeding one year, in accordance with the Permit (Section ii(5)9B). As described in Table 4-2, the compliance schedule for the Category 3 WBPCs will be dependent on the results of the CIMP. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 4 | Implementation Schedule 4-3 | Page 2015 Table 4-2. Implementation Actions and Dates associated with Dominguez Channel Watershed WBPCs Category Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action 1: Highest Priority Toxicity Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Wet Current Interim: Comply with the interim water quality-based effluent limitations as listed in the TMDL March 2032 Final: Comply with the final water quality-based effluent limitations as listed in the TMDL 2: High Priority Indicator Bacteria Dry December 2023 Interim: 50% load reduction December 2025[1] Final: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 4. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (5 days during the dry weather period); or 5. Meet the allowed exceedance percentage (1.6% during a dry weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 6. Diversions are in place such that they are consistently operational, well maintained, and sized to effectively eliminate discharges to the receiving water year-round dry weather days. Wet December 2016 Provide documentation supporting MCM enhancements implemented over the past year December 2017 Provide documentation supporting MCM enhancements implemented over the past year December 2018 Identify planned green streets locations to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2019 City Council approval of Plans & Specifications for green streets to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Begin installation of catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2020 Develop concept reports for regional BMPs in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Begin construction on green streets to treat runoff from 3% of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2021 Submit grant application for any one of the proposed regional projects in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2022 Interim Milestone: 25% of target load reduction December 2023 Identify planned green streets locations to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2024 Begin construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 4% (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Continue installation of catch basin inlet filters in the DC-Torrance analysis region. December 2025 Release Request for Proposals for regional BMP designs in Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach December 2026 Complete construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 4% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 4 | Implementation Schedule 4-4 | Page 2015 Category Pollutant(s) Wet/Dry Weather Date Implementation Action (7% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2027 Interim Milestone: 50% of target load reduction December 2028 Produce regional BMP design reports; identify locations for green streets implementation to treat runoff from an additional 7% (14% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2029 Begin regional BMP permitting process for project in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach. December 2030 Begin construction on planned green streets to treat runoff from an additional 7% (14% total) of SFR, MFR, COM, and IND land uses in the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. December 2031 Begin regional BMP construction of project in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach. December 2032 Final Milestone: 100% compliance may be demonstrated by the Permittee in one of three ways: 4. Meeting the allowed exceedance days (10 days during a wet weather period, plus high flow suspension days) 5. Meeting the target load reduction (33%); or 6. Meeting the allowed exceedance percentage (19% during a wet weather period) within the total drainage area served by the MS4. 3: Medium Priority Cyanide pH Selenium Mercury Cadmium N/A N/A As required by the Permit, monitoring for these pollutants will occur under the CIMP. If monitoring data suggest that the Beach Cities Agencies’ MS4s may cause or contribute to exceedances of these pollutants in the receiving water, these contributions will be addressed through modifications to the EWMP as a part of the adaptive management process, as described in Permit section VI.C.2.a.iii. 1 The final compliance date for dry weather bacteria was selected to be consistent with the draft TMDL for indicator bacteria in the San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries, adopted by the LARWQCB in 2015, which requires that compliance is achieved with applicable MS4 WLAs 10 years after the effective date of the TMDL (Water Quality Control Plan, Attachment A to Resolution No. R15-0xx, adopted by the RWQCB in 2015). 2 The final compliance date for wet weather bacteria was selected to be consistent with the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL (RWQCB, 2011). 3 This will be assumed to be the case if monitoring data show that outfall concentrations and receiving water concentrations are in excess of the applicable water quality criteria for the same monitoring event. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 4 | Implementation Schedule 4-5 | Page 2015 Table 3-12 previously summarized the load reductions achieved for the quantified WBPCs for the interim and final compliance deadlines. Zinc has been identified as the controlling pollutant for BMP implementation, as it would likely produce load reductions for the other pollutants greater than their individual TLRs. Therefore, it is assumed that the nonstructural and structural BMPs proposed to meet the zinc final TLR by 2032 would also achieve compliance with the other metals TLRs. Therefore, distributed green streets BMPs at a final implementation level of 14%29 and all regional BMPs are planned to be implemented no later than 2032 (with the exception of the Powerline Easement Project, as discussed below). At the time of the proposed final compliance deadline (2032), the proposed projects result in a 79% (DC-RB/MB analysis region) to 80% (DC-Torrance analysis region) load reduction, both of which are greater than the TLR of 76%. Copper TLRs are also proposed to be met in both analysis regions, in combination with the adaptive management approach discussed previously. For bacteria, within the DC-RB/MB analysis region, the proposed final wet weather compliance deadline of December 2032 is proposed to be met through the suite of non-structural and structural BMPs, including distributed green streets BMPs at a 14% implementation level30. At the time of the proposed final compliance deadline (2032), this implementation plan results in a load reduction of 74% in analysis region DC-RB/MB, which is greater than the TLR of 33%. A 38% bacteria load reduction is estimated in the DC-Torrance analysis region. As shown in Table 3-12, the interim deadlines for bacteria are also proposed to be met through a combination of non- structural and distributed green streets BMPs, phased in over the compliance period. It should be noted that although the inlet filters proposed in the DC-Torrance analysis region are not planned for 100% of catch basins (200 of 643 are currently planned in high priority drainage areas), the achieved load reduction will be evaluated through adaptive management, with additional filters to be installed as necessary to meet the TLRs by the specified compliance deadlines. 4.2 PROJECT SEQUENCING In order to meet the compliance deadlines for the WBPCs discussed above based on load reduction projections in the RAA, the proposed structural BMPs within the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds would be implemented per the timeline provided in Figure 4-1. 29 An “implementation level” of 14% is defined here to mean that runoff from 14% of land use areas (commercial, single family residential, multi-family residential, and industrial land uses) would be treated by green street BMPs (bioretention and biofiltration systems) designed as described in Section 2.6.3. 30 An “implementation level” of 7% is defined here to mean that runoff from 7% of land use areas (commercial, single family residential, multi-family residential, and industrial land uses) would be treated by green street BMPs (bioretention and biofiltration systems) designed as described in Section 2.6.3. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 4 | Implementation Schedule 4-6 | Page 2015 Figure 4-1. Proposed Project Sequencing BMP Location/Name Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Santa Monica Bay Watershed Catch basin retrofits Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench* Green streets application in SMB-5-02 Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration* Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Park #3 Green streets application in SMB-6-01 Dominguez Channel Watershed Catch basin inlet filters in DC-Torrance Green streets application in DC-RB/MB Powerline Easement Filtration* Artesia Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard Filtration *Alternative project locations have also been identified DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 5 | Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework 5-1 | Page 2015 5 ASSESSMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Adaptive management is a critical component of the EWMP implementation process, and EWMP updates are required at two-year cycles by the Permit. The CIMP will gather additional data on receiving water conditions and stormwater/non-stormwater quality. These data will 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. 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 lessons learned from 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 outlined in Section 4, the schedule and milestones for the EWMP have been designed around meeting the interim and final TMDL requirements for bacteria and metals. 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. For example, the Statewide Bacteria Amendments have the potential to modify water quality objectives in the Ocean Plan and Basin Plan, as well as the TMDL WLAs and their WQBEL and/or RWL expressions in the Permit. These changes could affect the required load reductions for bacteria as well as the watershed control measures identified herein. Monitoring data will be utilized to measure progress towards achieving RWLs and WQBELs. An evaluation of monitoring data will be carried out on a biennial basis in accordance with Figure 5-1 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). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 5 | Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework 5-2 | Page 2015 Modifications that are warranted because insufficient progress is being made will be noted every two years in the annual report and a schedule for implementation will be provided. A full update to the EWMP and the RAA is not anticipated as the schedule for bacteria compliance is only six years long. Updating the EWMP and RAA is a significant and costly undertaking that is not necessary unless conditions change significantly and additional modeling is needed to inform implementation decisions. However, at any point, the Beach Cities Agencies could choose to update the EWMP and the associated RAA, particularly if deemed appropriate based on monitoring data. 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 in Figure 5-1 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 permittees will need to apply for a Time Schedule Order or other mechanism to get an extension of the compliance deadlines. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 5 | Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework 5-3 | Page 2015 Figure 5-1. Adaptive Management Approach Biannually review MS4 Outfall data Were ﬁnal WQBELs met (based on water quality data or demonstration of no discharge)? Implementation complete. Report in annual report Biannually review receiving water quality data for all constituents. Are receiving water WQOs being met? Yes Yes Was interim RW milestone met? In compliance. Report in annual report and continue EWMP implementation Was interim outfall milestone met? No Yes No Yes No Propose modiﬁcations in annual report to improve progress and incorporate new WQPs. Implement the EWMP and proposed modiﬁcations In compliance. Report in annual report and continue EWMP implementation Is constituent an existing water quality priority (WQP)? Is constituent in same “class” as another WQP? Implement in accordance with milestones and schedule for “class” Develop milestones and schedule for new WQP Yes Yes No No No DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-1 | Page 2015 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS In June of 2014, the Beach Cities WMG submitted the Beach Cities EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB (Beach Cities WMG, 2014). The EWMP Work Plan described the approach to cost estimation and scheduling for the EWMP, which is addressed in this section. This section provides an order-of-magnitude estimate of the financial resources that may be required to attain compliance with the 2012 MS4 Permit’s RWLs and WQBELs, as well as a recommended project scheduling in order to meet TMDL compliance deadlines and interim deadlines. Planning-level cost opinions associated with implementation of the proposed structural BMPs within the Beach Cities WMG area are provided based on RAA results. Cost opinions 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 budget forecasts are order-of magnitude opinions, and 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 also provided herein. These funding sources and programs may be utilized depending on applicability and feasibility. 6.1 BMP COST METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 6.1.1 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. A safety factor was applied to the BMP footprints for calculation of design parameters, for both the low and high cost estimates. Unit costs were taken from RS Means31, past projects based in Southern California, recent construction cost/bid information, and vendors. Line item unit costs of the proposed structural BMPs are included in Appendix O. 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. 6.1.2 SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS 31 RS Means is a unit cost database that is updated annually (http://www.rsmeansonline.com/). When costs from literature are not available project’s design criteria and unit costs from the database were used to estimate the project’s cost. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-2 | Page 2015 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. Estimated soft costs as percent of total project capital costs are presented in Table 6-1. These percentages were based on literature, best professional judgment, and data from past projects (Brown and Schueler, 1997; International Cost Engineering Council, 2014). Table 6-1. 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 20% 40% Construction Management 8% 15% 1 $2,000 minimum fee 6.1.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were assumed to be two percent of the capital cost for subsurface infiltration basins, two percent of the capital cost for sub-surface biofilters, five percent of the capital cost for subsurface infiltration trenches, and six percent of the capital cost for green streets (USEPA, 2005; Weiss et al., 2007). O&M opinions for underground infiltration basins include cleaning and removal of debris after major storm events, mowing and maintenance of surface vegetated areas, and sediment cleanout. O&M necessary for maintaining DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-3 | Page 2015 sub-surface biofilters includes landscape maintenance, media and gravel replacement once clogged when surface scarification is no longer effective, pest control, sediment and pre-treatment cleanout. O&M for underground infiltration trenches includes cleaning and removal of debris, repairs to inlet/control structures, and pre-treatment cleanup. 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 20-year lifecycle costs, with no discounting applied, also including post-construction monitoring. Additional maintenance will be necessary after the 20-year lifecycle. Extended maintenance for subsurface infiltration 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. Cisterns should be replaced after a useful life of approximately 50 years, at 125 percent of the capital cost. 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 is recommended after major storm events, or storms with a rainfall intensity of greater than one inch in 12 hours. 6.1.4 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. 6.2 PROPOSED STRUCTURAL BMPS As previously described, regional and distributed structural BMP options are proposed to achieve compliance with the RWLs and WQBELs. Table 6-2 summarizes the basic, concept-level design assumptions for each of the proposed structural BMPs which formed the basis for the conceptual cost opinions. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-4 | Page 2015 Table 6-2. Proposed BMP Design Assumptions for Conceptual Cost Opinions Analysis Region BMP Name BMP Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) SMB-5-02 Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench – Alternative 1 Located along the coast of Manhattan Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 2 ac, an average depth of 2 ft with a diversion rate of 160 cfs and an infiltration rate under the trench of 13 in/hr. 198,000 1,4751 SMB-5-02 Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench – Alternative 2 Located along the coast of Manhattan Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 1.6 ac, an average depth of 2 ft with a diversion rate of 128 cfs and an infiltration rate under the trench of 13 in/hr. 158,400 1,4751 SMB-5-02 Polliwog Park Infiltration Gallery – Alternative 2 Located adjacent to Manhattan Beach Boulevard in Manhattan Beach, the sub-surface infiltration gallery has a potential surface area of 1 ac, an average depth of 4 ft, a diversion flowrate of 11 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 0.74 in/hr. 148,100 470 SMB-5-02 Distributed Green Streets – Alternative 1 The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 5% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 205,500 66 SMB-5-02 Distributed Green Streets – Alternative 2 The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 5% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 142,100 45 SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Located along the coast of Hermosa Beach, the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 0.2 ac, an average depth of 1.7 ft, a diversion flowrate of 25 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 12.5 in/hr. 13,300 2,0001 SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration2 Located between Valley Dr. and Ardmore Ave., the sub-surface trench has a potential surface area of 1.5 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 48 cfs, and an assumed infiltration rate of 12 in/hr. 319,000 1,8001 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-5 | Page 2015 Analysis Region BMP Name BMP Description Storage Volume (cu-ft) Tributary Area (acres) SMB-6-01 Park #3 Located northwest of Blossom Lane and 190th street, the sub-surface infiltration basin has a potential surface area of 0.5 ac, an average depth of 5ft , a diversion flowrate of 13 cfs, and an infiltration rate of 1 in/hr. 87,000 1,4301 SMB-6-01 Distributed Green Streets The distributed green streets, proposed to address runoff from 25% of single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial land uses, are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 605,200 190 SMB 5-02, SMB 6-01, DC – MB/RB Trash exclusion devices The City of Redondo Beach plans to retrofit 1,085 catch basins (634 of which are County-owned), the City of Hermosa Beach will retrofit 151 (79 of which are County-owned), and the City of Manhattan Beach plans to retrofit 640 (200 of which are County-owned) catch basins. All cities will retrofit catch basins with automatic retractable screens (ARS) and connector pipe screen full capture trash systems (CPS). N/A - DC – MB/RB Powerline Easement and Manhattan Beach Blvd Infiltration Located along powerline easements and/or adjacent to Marine Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard, the sub-surface biofilter has a potential surface area of 7.2 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 132 cfs, and a negligible infiltration rate. N/A (Flow-through BMP) 1,500 DC – MB/RB Artesia Blvd. and Hawthorne Blvd. Filtration Located near the intersection of Artesia Blvd. and Hawthorne Blvd., the sub-surface biofilter has a potential surface area of 1 ac, an average depth of 5 ft, a diversion flowrate of 13.6 cfs, and a negligible infiltration rate. N/A (Flow-through BMP) 130 DC- MB/RB Distributed Green Streets The distributed green streets are assumed to have 6 in of ponding, 1.5 ft of amended soil, 3 in of mulch, and an infiltration rate of 0.15 in/hr. 636,300 200 DC-Torrance Catch basin inlet filters The City of Torrance plans to retrofit 200 of 643 catch basins with inlet filters. N/A 5,760 1 This includes upstream BMPs and associated tributary drainage areas 2 Alternative project locations have also been identified DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-6 | Page 2015 6.2.1 COST OPINION - SMB WATERSHED - ANALYSIS REGION SMB-5-02 For the SMB subwatershed tributary to compliance monitoring location SMB-5-02, two implementation alternatives were identified in the RAA. Alternative 1 includes the Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench and distributed green streets at a 5% application rate32. Alternative 2 includes a reduced volume of the Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench (i.e., reducing the volume by approximately 20%), the Polliwog Park Infiltration Gallery project, and distributed green street BMPs at a 5% application rate. Table 6-3 outlines the costs associated with Alternative 1 and Table 6-4 outlines the costs associated with Alternative 2. Based on projected cost alone, Alternative 1 (larger beach infiltration trench, without Polliwog Park project) is the preferred option, however a preliminary engineering study is needed to verify the feasibility of Alternative 1 so Alternative 2 is included to demonstrate an alternate approach to reasonable assurance. Trash exclusion devices will also be implemented in the SMB 5-02 analysis region. These costs were determined for each city (Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Hermosa Beach) and are presented in Section 6.2.5. Further cost opinion details are provided in Appendix O. 32 An “application rate” of 5% is defined here to mean that 5% of RAA-specified land use areas (commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential land uses) would be treated by green street BMPs (bioretention and biofiltration systems) designed as described in Section 2.6.3. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-7 | Page 2015 Table 6-3. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-5-02, Alternative 1 Project Name Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench Distributed Green Streets Location of BMP Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Cost Range Low High Low High Capital Subtotal $2,700,000 $3,800,000 $1,800,000 $3,600,000 Utility Realignment $0 $110,000 $0 $110,000 Mobilization/Demobilization $81,000 $380,000 $53,000 $360,000 Planning, permitting, bond, and insurance costs $140,000 $380,000 $89,000 $360,000 Engineering and Planning $540,000 $1,500,000 $350,000 $1,500,000 Construction Management $220,000 $570,000 $140,000 $550,000 Total Estimated Project Construction Cost $3,700,000 $6,800,000 $2,400,000 $6,500,000 Annual O&M $140,000 $190,000 $110,000 $220,000 Total 20-year Lifecycle Cost $6,100,000 (low) to $13,000,000 (high) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-8 | Page 2015 Table 6-4. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-5-02, Alternative 2 Project Name Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench Polliwog Park Infiltration Gallery Distributed Green Streets Location of BMP Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Cost Range Low High Low High Low High Capital Subtotal $2,200,000 $3,300,000 $2,100,000 $2,500,000 $1,200,000 $2,500,000 Utility Realignment $0 $98,000 $0 $74,000 $0 $75,000 Mobilization/Demobilization $67,000 $330,000 $64,000 $250,000 $37,000 $250,000 Planning, permitting, bond, and insurance costs $110,000 $330,000 $110,000 $250,000 $61,000 $250,000 Engineering and Planning $450,000 $1,300,000 $430,000 $990,000 $240,000 $1,000,000 Construction Management $180,000 $490,000 $170,000 $370,000 $98,000 $380,000 Total Estimated Project Construction Cost $3,000,000 $5,800,000 $2,900,000 $4,400,000 $1,700,000$4,500,000 Annual O&M $110,000 $160,000 $43,000 $50,000 $73,000 $150,000 Total 20-year Lifecycle Cost $7,600,000 (low) to $15,000,000 (high) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-9 | Page 2015 6.2.2 COST OPINION - SMB WATERSHED – ANALYSIS REGION SMB-6-01 The RAA within analysis region SMB-6-01 predicts that the TLR will be met with reasonable assurance through implementation of the proposed Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench, Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration, Park #3, and a combination of green street BMPs at an application rate of 25%33. Table 6-5 outlines the costs associated with this structural BMP combination which, when implemented with the existing structural regional BMPs and non-structural control measures34 detailed in the RAA modeling efforts, will achieve TLR compliance at CML SMB-6-01. Trash exclusion devices will also be implemented in the SMB 6-01 analysis region. These costs were determined for each city (Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Hermosa Beach) and are presented in Section 6.2.5. Further cost estimate details are provided in Appendix O. 33 An “application rate” of 25% is defined here to mean that runoff from 25% of RAA-specified land use areas (commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential land uses) would be treated by green street BMPs (bioretention and biofiltration systems) designed as described in Section 2.6.3. 34 Non-structural control measures include redevelopment, public retrofit incentives, non-MS4 parcels/areas, and programmatic BMPs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-10 | Page 2015 Table 6-5. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region SMB-6-01 Project Name Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration Park #3 Distributed Green Streets Location of BMP Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach or Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance Cost Range Low High Low High Low High Low High Capital Subtotal $370,000 $640,000 $4,100,000 $4,500,000 $1,400,000 $1,700,000 $5,200,000 $11,000,000 Utility Realignment $0 $19,000 $0 $130,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $320,000 Mobilization/Demobilization $11,000 $64,000 $120,000 $450,000 $42,000 $170,000 $160,000 $1,100,000 Planning, permitting, bond, and insurance costs $18,000 $64,000 $200,000 $450,000 $70,000 $170,000 $260,000 $1,100,000 Engineering and Planning $74,000 $260,000 $810,000 $1,800,000 $280,000 $660,000 $1,000,000 $4,200,000 Construction Management $29,000 $96,000 $320,000 $670,000 $110,000 $250,000 $410,000 $1,600,000 Total Estimated Project Construction Cost $500,000 $1,100,000 $5,500,000 $8,000,000 $1,900,000 $3,000,000 $7,000,000 $19,000,000 Annual O&M $18,000 $32,000 $81,000 $90,000 $28,000 $33,000 $310,000 $640,000 Total 20-year Lifecycle Cost $15,000,000 (low) to $31,000,000 (high) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-11 | Page 2015 6.2.3 COST OPINION - DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED – ANALYSIS REGION DC-RB/MB According to the Beach Cities RAA model analysis of the Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach areas within the Dominguez Channel watershed, it is predicted that the TLR will be met with reasonable assurance through implementation of the proposed Powerline Easement Infiltration Project, Artesia Boulevard Infiltration Project, and a combination of green street BMPs at an application rate of 14%35. Table 6-6 outlines the costs associated with these proposed projects which, when implemented with non-structural control measures36 detailed in the RAA modeling efforts, are predicted to achieve TLR compliance within the Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach areas within the Dominguez Channel watershed. Trash exclusion devices will also be implemented in the DC-RB/MB analysis region. These costs were approximated for each city (Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Hermosa Beach) and are presented in Section 6.2.5. Further cost estimate details are provided in Appendix O. 35 An “application rate” of 14% is defined here to mean that runoff from 14% of RAA-specified land use areas (commercial, single family residential, and multi-family residential land uses) would be treated by green street BMPs (bioretention and biofiltration systems) designed as described in Section 2.6.3. 36 Non-structural control measures include redevelopment, public retrofit incentives, non-MS4 parcels/areas, and programmatic BMPs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-12 | Page 2015 Table 6-6. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region DC-RB/MB1 Project Name Powerline Easement Infiltration Artesia Blvd Infiltration Distributed Green Streets Location of BMP Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach/Manhattan Beach Cost Range Low High Low High Low High Capital Subtotal $8,200,000 $9,200,000 $1,500,000 $1,800,000 $5,500,000 $11,000,000 Utility Realignment $0 $270,000 $0 $53,000 $0 $340,000 Mobilization/Demobilization $250,000 $920,000 $45,000 $180,000 $160,000 $1,100,000 Planning, permitting, bond, and insurance costs $410,000 $920,000 $75,000 $180,000 $270,000 $1,100,000 Engineering and Planning $1,600,000 $3,700,000 $300,000 $710,000 $1,100,000 $4,500,000 Construction Management $660,000 $1,400,000 $120,000 $260,000 $440,000 $1,700,000 Total Estimated Project Construction Cost $11,000,000 $16,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,100,000 $7,400,000 $20,000,000 Annual O&M $160,000 $180,000 $30,000 $35,000 $330,000 $670,000 Total 20-year Lifecycle Cost $20,000,000 (low) to $39,000,000 (high) 1 Costs for the Powerline Easement Infiltration project and Artesia Boulevard Infiltration project were estimated based on cost information for lined biofilters with engineered media; the design elements of which cover a range of infiltration options. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-13 | Page 2015 6.2.4 COST OPINION - DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED – ANALYSIS REGION DC- TORRANCE An analysis of the proposed catch basin inlet filters predicts an estimated load reduction attributable to each inlet filter installed. Table 6-7 outlines the approximate high and low capital and O&M costs associated with 200 retrofits. Further cost estimate details are provided in Appendix O. Table 6-7. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Structural BMPs in Analysis Region DC-Torrance Project Name Catch Basin Inlet Filters Location of BMP Torrance Cost Range Low High Capital Subtotal $240,000 $360,000 Total Estimated Project Construction Cost $240,000 $360,000 Annual O&M $130,000 $170,000 Total 20-year Lifecycle Cost $2,840,000 (low) to $3,760,000 (high) 6.2.5 COST OPINION – TRASH EXCLUSION DEVICES – ALL ANALYSIS REGIONS The Cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Hermosa Beach plan to retrofit catch basins with trash exclusion devices (either automatic retractable screens [ARSs] and/or connector pipe screen [CPS] full capture trash systems in the Santa Monica Bay watershed). The City of Redondo Beach plans to retrofit 1,085 catch basins (634 of which are County-owned), the City of Hermosa Beach will retrofit 151 catch basins (79 of which are County-owned), and the City of Manhattan Beach plans to retrofit 640 catch basins (200 of which are County-owned) catch basins. These catch basin retrofits will be located in SMB-5-02, SMB-6-01, as well as in the other analysis regions in SMB; these catch basin retrofits will work in combination with other regionally sited BMPs. The City of Torrance has substantially completed retrofit of its Santa Monica Bay watershed area through several recent grant funded projects so costs for City of Torrance trash exclusion devices are not included. Not included in these costs are the retrofits of catch basins in high priority areas of Dominguez Channel to meet the MCMs in the MS4 Permit for areas without trash TMDLs. Table 6-8 outlines the costs associated with these retrofits, as approximated by each city. Annual O&M costs for trash exclusion devices reflect additional costs for cleaning the inserts/screens only. An estimate of current costs spent to clean non-retrofitted catch basins was subtracted from the annual O&M estimate, resulting in annual O&M required for the addition of the inserts/screens only. Further cost estimate details are provided in Appendix O. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-14 | Page 2015 Table 6-8. Estimated Construction and O&M Costs for Catch Basin Retrofits Location of BMP Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Manhattan Beach Cost Range Low High Low High Low High Capital Subtotal1 $110,000 $370,000 $790,000 $2,600,000 $470,000 $1,600,000 Mobilization2 $5,500 $18,000 $40,000 $130,000 $23,000 $78,000 Permitting3 $40,000 $40,000 $320,000 $320,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Estimated Project Construction Cost $160,000 $430,000 $1,100,000 $3,100,000 $590,000 $1,700,000 Annual O&M $50,000 $64,000 $360,000 $460,000 $210,000 $270,000 Total 20-year Lifecycle Cost $1,900,000 (low) to $5,200,000 (high) 1 Includes cost of both ARS and CPS 2 5% of capital subtotal cost 3 $500 for each County-owned catch basin only DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-15 | Page 2015 6.2.6 SUMMARY OF COST OPINIONS Table 6-9 summarizes the total 20-year life-cycle cost opinions for each proposed structural BMP, which are composed of the cost to construct or implement each structural BMP plus the associated annual O&M costs over 20 years. In order to account for possible variations in BMP design, BMP configurations, and site-specific constraints, as well as for uncertainties in available BMP unit costs from literature or estimated BMP unit costs, a range of costs is presented. Table 6-9 includes 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 6-9, it is clear that projected costs of implementing the EWMP are substantial and orders of magnitude higher than have previously been expended by the agencies under the previous MS4 Permit. Thus availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. Currently, the Beach Cities do not have sufficient funds or dedicated funding streams to construct and maintain the projects proposed in this EWMP. The Beach Cities agencies are working with the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities and the California Contract Cities Association to partner with other affected agencies to collectively influence State policies, pursue changes in legislation and lobby high level officials for additional stormwater funding. Working together with the other cities will increase effectiveness, communication, collaboration, and reduce redundant efforts. The LACFCD will also work with the Beach Cities WMG in their efforts to address source controls; assess, develop, and pursue funding for structural BMPs, and promote the use of water reuse and infiltration. As regional project scopes are further refined, the LACFCD will determine on a case-by-case basis their contribution to the projects. In addition to working with other affected cities on a regional level, the Beach Cities WMG individually and collaboratively are committed to pursue funding sources at a local level including but not limited to: • Grants - Collaboration and coordination between the Beach Cities will be important to increase accessible grant funding opportunities for stormwater projects, however alternative funding sources will also be needed to provide stable O&M revenues since grants typically do not provide for O&M. • Interagency Partnerships – Interagency partnerships, like the Beach Cities WMG, can allow agencies to leverage local funding resources to make cost intensive projects possible. • Local Bond Issuance - Two types of local bonds can be utilized. General Obligation (GO) bonds are issued by local governments and repaid through a property tax surcharge. Revenue bonds are tax-exempt securitized bonds repaid through utility rate increases charged directly to customers. • Local Stormwater Assessments - Stormwater charges are potentially the most critical local funding source to finance stormwater programs. These charges include stormwater fees and taxes. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-16 | Page 2015 • Direct Subsidies - Direct financial subsidies to local projects 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. These potential sources of funding are discussed in greater detail in Section 7. 6.2.7 CLOSING DISCUSSION In concluding its review of the LA MS4 Permit in response to petitions on the order, the SWRCB acknowledges that: “Addressing the water quality impacts of municipal storm water is a complex and difficult undertaking, requiring innovative approaches and significant investment of resources. We recognize and appreciate the commendable effort of the Los Angeles Water Board to come up with a workable and collaborative solution to the difficult technical, policy, and legal issues, as well as the demonstrated commitment of many of the area’s MS4 dischargers and of the environmental community to work with the Los Angeles Water Board in the development and implementation of the proposed solution. We also recognize the extensive work that interested persons from across the state, including CASQA, have invested in assisting us in understanding how the watershed-based alternative compliance approach developed by the Los Angeles Water Board may inform statewide approaches to addressing achievement of water quality requirements. While storm water poses an immediate water quality problem, we believe that a rigorous and transparent watershed-based approach that emphasizes low impact development, green infrastructure, multi-benefit projects, and capture, infiltration, and reuse of storm water is a promising long-term approach to addressing the complex issues involved. We must balance requirements for and enforcement of immediate, but often incomplete, solutions with allowing enough time and leeway for dischargers to invest in infrastructure that will provide for a more reliable trajectory away from storm water-caused pollution and degradation. We believe that the Los Angeles MS4 Order, with the revisions we have made, strikes that balance at this stage in our storm water programs, but expect that we will continue to revisit the question of the appropriate balance as the water boards’ experience in implementing watershed-based solutions to storm water grows.” [Revised draft Order, April 24, 2015, p.86-87 conclusion]37 37 Revised Draft April 24, 2015. State of California State Water Resources Control Board Order WQ 2015-XX In the Matter of Review of Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for the 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. Issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. SWRCB/OCC Files A- 2236(a)-(kk). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-17 | Page 2015 The SWRCB also states that: “The WMP/EWMP provisions constitute an effort to set ambitious, yet achievable, targets for Permittees; receiving water limitations, on the other hand, while the ultimate goal of MS4 permitting, may not in all cases be achievable within the five-year permit cycle. Generally, permits are best structured so that enforcement actions are employed when a discharger shows some shortcoming in achieving a realistic, even if ambitious, permit condition and not under circumstances where even the most diligent and good faith effort will fail to achieve the required condition.” [Revised draft Order, April 24, 2015, p.35]38 Additionally, SWRCB in discussing compliance with receiving water limitations provisions stated: “Yet, we are sympathetic to the assertions made by MS4 dischargers that the receiving water limitations provisions mandated by our Order WQ 99-05 may result in many years of permit noncompliance, because it may take years of technical efforts to achieve compliance with the receiving water limitations, especially for wet weather discharges. Accordingly, we believe that the MS4 permits should incorporate a well-defined, transparent, and finite alternative path to permit compliance that allows MS4 dischargers that are willing to pursue significant undertakings beyond the iterative process to be deemed in compliance with the receiving water limitations.” [Revised draft Order, April 24, 2015, p. 17]39 The Beach Cities WMG agencies appreciate the SWRCB acknowledgement of the challenges that lie ahead, the understanding of the need for adaptive management in this complex and difficult undertaking, and the significant commitment of resources that must be secured to carry out this ambitious plan to address the water quality impacts of municipal stormwater. 38 Revised Draft April 24, 2015. State of California State Water Resource’s Control Board Order WQ 2015-XX In the Matter of Review of Order No. R4-2012-0175. 39 Revised Draft April 24, 2015. State of California State Water Resource’s Control Board Order WQ 2015-XX In the Matter of Review of Order No. R4-2012-0175. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 6 | Financial Analysis 6-18 | Page 2015 Table 6-9. Capital, O&M, and 20-year Life-Cycle Cost Opinion for Proposed Structural BMPs by Analysis Region Watershed/ Analysis Region Location of BMP Project Name Construction Cost Range Annual O&M Range Total 20-Year Life-Cycle1 Range Low High Low High Low High Santa Monica Bay Watershed SMB-5-02, Alternative 1 Manhattan Beach Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench2 $3.7M $6.8M $140K $190K $6.5M $11M Manhattan Beach Distributed Green Streets $2.4M $6.5M $110K $220K $4.6M $11M SMB-5-02 Alternative 1 Combined Costs $6.1M $13M $250K $410K $11M $22M SMB-6-01 Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench $500K $1.1M $18K $32K $860K $1.7M Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Infiltration2$5.5M $8.0M $81K $90K $7.1M $9.8M Redondo Beach Park #3 $1.9M $3.0M $28K $33K $2.5M $3.7M Hermosa Beach Distributed Green Streets $7.0M $19M $310K $640K $13M $32M SMB-6-01 Combined Costs $15M $31M $440K $800K $23M $47M All Analysis Regions Hermosa Beach Trash exclusion devices $160K $430K $50K $64K $1.1M $1.7M Redondo Beach Trash exclusion devices $1.1M $3.1M $360K $460K $8.3M $12M Manhattan Beach Trash exclusion devices $590K $1.7M $210K $270K $4.8M $7.1M Combined Costs in Santa Monica Bay Watershed $23M $50M $1.3M $2.0M $49M $90M Dominguez Channel Watershed DC-RB/MB Redondo Beach Powerline Easement Infiltration2 $11M $16M $160K $180K $14M $20M Redondo Beach Artesia Blvd Infiltration $2.0M $3.1M $30K $35K $2.6M $3.8M Redondo Beach + Manhattan Beach Distributed Green Streets $7.4M $20M $330K $670K $14M $33M DC-RB/MB Combined Costs $20M $39M $520K $890K $31M $57M DC-Torrance Torrance Catch basin inlet filters $240K $360k $130K $170k $2.8M $3.7M DC-Torrance Combined Costs $240K $360k $130K $170k $2.8M $3.7M Combined Costs in Dominguez Channel Watershed $20M $39M $650K $1.1M $33M $61M Combined Costs of All Proposed Structural BMPs $43M $89M $2.0M $3.1M $82M $150M M = Million dollars, K = Thousand dollars 1 Life-cycle costs include construction costs and 20 years of annual O&M (in 2015 dollars) and are not discounted. 2 Alternative project locations have also been identified, but are not included in combined cost opinion DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-1 | Page 2015 7 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY The availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. This section provides an overview of potentially available funding sources for programs proposed in the EWMP. The funding sources included in this section for consideration are grants, interagency partnerships, bonds, State Revolving Funds, local funding opportunities, and public private partnerships. 7.1 GRANT OPPORTUNITIES Grants have historically been a backbone for financing stormwater projects. The majority of the water-related grants are designated for flood control, drinking water, and watershed protection; very few grants are made available for the sole purpose of stormwater permit compliance. For example, the State of California has planned to spend $7.5 billion under the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act (2014), but only $200 million have been designated for stormwater capture projects statewide to enhance regional water reliability. In order to increase the likelihood of getting grant funding, a stormwater project might need to be added to a larger project or program that serves different proposes and has different objectives rather than just for stormwater management. Thus, collaboration and coordination between stormwater agencies and other public agencies would be important to increase accessible grant funding opportunities for stormwater projects. It is noted that 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 any funded projects. Table 7-1 presents the potential grant opportunities available that the Beach Cities can apply to fund the EWMP projects. Since SB-985-Stormwater Resource Planning became effective in 2014, local governments have been required to have 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. The EWMP could potentially be utilized as a functionally equivalent plan but further clarification will need to be provided in the guidance document which is anticipated to be established by the State Water Resource Control Board by July 1, 2016. Agencies and the LARWQCB staff should review and comment on the guidance document to ensure that these plans can be utilized. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-2 | Page 2015 Table 7-1. Relevant Grant Opportunities listed in the 2015 Funding Fairs Handbook (California Financing Coordinating Committee [CFCC], 2015) 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, protect endangered and threatened species, 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. Funding will be awarded at one of two levels: Funding Group I: Up to $300,000 per agreement for a project up to 2 years. Funding Group II: Up to $1,500,000 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. The primary goal is to address two major concerns synonymous with watershed groups – 1) the need for funding to pay the salary of a full-time coordinator and 2) the limited funding available for project management. Please visit the following website for evaluation criteria: http://www.usbr.gov/Wa terSMART/cwmp/docs/ CWMPEvaluationCriteri a.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 needs of the state, including the delivery of safe drinking water, flood risk reduction, and protection of water quality and Operation and maintenance activities Bond funding allocation for entire program is $1 billion. Prop 84 allots grant funding to 11 funding areas. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-3 | Page 2015 Program Department Purpose Ineligible Uses Funding Limits the environment. 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-4 | Page 2015 7.2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS Stormwater management projects often overlap with the jurisdiction of other public agencies, including water agencies, as well as parks and schools. Interagency partnerships would not only allow agencies involved to leverage one other’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 7-2 provides a list of potentially viable partnerships and the benefits derived from management of stormwater runoff. Table 7-2. Added Benefits of Interagency Partnership for Stormwater Management Potential Partners Benefits Derived from Stormwater Management Flood control district • Flood protection • Climate change mitigation 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 7.3 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-5 | Page 2015 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 publically 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). Since the enactment of AB-850, a JPA, called Southern California Public Water Authority (SCPWA), has been established by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Burbank Water and Power (LADWP, 2015). The first two members of the SCPWA are the City of Los Angeles and the City of Burbank. The Beach Cities can consider becoming members of the SCPWA. However, details on how bond proceeds can be directed to pay for eligible stormwater projects identified in the EWMP will need to be further evaluated. It is expected that high level of collaboration and coordination between stormwater and water agencies would be 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. 7.4 STATE REVOLVING FUNDS Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program, which is managed by the State Water Resource Control Board and funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency, is an alternative funding source for development of new infrastructure projects that will benefit water quality. The CWSRF finances water quality projects similar to those proposed in the EWMP, including nonpoint source, watershed protection or restoration, 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 cost-saving achieved from utilizing the CWSRF can vary between 17% and 25% of the total project costs DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-6 | Page 2015 compared to conventional loans (USEPA, 2014; SWRCB, 2014). The maximum repayment term is 20 years. The CWSRF also has an Expanded Use program that provides funding for stormwater treatment and diversion, sediment and erosion control as well as stream restoration projects (CFCC, 2015). This special program offers interest rate at one-half of the general obligation bond rate with a repayment period of up to 30 years. There is no limit in terms of the amount an agency can borrow under this program. The main limitation of the CWSRF is that it cannot be used for project operation and maintenance (O&M) purposes (USEPA, 2013). The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program managed by the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank provides financing for public infrastructure projects for environmental mitigation purposes (CFCC, 2015). The loan can be used for construction or modification of public infrastructure, including educational, cultural, and social facilities, purchase and installation of pollution control equipment, and parks and recreation facilities. The loan size can range between $50,000 and $25 million with a maximum repayment period of 30 years. The interest rate is based on market rate but may be adjusted based on the social and economic status of the area where the project will be implemented. 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. 7.5 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 7-3 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-7 | Page 2015 Table 7-3. 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 7-3 are subject to approval mechanisms that can vary from holding a simple written protest hearing to an election, depending on the type of funding sought after (Table 7-4). 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 fees, 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. The recent 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 are also 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. An amendment to Proposition 218 that will allow stormwater fees to be treated like water, sewer, and refuse fees, is being discussed and considered (CSQA, 2015). A new AB-1362, which is designed to include the definition of “stormwater” into the California Constitution’s Article XIII C and Article XIII D, was introduced to the State Assembly on February 27, 2015. The introduction of this Bill marks the first step toward such an amendment of Proposition 218. 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 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). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-8 | Page 2015 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 it discourages 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 7-4. 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 Source: Public Policy Institute of California (PICC), 2014. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-9 | Page 2015 7.6 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 7-5. Based on these examples presented in Table 7-5, 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 7-5, 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-10 | Page 2015 Table 7-5. Selected Cities that provide Financial Subsidies to encourage the Development of Stormwater Infrastructure in Private Properties 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 [SPU], 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 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 7 | Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy 7-11 | Page 2015 7.7 FINANCIAL STRATEGY The above examples describe how the stormwater management program can potentially be funded using multiple approaches rather than a single fee arrangement. Such a strategy could potentially reduce the risk of insufficient support by voters or property owners. Based on the above discussions, a summary of potential financial approaches is provided in Table 7-6. Table 7-6. Funding Approach Summary Approach Funding Type Limitations Potential Significance (with Respect to Overall Funding) Grants New Revenue • Competitive • No guarantee of funding accessibility • Infrastructure projects only • Application preparation/submission requires significant staff time • 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 High 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) • O&M costs are typically excluded (except for stormwater fee) High 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 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 8 | Legal Authority 8-1 | Page 2015 8 LEGAL AUTHORITY The Beach Cities WMG Permittees have the necessary legal authority to implement the BMPs identified in the EWMP, as provided in Appendix P. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 9 | References 9-1 | Page 2015 9 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. Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, 2014. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Work Plan for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group. June. 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. 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. Carollo Engineers (Carollo), 2014. Broadway Neighborhood Greenway Project 100% Cost Estimate—General Conditions (DRAFT). Los Angeles, California. October. Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), 2010. The Value of Green Infrastructure. (website: http://www.cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf) City of Malibu, 2012. Comment Letter – Bacteria TMDL Revisions for Santa Monica Bay Beaches. May 7. City of Palo Alto, 2015. Innovative Stormwater Measures Rebate Program. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/rebates/default.asp) City of Torrance, 2011. Stormwater Quality Master Plan. County of Montgomery, 2015. RainScapes Rewards Rebate Program. Environmental Protection. County of Montgomery, MD. (http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/water/rainscapes- rebates.html) CWE Corp., 2012. City of Torrance Stormwater Basin Enhancement Project Design Information Memorandum Amie, Henrietta, and Entradero Basins. September 10. 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. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2015. Aviation Gasoline, about Aviation Gasoline. (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/) Geosyntec Consultants, 2008. A User’s Guide for the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT v1.0): Technical Appendices. December. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 9 | References 9-2 | Page 2015 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. International Cost Engineering Council, 2014. (www.icoste.org) LADWP, 2015. Authorization to Establish a Joint Powers Authority for Water Financing. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. [website: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2015/15- 0148_misc_02-05-2015.pdf] 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), 1995. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). June. 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. 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. RSMeansOnline, v. 6.0.0. 2015. The Gordian Group. (http://www.rsmeansonline.com/) 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. Stien, L.L. Tiefenthaler, and K.C. Schiff. March 2007. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Section 9 | References 9-3 | Page 2015 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/greenstormw aterinfrastructure/rainwise/rebates/) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 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. 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. 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, 2013. 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). Washington D.C., 2015. RiverSmart Rebates. District Department of the Environment. Washington D.C. (http://ddoe.dc.gov/riversmartrebates) 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. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | Notice of Intent A-1 | Page 2015 Appendix A Notice of Intent NOTICE OF INTENT Enhanced Watershed Management Program & Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program December 17, 2013 June 28, 2013 Beach Cities Watershed Management Group City of Redondo Beach City of Manhattan Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Los Angeles County Flood Control District Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 1 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group 1. Introduction The Cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG), respectfully submit this Notification of Intent (NOI) to develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) per Part VI.C.4.b. of Order No. R4‐2012‐0175 (MS4 Permit). Additionally, this NOI includes a statement of the Beach Cities WMG agencies’ intent to follow a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) approach. The Beach Cities WMG has determined to jointly develop an EWMP and CIMP to address both the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watershed areas within their jurisdictions. The development of the Work Plan, CIMP, and EWMP will be a collaborative process between the Beach Cities WMG agencies, coordinated with the Technical Advisory Committee as well as with Beach Cities watershed stakeholders. The information provided in the following sections satisfies the EWMP requirements for NOI submittal as provided by Section VI.C.4.b of the MS4 Permit and the CIMP notification requirement as provided by Attachment E Section IV.C.1. Each of the following section headings includes the permit reference to the NOI requirement being addressed by that particular section. 2. Notification of Intent (Section VI.C.4.b.i and Attachment E Section IV.C.1.) The Beach Cities WMG hereby notifies the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) of its intention to collaboratively develop an EWMP for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watershed areas within their jurisdictions, and request submittal of the final Work Plan no later than 18 months after the effective date of the MS4 Permit (June 28, 2014) and submittal of the draft EWMP Plan no later than 30 months after the effective date of the MS4 Permit (June 28, 2015). Additionally, the Beach Cities WMG agencies hereby notify the LARWQCB by this NOI of their intention to collaboratively develop a CIMP to address all of the monitoring elements required by the MS4 Permit for its jurisdictions and request submittal of the Draft CIMP 18 months after the effective date of the MS4 Permit (no later than June 28, 2014). 3. Interim and final TDML compliance deadlines (Section VI.C.4.b.ii) Table 1 lists the TMDLs that are applicable within the Beach Cities WMG EWMP. Table 1. TMDLs applicable within Beach Cities WMG. TMDL LARWQCB Resolution Number Effective Date Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL 2002‐004 and 2002‐022 amended by R12‐007 07/15/2003 R12‐007 not yet effective Machado Lake Trash TMDL [1] 2007‐006 03/06/2008 Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL [2] 2008‐006 03/11/2009 Machado Lake Toxics TMDL [3] R10‐008 03/20/2012 Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics & Metals TMDL [4]R11‐008 03/23/2012 Santa Monica Bay Nearshore Debris TMDL [5]R10‐010 03/20/2012 Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCB TMDLs [6]USEPA Region IX 03/26/2012 Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 2 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group [1] Responsible agencies: Redondo Beach, Torrance, LACFCD [2] Responsible agencies: Redondo Beach, Torrance, LACFCD [3] Responsible agencies: Redondo Beach, Torrance, LACFCD [4] Responsible agencies: Redondo Beach, Torrance, LACFCD, Manhattan Beach [5] Responsible agencies: Redondo Beach, Torrance, LACFCD, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach [6] Responsible agencies: Redondo Beach, Torrance, LACFCD, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach Interim and final trash TMDL deadlines and final TMDL deadlines occurring prior to the anticipated approval date of the EWMP (April 28, 2016) are included in Table 2. Table 2. Interim (trash) and final TMDL compliance deadlines prior to EWMP approval TMDL Milestone Interim/Final Deadline Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Summer Dry Weather TMDLs WLAs Final 07/15/2006 Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Winter Dry Weather TMDLs WLAs Final 07/15/2009 Santa Monica Bay Nearshore Debris TMDL 20% of baseline load Interim 3/20/2016 Machado Lake Trash TMDL 20% reduction of baseline load Interim 03/06/2012 40% reduction of baseline load Interim 03/06/2013 60% reduction of baseline load Interim 03/06/2014 80% reduction of baseline load Interim 03/06/2015 100% reduction of baseline load Final 03/06/2016 The Beach Cities WMG will continue the implementation of watershed control measures concurrently with the EWMP development to meet these interim and/or final milestones. These control measures being implemented to meet the requirements of the interim and final trash water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) and all other final WQBELs include but are not limited to the following: Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL – Dry Weather All storm drains discharging at point zero shoreline monitoring locations within the Beach Cities EWMP subwatersheds have been diverted through cooperation with LACFCD and the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles. A total of seven low flow diversions are operational within the subwatersheds as follows: o Two low flow diversions operated by the LACFCD within the 28th Street storm drain system which outfalls at the zero point of SMB 5‐2—one of the diversions is at the outfall, and the other is on a major catchment within the City of Manhattan Beach. o A low flow diversion is operated at the outfall of the Manhattan Beach Pier drain by the City of Manhattan Beach and serves SMB 5‐3. o Hermosa Strand Infiltration Trench, a joint project of the City of Hermosa Beach and LACFCD started up in April 2010 and has been diverting both dry weather and wet weather flows from the Pier Avenue storm drain in Hermosa Beach and serves SMB 5‐5. o Herondo low flow diversion installed by the LACFCD diverts runoff from the Herondo storm drain which outfalls at the zero point of SMB 6‐1. Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 3 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group o A low flow diversion installed by the City of Redondo Beach on the outlet to SMB‐6‐3 diverts dry weather flow to a biofiltration system before being infiltrated into the ground. o A low flow diversion installed by the LACFCD on the outlet to SMB‐6‐5 diverts dry weather flows to the sanitary sewer system. Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL Each of the Beach Cities WMG incorporated cities has individually submitted a Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plan to the LARWQCB describing an approach and schedule for meeting the interim and final deadlines for reductions in trash waste load allocation from baseline for point source discharges from the MS4. The Beach Cities WMG agencies are individually responsible for meeting those deadlines for point source discharges from the MS4. Machado Lake Trash TMDL TMRPs Only the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance within the Beach Cities WMG are tributary to the Machado Lake subwatershed within the Dominguez Channel Watershed. The City of Redondo Beach accounts for only 0.02% of the Machado Lake Watershed and there are no catch basins within the City of Redondo Beach tributary to Machado Lake—the first catch basin which receives runoff for that area of Redondo Beach is in the City of Torrance. Therefore, the City of Torrance’s plans to address the Machado Lake TMDLs are inclusive of the City of Redondo Beach. The City of Torrance submitted a Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plan to describe the approach and schedule for meeting the interim and final deadlines for reductions in trash waste load allocations from baseline for point source discharges from the MS4. 4. Geographic Scope (Section VI.C.4.b.iii.(1)) The geographic scope of the Beach Cities WMG EWMP encompasses 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. The County of Los Angeles does own and operate 172 acres of beach area within the jurisdiction s of the Beach Cities. These beach areas do not have any storm drain infrastructure that collects and discharges beach runoff directly to the receiving water and should therefore be considered non‐point sources and would not be subject to the MS4 permit or EWMP requirements. The storm drains that outlet at the beaches are collecting and discharging drainage from upstream land areas. The City of Hermosa Beach owns the beach above the mean high tide line along its coastline and, like the County‐owned beaches, the beaches of Hermosa Beach are non‐point sources, not equipped with storm drain infrastructure, and as such are not subject to the MS4 Permit or EWMP requirements. The Hermosa Beach Pier is not equipped with an MS4 infrastructure, rather the surface of the pier is slightly sloped so that stormwater sheet‐flows off the pier laterally. Similarly, the Manhattan Beach Pier is not equipped with an MS4 infrastructure or stormwater conveyance system‐‐rainfall sheet flows off the pier through multiple openings along its length which, depending on location along the pier, either falls onto the beach or into the ocean. Accordingly, the Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach piers are Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 4 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group 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 infrastructures. Attachment 1 provides a map of the watershed boundaries and the delineations of the land areas of the incorporated cities within the watershed. The breakdown of the Beach Cities WMG EWMP area by watershed and incorporated city is provided in Table 3. Table 3. Beach Cities WMG EWMP watershed land area distribution and EWMP participation Participation Agency Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management area (acres) Dominguez Channel Watershed Management area (acres) Total EWMP Area (acres) Total EWMP Percentage City of Redondo Beach 2,613.50 1,217.61 3,831.11 19% City of Manhattan Beach 2,078.37 350.07 2,428.44 12% City of Hermosa Beach 831.51 0 831.51 4% City of Torrance 2,313.76 11,056.79 13,370.55 65% LACFCD N/A N/A N/A Area of Beach Cites WMG EWMP: 7,837.14 12,624.47 20,461.61 100% 5. Plan Concept (Section VI.C.4.b.iii.(1)) Based on studies and work done to date, the Beach Cities WMG has previously identified opportunities for regional projects within two high priority subwatersheds and anticipates that significant opportunities exist within the collective jurisdictional areas for collaboration on additional multi‐benefit projects that will meet the intent of the EWMP approach. The Beach Cities WMG strong preference is to address both watersheds to which they are tributary within one EWMP. Santa Monica Bay Watershed The agencies of the Beach Cities 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 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), including a Structural Best Management Practice (BMP) Siting Study and Dry Weather Source Characterization and Control Study 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 Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDL along the shoreline of the Beach Cities WMG. These ongoing efforts by the Beach Cities WMG to comply with the SMBBB TMDL will provide an effective springboard for the development of an EWMP. Additionally, the agencies have submitted individual Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plans (TMRPs) for the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL. Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 5 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Dominguez Channel Watershed The cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance and the LACFCD facilities within these cities are also tributary to the Dominguez Channel watershed. With the exception of the development of the City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Master Plan, there has not been extensive work to address the pollutants of the Dominguez Channel primarily because the TMDLs for Dominguez Channel were only recently approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. The EWMP for the Beach Cities WMG will leverage elements of the City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Master Plan to address the Dominguez Channel Watershed aspects of the Beach Cities EWMP. Due to the strong working relationship established among these agencies to implement the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDLs, collaboration among these agencies to develop an EWMP that also addresses the Dominguez Channel Watershed is likely to yield a successful partnership. The cities of Redondo Beach, Torrance and the LACFCD facilities within the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group are also tributary to the Machado Lake watershed within the Dominguez Channel Watershed. The City of Redondo Beach accounts for only 0.02% of the Machado Lake Watershed and storm drains within the City of Torrance receive runoff from this small area of Redondo Beach. Therefore, the City of Torrance’s plans to address the Machado Lake TMDLs are inclusive of the City of Redondo Beach. To date, the City of Torrance has submitted a Special Study #3 Report for Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL monitoring. The City of Torrance is also preparing a BMP Implementation Plan to address Machado Lake Nutrient and Toxics TMDLs. The LACFCD has also submitted the “Machado Lake Nutrient & Toxics TMDL Monitoring & Reporting Plan. The Beach Cities WMG EWMP will incorporate the Machado Lake BMP Implementation Plans prepared by the City of Torrance and LACFCD as an appendix to the EWMP. 6. Cost estimate for plan development (Section VI.C.4.b.iii.(2)) The Beach Cities WMG agencies collaboratively prepared a scope of work and requested proposals for development of the EWMP Work Plan, the CIMP and the draft and final EWMP. Based on the response to the request for proposals, the Beach Cities WMG is developing a cost sharing agreement for the memorandum of agreement based on an estimate of $760,000 which includes $90,000 for the Work Plan, $155,000 for the CIMP, and $439,000 for the EWMP with an additional allocation of $76,000 for project administration by the lead agency. This estimate is based on a number of assumptions including that the CIMP and EWMP will leverage the existing Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan and Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan work to‐date. An additional key assumption for this cost estimate is that the City of Torrance Machado Lake TMDL Monitoring and Implementation Plans will be incorporated as stand‐alone appendices to the EWMP and CIMP so that effort for the Machado Lake subwatershed of the Dominguez Channel is excluded from the cost estimate since it is being borne individually by the City of Torrance. In addition, the Beach Cities WMG agencies will contribute several hundred thousand of dollars in staff time and in‐kind services. 7. Memorandum of Understanding (Section VI.C.4.b.iii.(3)) Attachment 2 includes the final drafts of the Memoranda of Understanding between the City of Redondo Beach, as the lead agency, and the other Beach Cities WMG agencies. All agencies have Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 6 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group committed to the execution of the agreement as indicated by the signed letters of intent (Attachment 3). The agreement will be executed no later than December 28, 2013. 8. Interim milestones and deadlines for plan development (section VI.C.4.b.iii.(4)) Table 4 summarizes the interim milestone and deadlines for Work Plan, CIMP, and EWMP Plan development which are based on the scope of work for developing the Work Plan, CIMP, and EWMP prepared by the Beach Cities WMG. Technical memoranda supporting the development of the plans are utilized as milestones. It is expected that the draft technical memos will not be finalized; rather, the information presented in the memos will be revised based on comments and presented in the Work Plan, CIMP, and EWMP Plan. Table 4. Proposed interim milestones and deadlines for plan development  Milestones Deadlines Work Plan Draft Workplan Elements/Approach  Identification of Water Quality Priorities  Existing and Potential Control Measures  Reasonable Assurance Analysis Approach  March 2014 Draft Work Plan  April 2014 Final Work Plan submitted to the LARWQCB June 2014 Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan Draft Technical memos  Outfall and receiving water monitoring approach  Monitoring sites selection  New development and redevelopment effectiveness tracking  March 2014 Draft CIMP  April 2014 Final Draft CIMP submitted to the LARWQCB June 2014 Enhanced Watershed Management Program Draft Technical memos  Approach to US EPA TMDLs, 303(d) listings, other exceedances of RWLs  Initial list and screening of regional projects  Identify Selected Watershed Control Measures and Conduct Reasonable Assurance Analysis  Project schedules and cost estimates  March 2015 Draft EWMP  May 2015 Final Draft EWMP submitted to the LARWQCB June 2015 Final EWMP submitted to the LARWQCB January 2016 Approval of final EWMP by LARWQCB April 2016 9. Structural BMP Implementation (Section VI.C.4.b.iii.(5)) The Beach Cities WMG commits to implement the following structural BMPs or suite of BMPs to provide meaningful water quality improvement within each watershed within 30 months of the effective date of the MS4 Permit, that is, between the MS4 Permit effective date of December 28, 20123 and the Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 7 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group deadline for EWMP submittal on June 28, 2015. The Beach Cities WMG plans to implement the following structural BMPs or suite of BMPs: Manhattan Beach Greenbelt Infiltration System The Manhattan Beach Greenbelt Infiltration project was designed to utilize the linear greenbelt parkland which runs through the City of Manhattan Beach to intercept and infiltrate dry weather and wet weather low flows from existing storm drains that cross or abut the parkway. Low flows from a 50‐acre drainage area are screened to remove trash and gross solids before flowing by gravity to a subsurface infiltration system which also provides limited storage of storm flows for subsequent percolation into the sandy soils below the greenbelt. The Greenbelt Low Flow Infiltration system was designed to effectively divert dry‐weather and wet‐weather low flows from the storm drain system year round. The project construction was recently completed on February 19, 2013, within the 30 month period required as discussed in Section VI.C.4.b.iii of the MS4 Permit. Monitoring of project effectiveness is currently underway and a final report on this project will be available in advance of the EWMP submittal deadline. Torrance Stormwater Basin Recharge and Enhancement Project The Torrance Stormwater Basin Recharge and Enhancement Project will retrofit three existing detention basins serving 1,453 acres of drainage area in total within the City of Torrance. The project will utilize a number of BMPs in order to conserve water, recharge the aquifer, create critical habitat, and improve stormwater quality that discharges into the Santa Monica Bay, and eliminate non‐stormwater discharges to the Dominguez Channel. Historically, the basins have provided temporary detention for stormwater and urban runoff—during the winter period discharge from this system has been pumped to the Herondo Storm Drain which discharges to the Santa Monica Bay, while the summer period flows from the system have been pumped to a storm drain discharging to the Dominguez Channel. This Stormwater Basin Recharge and Enhancement project proposes significant advances over the current system by providing wetland treatment of stormwater and non‐stormwater runoff at the detention basins, recharging vitally needed groundwater supplies, and sustaining wetland habitat during the dry season in the basins. The Project will eliminate dry weather run off and associated load for multiple pollutants for 1,453 acres of the Santa Monica Bay watershed. The Project will treat all stormwater from 1,453 acres for multiple pollutants, including priority pollutants such as trash and sediments by a combination of wetland treatment and infiltration. The project will capture and recharge an estimated 20 acre feet per year of runoff that would have otherwise been discharged to the Santa Monica Bay. The project will enable the elimination of all discharges from the drainage area to Dominguez Channel, will eliminate dry weather discharges to Santa Monica Bay and will reduce the winter wet weather discharge to the Santa Monica Bay from this system. The project budget is $4.4 million and construction is scheduled for Spring 20143. The scope of the project includes: Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 8 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Amie Basin [463 acre tributary area]: 1. Construction of a 2‐acre wetland for storm water treatment. Clearing and grubbing of non‐ native plants and re‐planting with native and wetland‐suitable plants and trees. 2. Installation of a one‐horsepower, energy‐efficient submersible sump pump and 500 linear feet of irrigation pipelines to circulate and oxidize the storm water, provide UV exposure to eliminate bacteria, and promote wetland growth. 3. Installation of trash screens on all catch basins in the watershed to trap and remove solid waste from flowing into the basins from the stormwater inlets. 4. Replacement of pumps and controls for the Amie Basin Pump Station. Henrietta Basin [594 acre tributary area]: 1. The construction of a 1.5‐acre wetland for storm water treatment. Clearing and grubbing of non‐native plants and re‐planting with native and wetland‐suitable plants and trees. 2. Construction of a 1.5 acre infiltration area which will be located at the south end of the basin. 3. Installation of an energy‐efficient, one‐horsepower submersible sump pump and 500 linear feet of irrigation pipelines to circulate and oxidize the water, provide UV exposure to eliminate bacteria, and promote wetland growth. 4. Installation of trash screens on all catch basins in the watershed to trap and remove solid waste from flowing into the basin from the stormwater inlets. Entradero Basin [463 acre tributary area]: 1. The construction of a 15,031‐square‐foot infiltration area. 2. Installation of trash screens on all catch basins in the watershed to trap and remove solid waste from flowing into the basin from the stormwater inlets. 3. Installation of the new biofiltration swale next to the dog training area to capture and treat runoff from this specific area of the public park site and pet waste stations at trail heads. 4. Installation of 1,800 linear feet of irrigation pipeline and fittings to provide recycled water irrigation to the ball fields and native landscaped areas. Accelerated Implementation of Machado Lake Trash TMDL The City of Torrance is conducting accelerated implementation of the Machado Lake Trash TMDL by installing 631 Automatic Retractable Screens and 2,000 ‘no parking’ signs as well as a program of Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 9 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group outreach and education. The screens will prevent trash from being carried into Machado Lake from urban runoff and storm drain flows, and the ‘no parking’ signs are to improve the effectiveness of street sweeping operations and the effectiveness of the Automatic Retractable Screens. The project will have multiple benefits because eliminating trash and plant debris from the storm drains will reduce the growth of bacteria and enhanced street sweeping will reduce sediment and nutrients bound in plant debris from being transported through the storm drains. The project is scheduled for construction in Fall of 2013 which is 2.5 years in advance of the March 2016 deadline for achieving zero trash discharge to Machado Lake. 10. LID ordinance (Sections VI.C.4.b.iii.(6) and VI.C.4.c.iv. (1)) Table 5 summarizes the status of Low Impact Development (LID) ordinances by the various Beach Cities WMG agencies. As presented in Table 5, greater than 50% of the land area within the geographic scope of the EMWP is addressed by LID ordinances that are in draft. Table 5. Summary of percent EWMP area addressed by LID ordinances EWMP agency % EWMP area Status LID ordinance City of Redondo Beach 19 Draft LID Ordinance City of Manhattan Beach 12 Draft LID Ordinance City of Hermosa Beach 4 Draft LID Ordinance City of Torrance 65 Draft LID Ordinance LACFCD N/A N/A Total 100 Status Descriptions:  Draft Ordinance – Permittee has completed or will complete by June 28, 2013 the development of a draft LID Ordinance that is in compliance with the MS4 Permit for its portion in the watershed. 11. Green street polices (Sections VI.C.4.b.iii.(6) and VI.C.4.c.iv. (2)) Table 6 summarizes the status of green street policies by the various Beach Cities WMG agencies. As presented in Table 6, greater than 50% of the land area within the geographic scope of the EMWP is addressed by green streets policies that are in place or in draft. Table 6. Summary of percent EWMP area addressed by Green Street policies EWMP agency % EWMP area Status Green Street Policies City of Redondo Beach 19 Draft policy City of Manhattan Beach 12 Draft policy City of Hermosa Beach 4 In Place City of Torrance 65 Draft policy LACFCD N/A N/A Total 100 Status Descriptions:  In Place – Permittee has an existing policy for its portion of the watershed. Beach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI_RevisedBeach Cities WMG NOI Page | 10 Notice of Intent Beach Cities Watershed Management Group  Draft Policy – Permittee has completed or will complete by June 28, 2013 the development of a draft Green Street Policy that is in compliance with the MS4 Permit for its portion in the watershed. Attachment 1. Beach Cities WMG EWMP Boundary and Watershed Delineation Attachment 2. Draft Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 3. Letters of Intent DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Reasonable Assurance Analysis for Dominguez Channel Watershed within the City of Torrance B-1 | Page 2015 Appendix B Reasonable Assurance Analysis for Dominguez Channel Watershed within the City of Torrance 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 3920 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 • P. 213.489.1587 • F. 213.572.0361 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 CITY OF TORRANCE BEACH CITIES EWMP TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS FOR DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED WITHIN THE CITY OF TORRANCE DRAFT May 2015 May 2015 - DRAFT i pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 CITY OF TORRANCE BEACH CITIES EWMP TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS FOR DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 2-3 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2-9 2.1 Physiographic Setting – DC-Torrance Watershed ..................................... 2-9 2.2 Climate .................................................................................................... 2-11 2.3 Watersheds and Storm Drains ................................................................. 2-11 3.0 APPLICABLE INTERIM AND FINAL REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 2-14 4.0 WATERBODY POLLUTANT COMBINATIONS ................................................... 2-15 5.0 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ............................... 2-16 5.1 Copper .................................................................................................... 2-16 5.2 Lead ........................................................................................................ 2-17 5.3 Zinc ......................................................................................................... 2-17 5.4 Fecal Coliform ......................................................................................... 2-18 6.0 APPROACH USED FOR THE RAA .................................................................... 2-18 6.1 Uncertainty Analysis ................................................................................ 2-18 6.2 Estimated Required Pollutant Load Reduction ........................................ 2-19 6.3 Baseline Loading - Average and 90th Percentile Wet Years .................... 2-19 6.4 Determination of TMDL Reduction Objective ........................................... 2-25 6.5 Dry-Weather Pollutant Reduction Targets ............................................... 2-27 7.0 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL AND DISTRIBUTED STRUCTURAL BMPS (CATCH BASIN FILTERS) .......................................................... 2-27 7.1 Nonstructural BMPs ................................................................................ 2-27 7.2 Distributed Structural BMPs - Catch Basin Filters .................................... 2-28 7.3 Wet Weather ........................................................................................... 2-30 7.4 Dry Weather ............................................................................................ 2-30 8.0 POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN ...................................................................... 2-31 8.1 Implementation Schedules ...................................................................... 2-32 9.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 2-33 10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 2-33 May 2015 - DRAFT ii pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Summary of Load Estimation APPENDIX B – Catch Basin Filters Literature and References LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 Summary of Nonstructural BMPs to Support Pollutant Removal .................. 2-5 Table ES.2 Summary of Distributed Structural BMPs to Support TMDL Implementation ............................................................................................ 2-5 Table ES.3 Pollutant Reduction After Implementing Catch Basin BMPs ......................... 2-8 Table 2.1 Summary of Active Retention Basins ......................................................... 2-12 Table 2.2 Summary of Schedule for Interim and Final Milestones ............................. 2-15 Table 2.3 Categorized Water Body-Pollutant Combinations ...................................... 2-16 Table 2.4 Average and 90th Percentile Years by Pollutant ........................................ 2-19 Table 2.5 Modeled Annual Average Load (2007)....................................................... 2-20 Table 2.6 Summary Results of Critical Wet-weather (90th Percentile) Load .............. 2-25 Table 2.7 Modeled Bacteria Exeedance – Critical Wet-weather Conditions (1995) ........................................................................................................ 2-25 Table 2.8 Wet-weather Pollutant Reduction Targets(1) ............................................... 2-26 Table 2.9 Wet-weather Load Reduction .................................................................... 2-26 Table 2.10 Summary of Nonstructural BMPs to Support TMDL Implementation .......... 2-28 Table 2.11 Summary of Structural BMPs to Support TMDL Implementation ................ 2-30 Table 2.12 Pollutant Reduction After Implementing catch Basin BMPs ....................... 2-31 Table 2.13 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Nonstructural BMPs ..................... 2-35 Table 2.14 Implementation Schedule for Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Inserts) ............................................................................................ 2-38 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 Location of Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Locations Selected for Drain Inserts) ........................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.1 Subregional Location of City of Torrance ................................................... 2-10 Figure 2.2 Existing Stormwater System ...................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2.3 Annual Zinc Loading by HSU for Typical Wet Year (2002-2003) ................ 2-21 Figure 2.4 Annual Zinc Load by Subbasin for Typical Wet Year (2002-2003) ............. 2-22 Figure 2.5 Typical Wet Year (2002-2003) – Zinc Ranking by HSU ............................. 2-23 Figure 2.6 Typical Wet Year (2002-2003) – Zinc Ranking by Subbasin ...................... 2-24 May 2015 - DRAFT 2-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Technical Memorandum No. 2 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS FOR DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to satisfy the Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Permit) requirements, the Cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance, along with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) agreed to collaborate on the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for both the Santa Monica Bay Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed areas within their jurisdictions. This group is hereafter referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG). A required element of the EWMP is the Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA). The Permit requires compliance with appropriate water quality standards as developed through applicable total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and other Permit limitations including water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs), receiving water limitations (RWLs), and water quality objectives (WQOs). This RAA includes a qualitative analysis based on literature review to demonstrate that proposed catch basin filters would be effective in meeting the TMDL requirements. The ultimate goal is to identify cost-effective water quality improvement projects through an integrated, watershed-based approach. On March 25, 2014, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) issued “RAA Guidelines” (LARWQCB 2014) to provide information and guidance to assist permittees in development of the RAA. The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was utilized to perform the RAA for the portion of the Dominguez Channel within the City of Torrance. The portion of the Dominguez Channel watershed within the City of Torrance is referred to as DC-Torrance Watershed in this report. The pollutant combinations assessed by this RAA fall into two categories; Category 1 and Category 2. The Category 1 pollutants are copper, lead, and zinc and Category 2 pollutant is fecal coliform. The baseline load for the metals were determined using the 90th percentile wet weather (days with rainfall > 0.1”) daily load from the 10 year period from November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2012. The baseline load for fecal coliform was based on 90th percentile wet year load from November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995. However, the target load reductions (TLRs) were established for both metals and bacteria by the South Bay Beach Cities Watershed Management Group and were used in this RAA memo to maintain consistency. The difference between the baseline load and the target load resulted in a TLR for the 90th percentile load day, which was the load reduction required to meet the allowable TMDL concentration. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-4 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Based on literature review documenting high removal efficiencies demonstrated by the catch basin filters, the City of Torrance has proposed to implement catch basin filters to meet the target load reductions (TLRs) set forth by the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. All references reviewed as part of the literature review are included in Appendix B. In addition, the City of Torrance is in the process of developing the Green Street Program and the ordinances to implement Green Street design features as part of street redevelopment. While implementing redevelopment of arterial streets, the City of Torrance would assess opportunities for Green Street design features to facilitate treatment through filtration or infiltration. Green Street elements may include infiltration trench that provides water quality treatment, reduction in peak flow discharges, and potential groundwater recharge. Other Green Street elements that may be considered include bioretention/biofiltration practices to achieve water quality treatment through filtration by vegetation and soils to remove pollutants with perforated underdrain to convey the treated runoff. The City of Torrance is committed to developing the Green Street Ordinance established and in effect by July 2015 as required by the MS4 Permit. For bacteria, a combination of non-structural BMPs including Public Education and Outreach, reduction of irrigation return flows, and future development and implementation of Green Street design features would assist with meeting the TLRs for bacteria. In addition, the study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 indicated Fecal Coliform (bacteria) removal efficiency of 33% by the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. These recommendations serve as goals for the Beach Cities WMG to seek opportunities for implementation over time, but strategies may change as opportunities for more cost-effective BMPs are identified throughout the schedule. The publically available County’s LSPC model, calibrated by California Watershed Engineering (CWE) in January 2015 for the Dominquez Channel Enhanced Watershed Management Program was used to calibrate the DC-Torrance SWMM model. As part of the RAA, the metals TLRs reflect daily load reductions on the 90th percentile wet weather load days and bacteria TLRs is based on daily exceedance days. To meet the phased WQO, RWL and TMDL implementation schedules, a combination of distributed structural (catch basin filters) and nonstructural BMPs were identified to be considered by the City of Torrance for implementation. Table ES.1 lists the new nonstructural BMPs, enhancements to existing nonstructural BMPs, and their anticipated effectiveness with the treatment of concerned pollutants. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table ES.1 Summary of Nonstructural BMPs to Support Pollutant Removal Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Nonstructural BMP Condition Pollutants Addressed Wet Weather Dry Weather Bacteria Metals Enhancements to Existing BMPs Smart gardening program enhancements √ √   TMDL-specific stormwater training √ √   Enhancement of commercial and industrial facility inspection √ √   Enhancement escalation procedures √ √   Improved street sweeping technology √   New BMP Reduction of irrigation return flow √ √   √ - applicable;  - partially effective;  - effective For identification of structural BMPs, distributed structural BMPs (Catch Basin filters) were considered. Distributed BMPs refer to those practices that provide the control or treatment (or both) of stormwater runoff at the site level. Table ES.2 summarizes the distributed structural BMPs (catch basin filters) identified through the RAA to address the TMDL implementation. The location of the identified distributed structural BMPs (catch basin filters) are shown on Figure ES.1. Table ES.2 Summary of Distributed Structural BMPs to Support TMDL Implementation Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Structural BMP Condition Pollutants Addressed Wet Weather Dry Weather Bacteria Metals Distributed BMPs Catch basin filters √ √   Green Street Elements √ √   √ - applicable;  - not effective;  - effective For most nonstructural BMPs, quantification of benefits in terms of pollutant load reductions are challenging and often require extensive survey and monitoring information to assess performance. For the purposes of this RAA, a qualitative approach was used to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of the nonstructural BMPs. !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( ?Ò %&l( %&e(Hawthorne BlvdS Western AveArtesia Blvd W Artesia Blvd ES-1Location of Distributed Strucure BMPs[Catch Basin LocationsSelected for Drain Inserts]Enhanced Watershed Management PlanCity of Torrance O Legend Catch Basins - 643 !(Catch Basin Inserts - 200/643 Storm Drains Freeway Major Roads Dominguez Channel City Boundary Parcels 0 1Miles May 2015 - DRAFT 2-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Fact sheets and literature available on commercially available catch basin filters suggested that the proposed catch basin filters were effective at capturing and removing pollutants from stormwater runoff including sediments, heavy metals, and oil and grease. One of the literatures summarized the pollutant removal efficiencies provided by Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket (Schematic included in Appendix B). It included numeric pollutant reductions from various studies or independent tests between 1998 and 2007. The study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 was an independent test conducted to assess the pollutant removal efficiency of the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. This study in 2005 concluded a 99% reduction in Lead. Other studies include the field test conducted by the City of El Monte in 2002 that concluded that the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket were effective in removing 95% of Zinc and Copper each and 87% of Lead concentrations. In addition, we also referred to the independent performance assessment conducted by the City of Los Angeles in 2005 to evaluate the performance of storm drain inlet filter devices at removing oil and grease and associated pollutants from stormwater. The study aimed at evaluating the performance (at various stages of their useable lives) of four (4) different catch basin filters currently used by the City of Los Angeles in removing and retaining used motor oil and associated pollutants from urban runoff. This study tested the performance of five (5) different types of catch basin filters at removing sediments, trash, oil and grease, and metals for a flow rate ranging between 10 and 25 gallons per minute. It involved four (4) sampling events and five study sites. The key summary points indicated that qualitatively, the results of the study found that all of the units were moderately effective at removing oil and grease, suspended solids, and heavy metals. Furthermore, the study indicated that for most insert types, inspection and maintenance should occur before and after each rain event during wet weather and monthly during dry weather to maintain their performance integrity and to minimize leaching of previously captured pollutants. A more recent independent test conducted in 2013-2014 by the City of Lake Forest suggested that the catch basin filters were effective in a heavy metal removal of 75%. The product tested was the Ultra Filter Sock Heavy Metal Drain Filter. Based on literature review documenting the removal efficiencies demonstrated by the catch basin filters, the proposed catch basin inserts would meet the TLRs set forth by the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL with 75% as the estimated target load reduction for a flow rate ranging between 10 to 25 gallons per minute. Pollutant reductions by catch basin filters resulted from various studies/literature review are summarized in Table ES.3 and shows that the TLRs would be met for each metal. The TMDL year was determined to represent typical rainfall frequencies and magnitudes observed over the recent 25-year rainfall record. The conclusions from literature review and fact sheets show that the catch basin filters would be effective in meeting the target reduction loads set up by the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL (the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL). May 2015 - DRAFT 2-8 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 For bacteria, a combination of non-structural BMPs including Public Education and Outreach, reduction of irrigation return flows, and future development and implementation of Green Street design features would assist with meeting the TLRs for bacteria. In addition, the study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 indicated Fecal Coliform (bacteria) removal efficiency of 33% by the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. Table ES.3 Pollutant Reduction After Implementing Catch Basin BMPs Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Pollutants Existing Load Target Load Reduction (%) Nonstructural BMP Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Filters) Structural + Nonstructural BMPs Zinc 90th Percentile Load Day - 11/08/2002 Copper (Ib/d) 36.99 62% 5% 75% 80% Zinc (Ib/d) 133.39 76% 5% 75% 80% Critical Wet Year - 1995 Fecal Coliform (MPN/yr) x10^14 627 53% 5% 33% 38% plus filtration/infiltration opportunities through potential Green Street Implementation in future. No TMDL developed for fecal coliform. Target Load Reduction calculated based on REC-1 standard and high-flow suspension days. Note: The City of Torrance is following the adaptive management approach that would allow them to monitor the performances of proposed distributed structural (catch basin filters) and non-structural best management practices with respect to meeting the established TLR requirements. In addition, the City of Torrance is in the process of developing the Green Street Program and the ordinances to implement Green Street design features as part of street redevelopment. While implementing redevelopment of arterial streets, the City of Torrance would assess opportunities for Green Street design features to facilitate treatment through filtration or infiltration. Green Street elements may include infiltration trench that provides water quality treatment, reduction in peak flow discharges, and potential groundwater recharge. Other Green Street elements that may be considered include bioretention/biofiltration practices to achieve water quality treatment through filtration by vegetation and soils to remove pollutants with perforated underdrain to convey the treated runoff. The City of Torrance is committed to implementing the Green Street Ordinance established and in effect by July 2015 as required by the MS4 Permit. Based on the monitoring results, the City of Torrance would consider additional control measures if the required TLRs were not met or other improvements to existing best management practices were found necessary. This would allow changes in the number and type of best management practices selected for implementation. Through adaptive management and based on the future monitoring results, the implementation schedules may be modified to reflect the increased knowledge of the watershed. Actual schedule for Implementation of BMPs will occur as funding becomes available. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 2.0 INTRODUCTION As required by the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG has to perform a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) as part of the EWMP. The report is prepared in compliance with Part VI,C.5.b.iv.(5) of Waste Discharge Requirements for MS4 Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Order Number R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit Number CAS004001). The SWMM model used for this RAA was calibrated to the County’s LSPC model calibrated by CWE for the Dominguez Channel Enhanced Watershed Management Program. However, the target load reductions (TLRs) were established for both metals and bacteria by the South Bay Beach Cities Watershed Management Group and were used in this RAA memo to maintain consistency. The difference between the baseline load and the target load resulted in a TLR for the 90th percentile load day, which was the load reduction required to meet the allowable TMDL concentration. The baseline critical wet conditions for fecal coliform were simulated using SWMM for the time period ranging from November 1, 1994 through October 31, 1995. The wet conditions baseline load for the metals for metals were based on simulation results from 90th percentile load day for each metal. 2.1 Physiographic Setting – DC-Torrance Watershed The City of Torrance (City) is located about 15 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles (LA), in southern LA County, just north of the Palos Verdes Hills. The City comprises 20.5 square miles in area. The City is bounded by Redondo Beach on the west and north, Lawndale and Gardena on the north, LA on the east, Lomita to the southeast, and Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates on the south. The City’s stormwater conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. The neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estate and Palos Verde Estate discharge stormwater into the City’s and/or Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s (LACFCD’s) stormwater conveyance systems located within the City’s boundaries. The location of the City is shown on Figure 2.1. The DC-Torrance Watershed area is approximately 9 square miles. The drainage within the watershed is largely to the east, via storm drains and stormwater from the east side of the City is routed via the Torrance Lateral to Machado Lake. This channel replaced the Dominguez Creek and its tributaries, once a system of braided streams, marshes, and small ponds that eventually reached San Pedro Bay. The portion of the Palos Verdes Hills that borders the City is drained by several north-trending canyons, including, from east to west, Bent Spring, Sepulveda, Agua Magna, Agua Negra, and Malaga canyons, as well as numerous smaller, unnamed canyons. Carrying significant amounts of water only during the winter, these streams now flow into storm drain structures. TORRANCECOLOS ANGELESREDONDO BEACHGARDENALOMITAPALOS VERDES ESTATESMANHATTAN BEACHLAWNDALEROLLING HILLS ESTATESRANCHO PALOS VERDESHERMOSA BEACHROLLING HILLSINGLEWOOD190THREDONDO BEACHSEPULVEDAWESTERN LOMITALegendStudy AreaCity of TorranceWatershedsDominguez ChannelGroundwater ReplenishmentMachado LakeSanta Monica Bay±201 MilesFigure 2.1 Subregional Location of City of Torrance May 2015 - DRAFT 2-11 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 2.2 Climate Like most of Southern California, Torrance has a Mediterranean climate characterized by hot, dry summers, and cool, somewhat rainy winters. Average summer temperatures range from highs in the high 80s to lows in the mid 60s (degrees Fahrenheit). Average winter temperatures range from highs in the low 70s to lows in the high 40s. The average yearly precipitation in the Torrance area is about 13 inches whereas nearly 15 inches of precipitation fall annually in Los Angeles. Not only does rainfall vary from one location to the next, often within short distances, it is also extremely variable from year to year, ranging from one-third the normal amount to more than double the normal amount. There are three types of storms that produce precipitation in southern California: winter storms, local thunderstorms, and summer tropical storms. Winter storms are characterized by heavy and sometimes prolonged precipitation over a large area. These storms usually occur between November and April, and are responsible for most of the precipitation recorded in southern California. Local thunderstorms can occur at any location, and usually affect relatively small areas. These storms are usually more prevalent in the higher mountains during the summer. Tropical rains are infrequent, and typically occur in the summer or early fall. These storms originate in the warm, southern waters off Baja California, in the Pacific Ocean, and move northward into southern California. 2.3 Watersheds and Storm Drains The City is divided into four main watersheds as shown on Figure 2.1. These four main watersheds are; 1. Dominguez Channel. 2. Santa Monica Bay. 3. Groundwater Replenishment. 4. Machado Lake. The RAA study area, DC-Torrance, includes only the portion of Dominguez Channel within the City excluding the groundwater replenishment basin. The groundwater replenishment basin does not discharge into the Santa Monica Bay or the Dominguez Channel. The ground water retention basins facilitate infiltration of stormwater and hence there are no flows exiting the basins. The groundwater replenishment basin includes three active retention basins that are used to percolate stormwater into the groundwater basin. There are no discharges from these basins. Table 2.1 lists the three active retention basins along with volume and location. The City worked with the RWQCB to recognize the tributary areas to these basins as sub-regional BMPs for permit and TMDL compliance. Since these basins do not discharge to Section 303(d) listed impaired bodies of water, TMDLs, RWLs, and WQOs are not applicable to stormwater May 2015 - DRAFT 2-12 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 discharge from the tributary areas to these basins. It should be noted that the Del Amo Center retention basin, though listed in Table 2.1, is privately owned. The relevant documentation about the groundwater replenishment basin is provided as an Appendix to the Model Calibration TM (TM01). The DC-Torrance study area is shown on Figure 2.1. The DC-Torrance Watershed represents about 6.7 percent of the Dominguez Channel Watershed and about 44 percent of the City’s total surface area. The DC-Torrance Watershed is highly urbanized and as a result, runoff is largely controlled by streets, retention basins, storm drains, and flood control channels. The main channels in the study area are the Dominguez Channel and the Torrance Lateral. The Dominguez Channel, which is maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, collects storm runoff from sections of the Cities of Hawthorne, Gardena, Lawndale, and Redondo Beach. The channel flows southerly, emptying into the Los Angeles Harbor area. Table 2.1 Summary of Active Retention Basins Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Basin Name Volume (af) Design Surface Elevation (ft-MSL) Location Bishop Montgomery 122 84 Palos Verdes Boulevard and Torrance Boulevard Ocean Avenue 229 79 Ocean Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard Del Amo Center 86 75 Madrona Avenue and Plaza Del Amo Total 437 2.3.1 Discharge Locations The City’s stormwater system discharges into LACFCD storm drains at several locations, which are indicated on Figure 2.2. As shown on this figure, these points of discharge are primarily located along the east boundary of the City’s service area. In addition, there are several discharge locations along the Dominguez Channel in the northeast portion of the City. ! ! ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # ")")")")")")")")")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ?ÔE %&l( %&e( AÕE Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Cha n n e l Torrance Lateral Santa Monica Bay Santa Monica Bay Harbor Lakes Dominguez Channel Hawthorne B lvd Artesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdE Anaheim StS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd PalosVerdesDr Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWalteria Mobil Ocean Del Amo Pioneer 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery El Dorado Doris Henrietta Entradero Amie Susana Vista del Parque Dow Chemical Dominguez Way Vine Walnut TorranceAirport Skypark Crenshaw UnionCarbide 190th St Columbia Park 195th St Walteria Lake Pump Station Avenue I Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Herondo Drain Wilmin g t o n D r a i n Herondo DrainLow Flow Diversion Pump Station 69"78"51 66"48" 42" 51"60"72"4'X4'84"48"69"66"10"18"24"30"27" 21"6"8"3'W12"15"5'27"30"18"6"24"6"30" 24"30"18"8"15"24"30"8"30" 69" 36 " 54" 48" 45" 81"84" 3 6 " 48"18"27" 30" 24" 21" 8"15"27"18"30"18"Figure 2.2Existing Stormwater System O 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LEGENDWatershedsGroundwater ReplenishmentBishop MontgomeryDel AmoOceanVista Del ParqueDominguez ChannelSurface DrainageEldoradoMobilPioneer Santa Monica BaySurface DrainageAmieDorisEntraderoHenriettaHarbor LakesSurface Drainage237th St.Madrona MarshWalteria pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_5.1 .mxdOthers channels Bodies of Water Parcels Facilities Detention Basin Retention Basin Pump Stationsby Owner#LACDPW #City !Continuous Deflective Separator ")Discharge to Storm Drain Flow DirectionLACDPW Stormwater SystemOpen Channels Storm Drains(Thickness Related to Size) AssessmentPoint Assessment Point - Dominguez Channel andTorrance Lateral Meeting Point May 2015 - DRAFT 2-14 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 The stormwater collection system shown on Figure 2.2 also shows how stormwater is routed throughout the City. In general, the routing is as follows:  Stormwater from the east side of the City is routed via the Torrance Lateral to Machado Lake.  Stormwater from the west side of the City, stormwater discharge is routed to Santa Monica Bay.  Stormwater from the northwest areas of the City’s service area that are within the Santa Monica Bay watershed, is routed through LACFCD’s Herondo Drain, which discharges stormwater into the Santa Monica Bay at the Redondo Beach King Harbor Marina and Pier. The Herondo Drain is also equipped with a low flow diversion pump station, which diverts dry weather flows into the sewer system.  Stormwater from the southwest areas of the City’s service area that are within the Santa Monica Bay watershed, is either directly discharged into Santa Monica Bay at Torrance Beach, passing through one of several Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) units or is routed into LACFCD’s storm drain network within Redondo Beach, which passes through the Avenue I Low Flow Diversion Pump Station, diverting dry weather flows to sanitary sewer. 3.0 APPLICABLE INTERIM AND FINAL REQUIREMENTS The EWMP for Beach Cities follows the process in the Permit and identify the Water Quality Priorities (WQ Priorities) including the highest (Category 1) Water Quality Priorities, which are subject to TMDLs and WQBELs. Practically all of these TMDLs include associated compliance schedules that are considered in this RAA. Also included in this RAA is Category 2 pollutant (bacteria). There is no TMDL for bacteria; however, it is listed in the 303d list. The TMDL and EWMP milestones/compliance dates were considered while assessing the BMP options and the schedule for potential implementation. Traditionally, the approach of TMDL implementation plans has been focused on final TMDL compliance, whereas the Permit compliance paths offered to EWMPs increase emphasis on milestones. In line with the RAA Guidelines, for all final TMDL and TMDL/EWMP milestones that occur in 2032, the catch basin filters expected to result in attainment of the corresponding Permit limits are identified. The waste load allocations (WLAs) in the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL are shown in Table 2.2. The Permits require the EWMP to provide reasonable assurance for the TMDL milestones that occur in the current Permit term. If applicable TMDLs do not prescribe a milestone in the current Permits, a milestone must be established. For bacteria, allowed exceedance days were set consistent with the Ballona Creek bacteria TMDL by taking 10 percent of wet days (at least 0.1 inch of rain plus following three days) that are not High Flow Suspension (HFS) days (at least 0.5 inches of rain plus the following day). An “exceedance” is defined as a sample that is above the WQO value of>4,000 MPN/100 mL fecal coliform. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-15 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.2 Summary of Schedule for Interim and Final Milestones Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Pollutant Schedule Source Interim (03/23/12) Final (03/23/32) Copper 207.51 ug/L 9.7 ug/L Automobile operation, industry, legacy pollutant Lead 122.88 ug/L 42.7 ug/L Vehicle brake pads, atmospheric deposition, soil erosion Zinc 898.87 ug/L 69.7 ug/L Vehicle tires, galvanized metal, atmospheric deposition REC-2 WQO Fecal Coliform 4000 #/100 mL1 Wastewater treatment plants, on-site septic systems, domestic and wild animal manure Note: (1) Obtained from Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Basin Plan Chapter 3 titled Water Quality Objectives, dated May 2, 2013 Section on In Waters Designated for Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2) 4.0 WATERBODY POLLUTANT COMBINATIONS A RAA involves providing an initial assessment of current baseline pollutant loading for water body pollutants using relevant subwatershed data and the best available representative land use and pollutant loading data collected within the last 10 years. Baseline loading estimates include modeling critical conditions that are used in the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. There is only one TMDL (the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL ) being evaluated here. As stated earlier, there is no TMDL for bacteria (Category 2) but it is being evaluated as it is listed on the 303(d) list. Pollutant combinations assessed by a RAA fall into one of three categories:  Category 1 (Highest Priority): Water body-pollutant combinations for which water quality based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations are established in Part VI.E, TMDL Provisions, and Attachments L through R of the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit.  Category 2 (High Priority): Pollutants for which data indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (State’s Listing Policy) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-16 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02  Category 3 (Medium Priority): Pollutants for which there is insufficient data to indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Listing Policy, but which exceed applicable water limitations contained in Order R4-2012-0175 and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance. The water body pollutant classifications (WBPCs) were classified into one of the three MS4 Permit categories (Category 1-3). Those WBPCs with a TMDL were classified as Category 1, those WBPCs listed on the State’s 303(d) list as impairing a particular water body segment were classified as Category 2, and those remaining WBPCs without an associated TMDL or on the State’s 303(d) list, but showing exceedances of water quality criteria were classified as Category 3. A summary of these categorizations is presented in Table 2.3. As part of the EWMP plan, a RAA for the Dominguez Channel is conducted for Category 1 (Highest Priority) pollutants and Category 2 (Fecal coliform). The RAA consists of an assessment, through catch basin filter literature review, to demonstrate that the activities and control measures (i.e., catch basin filters) identified are performed to demonstrate that applicable water quality based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations with compliance deadlines during the permit term will be achieved. Table 2.3 Categorized Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Water Body Category 1 (TMDL) Category 2 (303(d) List) Category 3 (Other) Dominguez Channel (lined portion above Vermont Ave) Total copper, Total Lead, Total Zinc, Toxicity Indicator Bacteria, Ammonia, Diazinon Cadmium(diss.), Chromium (diss.), Mercury (diss.), Thallium (diss.), Bis(2Ethylhexl) phthalate, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Torrance Lateral Total Copper, Total Lead, Total Zinc Coliform Bacteria Cadmium (diss.), Cyanide, pH, Ammonia, PCBs (sed.), DDT (sed.) 5.0 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 5.1 Copper Dominguez Channel is designated as impaired for copper and included on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for this pollutant and prioritized under the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. The source of the copper in this watershed is not well known. Possible urban sources of metal loading include runoff from light industrial, transportation, and retail/commercial land uses with critical sources from auto repair, motor May 2015 - DRAFT 2-17 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 freight transportation, and auto dealerships. Other potential urban sources of metals to the watershed include wet and dry atmospheric deposition and natural background loading. Urban sources of copper include industrial sources and vehicle brake pads. Motor vehicles are a major source of copper, a metal that originates from brake pad wear. 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.  January 1, 2025: Limits the use of copper in motor vehicle brake pads to no more than 0.5 percent by weight. Full implementation of the legislation is expected to remove approximately 61 percent of the copper from urban runoff in metropolitan Los Angeles area watershed. Although vehicle brake pad wear is not expected to contribute as much copper in DC-Torrance Watershed as in the more urbanized metropolitan Los Angeles area, a decrease in copper loading is expected from vehicles due to the law’s implementation. 5.2 Lead Dominguez Channel is designated as impaired for lead and prioritized under the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. The source of lead is associated with wet weather discharges from major municipal point sources (SWRCB 2011). Sources of lead in the urban environment also include automobile operation and industries with practices that may expose metals to stormwater. Lead was formerly used as an additive in gasoline. This has caused widespread contamination of 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. 5.3 Zinc Dominguez Channel is designated as impaired for zinc and prioritized under the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. Zinc loading can occur during wet weather storm events. Road dust, contaminated by tire wear, and erosion of zinc-plated material (i.e., galvanized chain link fences) are major contributors of zinc to urban runoff. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-18 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 5.4 Fecal Coliform Fecal coliform is listed in the 303d list for Dominguez channel. Fecal Coliforms are used as indicator of possible sewage contamination because they are commonly found in human and animal feces. Although they are generally not harmful themselves, they indicate the possible presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria, viruses, and protozoans that also live in human and animal digestive systems. Therefore, their presence in streams suggests that pathogenic microorganisms might also be present and that swimming and eating shellfish might be a health risk. Since it is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to test directly for the presence of a large variety of pathogens, water is usually tested for coliforms and fecal streptococci instead. Antroponic sources of fecal contamination to surface waters include wastewater treatment plants, on-site septic systems, domestic and wild animal manure, and storm runoff. Non-antropogenic sources of fecal coliform include soils, (sediments), vegetation, decaying organic material, biofilms/regrowth, and atmospheric deposition. 6.0 APPROACH USED FOR THE RAA This RAA involved a pollutant load reduction plan based on a cost-effective BMP implementation strategy that begins with enhancements to existing nonstructural BMP programs and development of new programs in some cases. This step is usually followed by implementation of distributed structural BMP (Catch basin filters) to meet TMDL reduction objectives. Based on literature review documenting the removal efficiencies demonstrated by the catch basin filters, the proposed catch basin inserts would meet the TLRs set forth by the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL and bacteria target load reductions. 6.1 Uncertainty Analysis There is often great uncertainty in water quality modeling for urban drainage systems because water quality variation in systems is complex and affected by many factors. The uncertainty analysis was done to assess uncertainty in the build-up and wash-off modeling of pollutants based on a calibrated water quantity SWMM model. A total of four SWMM 5 runoff parameters were considered for uncertainty analysis. The parameters were assumed to follow uniform distribution as done in Muleta and Nicklow (2005), and lower and upper bounds (+-10%) were assigned for each parameter. Values of the parameters vary from subbasin to subbasin depending on soil, land use, imperviousness, topography and/or other characteristics of the subbasin. The four parameters considered were imperviousness, infiltration parameters, subbasin width, and slope. During the uncertainty analysis, these baseline values were altered from the calibrated parameters by multiplying the parameter by the values in lower and upper bounds. This way, the baseline values would be scaled up or down while preserving the spatial variability determined from the watershed characteristics. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-19 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Comparison of uncertainties in the pollutant build-up and wash-off in SWMM indicated that those uncertainties varied slightly. This may be a consequence of the specific characteristics of rainfall events. The uncertainty analysis of water quality parameters in SWMM is conducive to effectively evaluating model reliability. 6.2 Estimated Required Pollutant Load Reduction Using the 90th percentile load days for metals and critical wet year for bacteria (1995), the required pollutant reductions were calculated for attainment of final limitations. Per the RAA Guidelines, the percent reduction used to determine the control measures necessary to attain the final limits are based on the 90th percentile year. Even though the average year is included in the analysis, it should be noted that the interim limits, which were effective as of March 2012, for the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL are based on the 95th percentile of historic monitoring data (i.e., antidegradation-based), therefore MS4 agencies are assumed to be in compliance with these limits as of the effective date. Required load reductions were evaluated at this RAA Assessment Point located just downstream of where Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel meet. The RAA Assessment Point represents location where the collective discharge from all subbasins in DC-Torrance Watershed can be assessed to contribute to pollutant loads to the Dominguez Channel. Pollutant loads outside of the DC-Torrance Watershed are not considered in this loading analysis at the RAA Assessment Point. 6.3 Baseline Loading - Average and 90th Percentile Wet Years This RAA is based on continuous simulation, and a “representative” year-long time period was selected to represent the average year and a separate wet year was selected for bacteria as depicted in Table 2.4. The year-long simulation allows the modeling to capture the variability of rainfall and storm sizes and conditions. The metals baseline loading was based 90th percentile wet weather daily load from 10 year period from November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2012. Table 2.4 Average and 90th Percentile Years by Pollutant Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Pollutant Average Year 90th Percentile Daily Load Metals 2006 - 2007 Copper – 02/05/2009 Zinc – 11/08/2002 Pollutant Average Year 90th Percentile Year Fecal Coliforms 2006 - 2007 1994 - 1995 The average year and typical wet year (2002 -2003) loading results were used to prioritize the subbasins for BMP implementation. The flow conditions and loading results from the RAA for the average year and 90th percentile wet year are summarized in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. The May 2015 - DRAFT 2-20 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 loading for subbasin and hydrologic subunit (HSU) on a typical wet year (2003) are summarized on Figures 2.3 and 2.4 for zinc. Similar figures have been developed for copper and fecal coliform, and are shown in Appendix A. The typical wet year load was normalized by area for each HSU and subbasin, and then categorized into high, medium, and low groups. The rankings are shown for zinc on Figures 2.5 and 2.6. For each subbasin/HSU, classifications were based on the modeled annual pollutant loads normalized by area, which were then ranked in order from high to low and grouped into quintiles. A score of 5 indicates that the subbasin pollutant loading was in the top 20th percentile (high pollutant loading); whereas a score of 1 represents a subbasin loading in the bottom 20th percentile (low pollutant loading). Basins with ranking score between 4 and 5 were ground into high pollutant category. Medium pollutant loading category includes basin with ranking score between 3 and 4 and basins with ranking score less than 3 were characterized as low pollutant loading. Zinc was selected as the focus because of the priority in addressing metal loads. The figures show that the subbasins between 190th Street and Dominguez Street are associated with higher pollutant loading rates per unit area when compared to other subbasins. Table 2.5 Modeled Annual Average Load (2007) Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Subbasin Volume (ac-ft) Copper (Ib) Lead (Ib) Zinc (Ib) Fecal Coliform (MPN) 2019 45.96 26 5 131 3.96E+14 2020 7.83 4 1 19 6.91E+13 2021 81.39 56 14 238 1.40E+15 2022 32.55 17 4 78 6.53E+14 2037 6.46 4 1 19 2.92E+13 2038 11.62 11 3 46 1.53E+14 2049 11.81 8 2 37 4.51E+13 2051 1.57 1 0 6 9.12E+12 2047 0.83 1 0 3 1.16E+13 2042 2.20 2 1 8 2.00E+13 2050 3.07 3 1 11 2.05E+13 2044 7.81 7 2 28 8.66E+13 2046 3.05 2 1 10 1.84E+13 2043 4.09 3 1 13 1.88E+13 2045 5.25 4 1 15 1.46E+13 2048 52.15 34 9 147 9.21E+13 DC-Torrance (Assessment Point) 277.6 182.78 45.65 808.80 3.04E+15 EWMP Control Measures • Simulation of design storm • Compliance with all pollutants • Compliance with final TMDLs 85th Percentile, 24-hour Storm • Three conditions: •Average year (interim)Pollutant Load TWO TYPES OF NUMERIC GOALS AND EWMP COMPLIANCE PATHS FIGURE 2.3 Measures •Average year (interim) • 90th percentile year for non-metals (final) • 90th percentile load day for metals • Compliance with simulated pollutants • Compliance with interim TMDLs Pollutant Load Reductions 2051 2020 2019 2022 2021 2038 2037 2042 2050 2049 2047 2048 2046 2043 2045 Legend Load (Ib/yr) 1.18 - 4.71 4.72 - 8.52 8.53 - 12.14 12.15 - 16.19 16.20 - 22.68 Text Figure 2-4 Annual Zinc Loading By HSU for Typical Wet Year - 2002 - 2003 2051 2020 2022 2021 2019 2038 2037 2042 2050 2049 2048 2047 2045 2043 2046 Legend Load (Ib/yr) 3.51 - 13.44 13.45 - 20.79 20.80 - 42.84 42.85 - 94.16 94.17 - 270.34 Figure 2.5 Annual Zinc Load by Subbasin for Typical Wet Year - 2002 - 2003 Legend Category High Low Medium Text Figure 2-6 Typical Wet Year (2002 - 2003) - Zinc Ranking by HSU May 2015 - DRAFT 2-25 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.6 Summary Results of Critical Wet-weather (90th Percentile) Load Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Basin 90th Percentile –Day 90th Percentile Wet Year - 1995 Copper – 02/05/2009 Zinc – 11/08/2002 Volume (ac-ft) Daily Load (Ib) Volume (ac-ft) Daily Load (Ib) Volume (ac-ft) Fecal Coliforms (MPN) DC-Torrance (Assessment Point) 65.96 36.99 93.85 133.39 5333.24 6.27E+16 6.3.1 Fecal Coliform Baseline Loading –Exceedance Days The 90th percentile wet day and dry day loading for fecal coliform was determined for the study area. The results were then compared against the applicable WQBELs, RWLs, and WQOs discussed earlier in this TM. During wet weather, the allowable load is a function of the volume of water in the channel and the fecal coliform target concentration. The daily output concentrations from the model for the identified critical event days (1995) were compared against the applicable WQO value of 4,000 MPN/100 mL. The number of modeled exceedances for bacteria in DC-Torrance watershed is shown in Table 2.7. Table 2.7 Modeled Bacteria Exeedance – Critical Wet-weather Conditions (1995) Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Subbasin Total # of Critical Event Days # of Fecal Coliform Exceedances Fecal Coliform Exceeded (%) DC-Torrance 210 81 38.6% 6.4 Determination of TMDL Reduction Objective Numeric goals were calculated for each parameter based on the difference between the modeled load and calculated TMDL load for average and critical wet years. Modeled loads above the TMDL load were considered as a required reduction and subtracted from the model baseline load to develop an instream load reduction target. 6.4.1 Wet-Weather Required Reductions The wet weather pollutant reduction targets for average and critical conditions are summarized in Table 2.8. For metals, the reductions are based on daily load and for bacteria, it is based on annual load. The determination of limiting pollutant considered implementation actions to control May 2015 - DRAFT 2-26 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 the pollutant – for example, Senate Bill 346 will result in significant reductions of copper loading from brake pads. Target load reductions (TLRs) are the reduction of baseline loads needed to achieve allowable loads for the 90th percentile day. To determine whether pollutant reductions are necessary and the extent of those reductions, the baseline loads for critical wet conditions determined from the SWMM model were compared against the allowed loading. Comparisons of baseline loading versus allowed loading are shown Table 2.9. Interim limits, which were effective as of March 2012, for the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL are based on the 95th percentile of historic monitoring data, therefore MS4 agencies are assumed to be in compliance with these limits as of the effective date. Based on this, reasonable assurance of compliance with these interim limits has been demonstrated. Table 2.8 Wet-weather Pollutant Reduction Targets(1) Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Study Area Metals – 90th Percentile Load Day Copper Lead Zinc DC-Torrance 62%* 0%* 76%* Fecal Coliform – 90th Percentile Wet Year 53% Notes: (1) The critical year reduction targets were provided by Geosyntec. * Metals TLRs reflect daily LRs on the 90th percentile wet weather load days and bacteria (fecal coliform) TLRs reflect annual LRs on the 90th percentile wet weather year. Table 2.9 Wet-weather Load Reduction Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Study Area Metals 90th Percentile Load Day Copper (Ib) Lead (Ib) Zinc (Ib) DC-Torrance Copper – 02/05/2009 Zinc – 11/08/2008 22.93 0 101.38 Fecal Coliform (MPNx10^14) 1995 332.3 * Metals TLRs reflect daily LRs on the 90th percentile wet weather load days and bacteria (fecal coliform) TLRs reflect annual LRs on the 90th percentile wet weather year. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-27 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 6.5 Dry-Weather Pollutant Reduction Targets For dry weather, bacteria are the limiting pollutant (not zinc). That is bacteria are the only Category 1 or 2 WBPC. Reductions of bacteria during EWMP implementation will drive reductions of other the pollutants. This is based on qualitative analysis. 7.0 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL AND DISTRIBUTED STRUCTURAL BMPS (CATCH BASIN FILTERS) As shown in the previous sections, a number of nonstructural and distributed structural BMP (catch basin filters) options are needed to meet TMDL and the permit requirements. The evaluation uses identified implementation of catch basin filters and nonstructural projects to determine the set of actions that will most likely be implemented in an effort to achieve the TMDL and Permit requirements. As the implementation is an adaptive management process, the precise suite of actions and the timing may be changed to use resources more cost effectively. The adaptive management approach will allow changes in the number and type of catch basin filters and nonstructural BMPs to ensure cost effective measures are being implemented. Flexibility in the schedule and makeup of the Implementation Plan are key to adaptive management. The qualitative analysis is based on the reductions from both nonstructural and catch basin filters that work together to reduce the concentration and load of pollutants. Generally nonstructural BMPs consist of pollution prevention activities and source control activities that reduce the amount of the constituent entering the MS4 system, ultimately reducing the concentration in stormwater. Nonstructural activities also encourage the effective use of water, aiming to reduce dry-weather flows. In this way, nonstructural activities reduce the constituent load entering catch basin filters located downstream of the sources. 7.1 Nonstructural BMPs Non-structural BMPs committed by the Beach Cities’ WMG will result in 5 percent reduction in metals and fecal coliform load. The nonstructural BMPs committed by the City are summarized in Table 2.10. The table lists the new nonstructural BMPs, enhancements to existing nonstructural BMPs, and the TMDL pollutants and flow conditions addressed. The City has committed to implement nonstructural BMPs in the DC-Torrance Watershed. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-28 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.10 Summary of Nonstructural BMPs to Support TMDL Implementation Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Nonstructural BMP Condition Pollutants Addressed Wet Weather Dry Weather Bacteria Metals Enhancements to Existing BMPs Smart gardening program enhancements √ √   TMDL-specific stormwater training √ √   Enhancement of commercial and industrial facility inspection √ √   Enhancement escalation procedures √ √   Improved street sweeping technology √   New BMP Reduction of irrigation return flow √ √   √ - applicable;  - partially effective;  - effective 7.2 Distributed Structural BMPs - Catch Basin Filters Roads represent a major source of TMDL pollutant loads, and therefore treating road runoff is considered a key strategy for multi-pollutant TMDL implementation. Because of the number and spatial distribution of catch basins in the DC-Torrance Watershed, they represent an excellent opportunity for treating pollutants in addition to trash. Implementing catch basin inserts throughout the DC-Torrance Watershed is highly applicable because of the high density of catch basins. The City will install about 200 catch basin filters in the DC-Torrance watershed. Catch basin filters were not evaluated quantitatively. Effectiveness of catch basin inserts to meet the study objectives was based on literature review documenting significant removal of heavy metals and experiences from nearby Cities. Fact sheets and literature available on commercially available catch basin filters suggested that the proposed catch basin filters were effective at capturing and removing pollutants from stormwater runoff including sediments, heavy metals, and oil and grease. One of the literatures summarized the pollutant removal efficiencies provided by Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket (Schematic included in Appendix B). It included numeric pollutant reductions from various studies or independent tests between 1998 and 2007. The study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 was an independent test conducted to assess the pollutant removal efficiency of the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. This study in 2005 concluded a 99% reduction in Lead. Other studies include the field test conducted by the City of El Monte in 2002 that concluded that the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket were effective in removing 95% of Zinc and Copper each and 87% of Lead concentrations. In addition, we also referred to the independent performance May 2015 - DRAFT 2-29 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 assessment conducted by the City of Los Angeles in 2005 to evaluate the performance of storm drain inlet filter devices at removing oil and grease and associated pollutants from stormwater. The study aimed at evaluating the performance (at various stages of their useable lives) of four (4) different catch basin filters currently used by the City of Los Angeles in removing and retaining used motor oil and associated pollutants from urban runoff. This study tested the performance of five (5) different types of catch basin filters at removing sediments, trash, oil and grease, and metals for a flow rate ranging between 10 and 25 gallons per minute. It involved four (4) sampling events and five study sites. The key summary points indicated that qualitatively, the results of the study found that all of the units were moderately effective at removing oil and grease, suspended solids, and heavy metals. Furthermore, the study indicated that for most insert types, inspection and maintenance should occur before and after each rain event during wet weather and monthly during dry weather to maintain their performance integrity and to minimize leaching of previously captured pollutants. A more recent independent test conducted in 2013-2014 by the City of Lake Forest suggested that the catch basin filters were effective in a heavy metal removal of 75%. The product tested was the Ultra Filter Sock Heavy Metal Drain Filter. Based on literature review documenting the removal efficiencies demonstrated by the catch basin filters, the proposed catch basin inserts would meet the TLRs set forth by the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL with 75% as the estimated target load reduction for a flow rate ranging between 10 to 25 gallons per minute. In addition, the City of Torrance is in the process of developing the Green Street Program and the ordinances to implement Green Street design features as part of street redevelopment. While implementing redevelopment of arterial streets, the City of Torrance would assess opportunities for Green Street design features to facilitate treatment through filtration or infiltration. Green Street elements may include infiltration trench that provides water quality treatment, reduction in peak flow discharges, and potential groundwater recharge. Other Green Street elements that may be considered include bioretention/biofiltration practices to achieve water quality treatment through filtration by vegetation and soils to remove pollutants with perforated underdrain to convey the treated runoff. The City of Torrance is committed to developing the Green Street Ordinance established and in effect by July 2015 as required by the MS4 Permit. For bacteria, a combination of non-structural BMPs including Public Education and Outreach, reduction of irrigation return flows, and future development and implementation of Green Street design features would assist with meeting the TLRs for bacteria. In addition, the study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 indicated Fecal Coliform (bacteria) removal efficiency of 33% by the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-30 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 7.3 Wet Weather The interim and final targets are presented in total acre-feet per year that requires treatment through structural BMPs. Based on literature review documenting the removal efficiencies demonstrated by the catch basin inserts, it can be justified that the City’s proposal to implement catch basin inserts to meet the TLRs set forth by the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL would be realistic and achievable. Table 2.11 summarizes the catch basin filters identified through the RAA to address the TMDL implementation. Table 2.11 Summary of Structural BMPs to Support TMDL Implementation Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Structural BMP Condition TMDL Pollutant Addressed Wet Weather Dry Weather Bacteria Metals Catch Basin Filters Distributed BMPs Catch basin Filters √ √   Green Street Elements √ √   √ - applicable;  - not effective;  - effective 7.4 Dry Weather Although clearly defined definitions exist for wet periods, definitions for dry periods are less clearly defined. Wet weather periods are either defined in terms of rainfall or instream flow. For bacteria, a wet day is one with a rainfall total greater than 0.1 inches plus the three subsequent days, while metals criteria define wet days as those with instream flow above the 90th percentile. One seemingly intuitive way of defining a dry period is simply to use the “non-wet” days represented as the inverse of wet days. However, summary of model results indicate some residual influence of wet weather among the “non-wet” days. This presents some challenges for estimating loads and evaluating dry weather compliance because BMP planning would be better served by choosing design conditions that are more influenced by natural background baseflow and/or anthropogenic activities such as point source discharges or dry weather runoff from irrigation (instead of post-rain event interflow). Dry weather reductions are attained through a combination of non-structural practices including flow reduction source controls as discussed in the EWMP. The dry weather load reduction will focus on non-structural source control and pollution prevention measures that are designed to reduce the amount of pollutants and understand the effect of pollutants entering runoff though education, enforcement and behavioral modification programs. The City plans to continue and extend the dry weather flow diversion program to the May 2015 - DRAFT 2-31 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Dominguez Channel. This program will reduce runoff and pollutant loads by diverting non-storm water discharges to the sanitary sewer system and/or vegetated areas for infiltration. 8.0 POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN Fact sheets and literature available on commercially available catch basin filters were reviewed and the results were discussed in earlier sections. The Pollutant Reduction Plan is considered an “initial” scenario because over time, through adaptive management, the responsible agencies will likely “shift” among different types of BMPs (e.g., increase implementation of green streets and reduce implementation of regional BMPs) or substitute alterative BMPs altogether (e.g., implement dry wells instead of green streets). These shifts will be supported by analyses to show the substituted BMPs provide an equivalent target load reduction as the replaced BMPs. Table 2.12 shows the qualitative analyses were performed to evaluate the ability of BMPs to meet load reduction targets associated with WLAs. Table 2.12 Pollutant Reduction After Implementing catch Basin BMPs Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Pollutants Existing Load Target Load Reduction (%) Nonstructural BMP Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Inserts) Structural + Nonstructural BMPs Zinc 90th Percentile Load Day - 11/08/2002 Copper (Ib/d) 36.99 62% 5% 75% 80% Zinc (Ib/d) 133.39 76% 5% 75% 80% Critical Wet Year - 1995 Fecal Coliform (MPN/yr) x10^14 627 53% 5% 33% 38% plus filtration/infiltration opportunities through potential Green Street Implementation in future. No TMDL developed for fecal coliform. Target Load Reduction calculated based on REC-1 standard and high-flow suspension days. Note: The City of Torrance is following the adaptive management approach that would allow them to monitor the performances of proposed distributed structural BMPs (catch basin filters) and non-structural best management practices with respect to meeting the established TLR requirements. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-32 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.12 Pollutant Reduction After Implementing catch Basin BMPs Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Pollutants Existing Load Target Load Reduction (%) Nonstructural BMP Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Inserts) Structural + Nonstructural BMPs In addition, the City of Torrance is kick-starting building the Green Street Program and the ordinances to consider implementation of Green Street design features as part of street redevelopment within the City of Torrance. While implementing redevelopment of arterial streets, the City would assess opportunities for Green Street design with measures for treatment through filtration or infiltration. Green Street elements may include infiltration trench that provides water quality treatment, reduction in peak flow discharges, and potential groundwater recharge. Other Green Street elements that may be considered include bioretention/biofiltration practices to achieve water quality treatment through filtration by vegetation and soils to remove pollutants with perforated underdrain to convey the treated runoff. The City of Torrance is committed to developing the Green Street Ordinance established and in effect by July 2015 as required by the MS4 Permit. Based on the monitoring results, the City of Torrance would consider additional control measures if the required TLRs were not met or other improvements to existing best management practices were found necessary. This would allow changes in the number and type of best management practices selected for implementation. Through adaptive management and based on the future monitoring results, the implementation schedules may be modified to reflect the increased knowledge of the watershed. Actual schedule for Implementation of BMPs will occur as funding becomes available. 8.1 Implementation Schedules The estimated implementation schedules for the nonstructural and catch basin filters that are being considered by the City of Torrance to comply with WLAs and the Permit requirements are discussed below. The schedules presented herein are sufficient for long-term planning. Through adaptive management and based on the future monitoring results, the implementation schedules may be modified to reflect the increased knowledge of the watershed. Actual schedule for Implementation of BMPs will occur as funding becomes available. 8.1.1 TMDL Schedule The TMDL implementation schedule consists of a phased approach, with interim WLAs to be met by March 23, 2012, and full compliance by March 23, 2032. Interim milestones for metals have been assumed to be met. Interim limits, which were effective as of March 2012, for the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL are based on the 95th percentile of historic monitoring data, therefore MS4 agencies are assumed to be in compliance with these limits as of the effective date. For bacteria, no TMDL has been developed for fecal coliform. Reduction was estimated based on the Ballona Creek Bacteria TMDL. For bacteria, a combination of non-structural BMPs including Public Education and Outreach, reduction of irrigation return flows, and future development and implementation of Green Street design features would assist with meeting the TLRs for bacteria. In addition, the study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface May 2015 - DRAFT 2-33 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 indicated Fecal Coliform (bacteria) removal efficiency of 33% by the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. 8.1.2 Nonstructural BMP Schedules An estimated schedule for the nonstructural BMPs is summarized in Table 2.13. The schedule accounts for the planning and design of the nonstructural BMP programs and the long-term implementation of the programs. 8.1.3 Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Filters) Schedules Catch basin inserts were identified as part of the RAA analysis that the City of Torrance would consider implementing as part of the EWMP process. The City of Torrance is committed to implementing catch basin filters to meet the TLR and an estimated schedule for implementation has been presented in Table 2.14. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS The City has completed a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) for TMDL pollutants and those pollutants that may reasonably be expected to exceed ambient water quality standards in receiving waters during wet weather conditions. Facilitating the RAA is the model recommended by Los Angeles County: Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC). Based on qualitative analysis of proposed BMPs, the City is expected to meet the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL and the bacteria target load reductions. 10.0 REFERENCES 1. Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: User’s Manual. U.S. EPA, 1988. 2. Storm Water Management Model, Version 5: User’s Manual, U.S. EPA, 2008. 3. Guidance for Performing Reasonable Assurance Analysis in a watershed management program, including an enhanced Watershed Management Program, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, March 2014 4. BASINS Information and User’s Guidance, U.S. EPA, 2001 5. Stormwater Quality Master Plan, City of Torrance, CA, 2011 6. System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis IntegratioN (SUSTAIN) User’s Manual Version 1.2, U.S. EPA, 2012 7. P8 Urban Catchment User’s Manual, IEP, Inc. 8. Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins, Athayde et. al, 1983 9. Beach Cities EWMP Update dated February 2015, prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-34 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 10. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Basin Plan Chapter 3 titled Water Quality Objectives, dated May 2, 2013 Section on In Waters Designated for Non- contact Water Recreation (REC-2) 11. Removal Efficiencies of Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket as per Longo Toyota – Independent Field Test conducted in 2002 by the City of El Monte. 12. Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface, Department of Environmental Health, Independent Test conducted by the University of California, Irvine, in 2005. 13. The California Integrated Waste Management Board Catch Basin Insert Study Final Report, May 2005. 14. The City of lake Forest, Ultra Filter Sock Heavy Metal Drain Filter, Independent test, conducted by Environmental Chemistry lab, 2013-2014. May 2015 - DRAFT 2-35 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.13 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Nonstructural BMPs Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Structural Project Duration (months) Timeline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Catch Basin Cleanouts Purchase Advanced cleaning Technology (steam cleaning), as needed Focus on Problem Areas 3 – 6 Increase Frequency of Cleanouts Ongoing Catch Basin Inserts Install Catch Basin Inserts in Implementation Area Ongoing Downspout Disconnection Program Planning & Assessment 8 – 12 Implementation 24 Fats, Oils and Grease Outreach Focus on Residents in TMDL Implementation Area 8 – 12 Continuation of Existing FOG Outreach Ongoing Green Waste Outreach Planning & Assessment 8 – 12 Implementation 24 Illicit Connection Removal Survey System in TMDL Implementation Area 24 Implementation 24 – 36 May 2015 - DRAFT 2-36 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.13 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Nonstructural BMPs Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Structural Project Duration (months) Timeline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Impervious Cover Reduction Assess Feasibility of Reducing Existing Impervious cover 8 – 12 Implementation, if appropriate 24 Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program Nutrients and Toxics Specific Training 3 – 6 Outreach to Facilities to Improve Onsite Source Control Activities 8 – 12 Continuation of Existing I/C Facilities Program Ongoing Pet Waste Outreach Planning & Assessment 8 – 12 Implementation of Pet Waste Bag Dispenser Stations in TMDL Implementation Area 8 – 12 Focus on TMDL Implementation Area Resident Outreach 24 Continuation of Existing Pet waste Outreach Ongoing Post Construction Requirements Specialized Nutrient, Toxics and Runoff Reduction Training for Staff 3 – 6 Require Implementation of BMPs that Effectively Remove Nutrients and Toxics for Redevelopment Projects in County Islands Ongoing May 2015 - DRAFT 2-37 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.13 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Nonstructural BMPs Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Structural Project Duration (months) Timeline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Sewer System Maintenance Specialized Training for Staff 3 – 6 Focus maintenance in County Islands 8 – 12 Smart Gardening Program Planning & Assessment 8 – 12 Implementation Ongoing Street and Parking Lot Sweeping Planning & Assessment 8 – 12 Upgrade/Purchase More Effective Street Sweepers, as needed 3 – 6 Conduct Residential Outreach 8 – 12 Increase Frequency of Sweeping Ongoing May 2015 - DRAFT 2-38 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/9801A00/Deliverables/TM02/TM02 Table 2.14 Implementation Schedule for Distributed Structural BMPs (Catch Basin Inserts) Beach Cities EWMP City of Torrance Structural Project Timeline 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 Catch Basin Inserts Green Street Elements Note: Catch Basin Inserts are the distributed structural BMPs identified to be considered by the City of Torrance for implementation. The City has committed to the implementation of catch basin inserts to meet TLR requirements. Based on literature review documenting the removal efficiencies demonstrated by the catch basin inserts, we justify that our proposal to implement catch basin inserts to meet the TLRs set forth by the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL would be realistic and achievable. In addition, the City of Torrance is kick-starting developing the Green Street Program and the ordinances to consider implementation of Green Street design features as part of street redevelopment within the City of Torrance. While implementing redevelopment of arterial streets, the City would assess opportunities for Green Street with measures for treatment through filtration or infiltration. Green Street elements may include infiltration trench that provides water quality treatment, reduction in peak flow discharges, and potential groundwater recharge. Other Green Street elements that may be considered include bioretention/biofiltration practices to achieve water quality treatment through filtration by vegetation and soils to remove pollutants with perforated underdrain to convey the treated runoff. The City of Torrance is committed to developing the Green Street Ordinance established and in effect by July 2015 as required by the MS4 Permit. For bacteria, a combination of non-structural BMPs including Public Education and Outreach, reduction of irrigation return flows, and future development and implementation of Green Street design features would assist with meeting the TLRs for bacteria. In addition, the study on Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface conducted by the University of Irvine, California, Department of Environmental Health in 2005 indicated Fecal Coliform (bacteria) removal efficiency of 33% by the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket. Technical Memorandum No. 2 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF LOAD ESTIMATION 2051 2047 2048 2042 2046 2043 2045 2049 2050 2037 2038 2019 2020 2022 2021Legend Load (Ib/year) 1.15 - 4.19 4.20 - 7.70 7.71 - 11.83 11.84 - 16.11 16.12 - 20.90 Text Figure A1 Annual Copper Load by HSU - Typical Wet Year (2002 - 2003) 2051 2047 2048 2046 2043 2045 2042 2050 2049 2037 2019 2038 2022 2021 2020 Legend Load (Ib/year) 0.15 - 0.65 0.66 - 1.08 1.09 - 1.57 1.58 - 2.16 2.17 - 2.96 Text Figure A2 Annual Lead Load- Typical Wet Year (2002 - 2003) 2051 2047 2048 2042 2037 2050 2049 2046 2043 2045 2020 2019 2038 2022 2021 Legend Load (MPN/yr)x10^14 1.67 - 5.38 5.39 - 12.80 12.81 - 40.00 40.01 - 141.00 141.01 - 230.00 Text Figure A3 Annual Fecal Coliform Load - Critical Wet-weather Conditions (1995) 2051 2047 2048 2042 2045 2045 2046 2049 2037 2020 2019 2022 2021 2038 Legend Load (Ib/year) 3.06 - 13.03 13.04 - 28.12 28.13 - 60.86 60.87 - 97.37 97.38 - 249.06 Text Figure A4 Annual Copper Load by Subbasin - Typical Wet Year (2002 - 2003) 2051 2020 2047 2048 2049 2050 2037 2038 2019 2021 2022 2042 20452046 2043 Legend Load (Ib/year) 0.44 - 1.84 1.85 - 3.01 3.02 - 5.74 5.75 - 11.15 11.16 - 35.25 Text Figure A5 Annual Lead Load by Subbasin - Typical Wet Year (2002 - 2003) 2051 2020 2019 2050 2049 2048 2047 2037 2038 2042 2043 20452046 2021 2022 Legend Load (MPN/yr/ac)x10^12 2.82 - 4.08 4.09 - 6.81 6.82 - 11.31 11.32 - 15.54 15.55 - 27.24 Text Figure A6 Annual Fecal Coliform Load Per Unit Area - Critical Wet-weather Conditions (1995) Technical Memorandum No. 2 APPENDIX B – CHARACTERISTICS CATCH BASIN INSERTS LITERATURE AND REFERENCES 3/24/2014-JTH Laboratory Date Date Conductance Ph TSS Oil & Grease Test Sample Report Tech uMHOS ph Units mg/L mg/L 1 Enviro-Chem 10/9/13 10/21/13 Coyne 609 6.33 322 4.05 2 Enviro-Chem 2/27/14 3/7/14 Coyne 153 7.28 332 2.34 3 4 5 6 up to 200 6.5-8.5 up to 100 up to 15 SM 2510B SM 4500-H+B SM 2540D EPA 413.2 Test Results ARB Contractors Bench Mark Test-Method John Commercial Services all rights reserved Catchbasinfilter.com 1/31/2007 Heavy Metal Drain Filter - Ultra-Filter Sock® Heavy Metal Drain Filter is a density polyethylene woven geo - textile sock with media type. ULTRA-FILTER SOCK ® Part# Description Dimensions in (mm) Weight lbs. (kg) 9453 Activated Carbon 108 x 7 x 4 (2,743 x 178 x 102) 40.0 (18.0) 9455 Sorb 44 108 x 7 x 4 (2,743 x 178 x 102) 15.0 (7.0) 9457 Sediment Removal 108 x 7 x 4 (2,743 x 178 x 102) 40.0 (18.0) 9456 Phos Filter 108 x 7 x 4 (2,743 x 178 x 102) 66.0 (30.0) 9454 Heavy Metal Removal 108 x 7 x 4 (2,743 x 178 x 102) 35.0 (16.0) * Multiple Ultra-Filter Socks can be used in a “treatment train” if the potential for more than one contaminant or a large quantity of a single contaminant is present. Media Specifications Media Type Capacity Information Activated Carbon Each Filter Sock is filled with granular activated carbon. This media is an excellent polishing filter, due to its immense surface area and the wide range of components it is capable of absorbing. Helps with removing odors. Dry Filter Sock Weight of approximately 36 lbs Heavy Metal Removal Media Each Filter Sock can remove up to 1145 grams of heavy metals • Removal rates up to 50% per Filter Sock • See Heavy Metal Removal Data Sheet for more information • Dry Filter Sock Weight is approximately 32.5 lbs Sorb 44 Each Filter Sock can absorb up to 5.33 gallons (20 liters) of hydrocarbon • Dry Filter Sock Weight is approximately 9 lbs PhosFilter Each Filter Sock can remove up to 26 lbs of phosphorus with up to 95% efficiency • Dry Filter Sock Weight is approximately 50 lbs Sediment Removal Media Recycled rubber material keeps unit in place and allows for maximum water flow • Dry Filter Sock Weight is approximately 40 lbs * Note – All information is based on a standard 9-foot long Ultra-Filter Sock Manufacturer: UltraTech International, Inc. All data provided by manufacturer Authorized Distributor: Catchbasinfilter.com John Commercial Services. John Commercial Services all rights reserved Catchbasinfilter.com 1/31/2007 Heavy Metal Removal Media Data List of Filterable Metals Rubidium, Lithium, Potassium, Caesium, Ammonium, Sodium, Calcium, Silver, Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, Barium, Strontium, Copper, Mercury, Magnesium, Iron, Cobalt, Aluminum, Chromium Experimental Results Percent Reduction (assumes 1" of head pressure and 15 second exposure time) Initial Metal Concentration (ppm) Percent Removal 4.0 30% .04 50% Saturation Point The saturation point of the Heavy Metal Removal Media is 0.07 mg heavy metal/g of Media This translates to 31.8 g of heavy metal/lb of Media Capacity of Different UltraTech Products* Part Number Description Capacity (grams of Metal removed) 9397 Ultra‐Drainguard, Heavy Metal Model 190 9460 Ultra‐HydroKleen Media Filter 285 285 9302 Ultra‐Downspout Guard (Standard) 475 9301 Ultra‐Downspout Guard (Large) 715 9454 Ultra‐Filter Sock (9‐foot length) 1145 * ‐ Actual results may vary based on initial metal concentration and site flow conditions Solid Waste Recovery Efficiency +80.0% (Removal of solid particulate @ greater than .05 or 1 millimeter in diameter) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) capture ++80% w debris catch over outlet. Filter Test Results Per 22” of Media @ 100% Fill Rate = +80% Oil/Grease HydroCarbons & 60% Total Phosphorus (TP) 1) All flow thru test data completed by independent field test 1/31/2007 Filter Used: UltraTech Heavy metal Filter 9454 diameter 9’ Filter Sock Tube 100% Fill Media. 2) Capacity: 4’x 8” 3) Final performance will vary based on open CB inlet drain type, design, grade, outlet, CFM, dimensions, solid waste type, maintenance, filter configuration. Results will vary by site installation. Manufacturer: UltraTech International, Inc. All data provided by manufacturer Authorized Distributor: Catchbasinfilter.com John Commercial Services. Recommended Filter Replacement every 6 months as necessary. CIWMB CATCH BASIN INSERT STUDY FINAL REPORT USED OIL RESEARCH, TESTING, AND DEMONSTRATION GRANT Third Cycle Grant Number URD3-02-0005 Prepared for: The California Integrated Waste Management Board Prepared by: GeoSyntec Consultants Portland, Oregon University of California Los Angeles May 24, 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California Integrated Waste Management Board partially funded this study through the Used Oil Research, Testing and Demonstration Grant to evaluate the performance of catch basin insert technology and methods in removing oil & grease and coarse sediments in the City of Los Angeles. The project benefited greatly from the assistance provided by the City of Los Angeles' contribution of staff time and costs in locating and providing the catch basins. GeoSyntec Consultants and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) performed the research reported herein. The Principal Investigators of this study were Eric W. Strecker of GeoSyntec Consultants and Professor Michael K. Stenstrom of UCLA. GeoSyntec staff that provided significant contributions to the project and final report includes Marc Leisenring, Dan Pankani, Chad Bird, and Andi Thayumanavan. UCLA research staff that provided significant contributions to this study includes Dr. Sim Lin Lau, Dr. Younghan Han, Simon Ha, Min-mo Chung, and Joo-Hyun Khang. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Purpose and Goals ...............................................................................................1 1.2 Document Organization ...................................................................................................1 2 Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Background and Identification of Research Needs..........................................................3 2.2 Catch Basin Insert Performance Studies..........................................................................5 2.2.1 Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee (ICBIC) Lab Study .............................6 2.2.2 Santa Clara Valley Parking Lot Study .....................................................................7 2.2.3 Sacramento Parking Lot Study ................................................................................8 2.2.4 Santa Monica Bay Study..........................................................................................8 2.2.5 City of Los Angeles Study.......................................................................................9 2.2.6 California EPA Study ............................................................................................10 2.2.7 King County Study ................................................................................................10 2.2.8 University of California Los Angeles Study..........................................................10 2.2.9 Rouge River Watershed Study...............................................................................10 2.2.10 AbTech Ultra-Urban Filter - Vendor Studies ........................................................11 2.3 Expected Hydrocarbon Runoff Concentrations and Treatment Levels.........................12 3 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Study Site Selection.......................................................................................................15 3.1.1 Representativeness.................................................................................................15 3.1.2 Safety .....................................................................................................................15 3.1.3 Ease of Access .......................................................................................................15 3.1.4 Security..................................................................................................................15 3.2 Catch Basin Insert Selection..........................................................................................16 3.2.1 Drainworks Inc. – DrainPac..................................................................................16 3.2.2 Suntree Technologies Inc. – Curb Inlet Basket .....................................................17 3.2.3 Kristar Enterprises Inc. – FLOGARD+PLUS™...................................................17 3.2.4 Hydro Compliance Management Inc. – Hydro-Kleen...........................................18 3.3 Summary of the Monitoring and Testing Procedures....................................................19 3.3.1 Field Inspections....................................................................................................20 3.3.2 Laboratory Testing.................................................................................................21 3.4 Design and Construction of Testing Apparatus.............................................................23 3.5 Precipitation During the Study Period ...........................................................................24 4 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Field Inspections ............................................................................................................27 4.1.1 DrainPac at Washington and Vermont ..................................................................27 4.1.2 Curb-Inlet Basket at Portland and 23rd .................................................................31 4.1.3 FloGard-Plus at 18th and Flower...........................................................................33 4.1.4 Hydro-Kleen at Washington and Catalina.............................................................36 4.1.5 Summary of Field Inspections ...............................................................................39 iii 4.2 Laboratory Tests ............................................................................................................42 4.2.1 Testing of New Filters ...........................................................................................42 4.2.2 Testing and Analysis of Used Filters.....................................................................48 5 Research Synopsis and Recommendations........................................................................... 59 5.1 Summary of Research Conclusions ...............................................................................59 5.2 Challenges, Lessons Learned, and Suggestions for Future Research............................61 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Summary of oil and grease removal efficiency of catch basin inserts tested by the Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee (1995).................................................................... 7 Table 2-2. Removal efficiency and capital cost summary............................................................ 11 Table 2-3. Summary of 1994-2000 land use results for TPH, oil and grease, and metals............ 13 Table 3-1. Target particle size percentiles by mass for artificial stormwater TSS concentrations.......................................................................................................................... 22 Table 4-1. Volume of oil retained within each new insert............................................................ 43 Table 4-2. Sieve sizes and corresponding grain sizes used in the particle capture tests............... 45 Table 4-3. New filter effluent sediment loading by particle size.................................................. 46 Table 4-4. New filter oil and grease effluent concentrations versus time.................................... 47 Table 4-5. Metals concentrations in oil and the calculated metals removals for each insert type........................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 4-6. Accumulated bulk solids screening analysis for CPC inserts..................................... 51 Table 4-7. Accumulated bulk solids screening analysis for FL inserts........................................ 52 Table 4-8. Washout of particles from used inserts during the flow rate tests............................... 54 Table 4-9. Used filter oil and grease effluent concentrations versus time.................................... 56 Table 4-10. Comparison of new and used insert oil & grease removal efficiency....................... 57 Table 4-11. Volume of oil retained within each used insert and the % increase compared to the new insert oil retention....................................................................................................... 57 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. DrainPac™ catch basin insert.................................................................................... 16 Figure 3-2. Curb Inlet Basket functional details and installed configuration............................... 17 Figure 3-3. FloGard Plus catch basin insert.................................................................................. 18 Figure 3-4. Hydro-Kleen Stormwater Filtration System.............................................................. 19 Figure 3-5. Alternative catch basin insert system installed by the City of Los Angeles.............. 20 Figure 3-6. Laboratory testing apparatus schematic (plan view).................................................. 23 Figure 3-7. Curb inlet schematic (profile view)............................................................................ 23 Figure 3-8. Testing apparatus prior to upgrade (left) and after upgrade (right)........................... 24 Figure 3-9. Testing apparatus stilling basin (left) and synthetic catch basin (right)..................... 24 iv Figure 3-10. 2004 precipitation record for the Downtown USC Campus rain gage.................... 25 Figure 3-11. 2005 precipitation record for the Downtown USC Campus rain gage.................... 25 Figure 4-1. Map showing the location of CC-001-D site installed with DrainPac insert............. 28 Figure 4-2. Aerial photo of site CC-010-D................................................................................... 29 Figure 4-3. CC-010-D site photos upstream (left) and to the intersection of Vermont and Washington (right)................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 4-4. Field inspection photos of DrainPac catch basin insert at the intersection of Washington Blvd. and Vermont Ave....................................................................................... 30 Figure 4-5. Map showing the location of CC-008-C site installed with a Curb-Inlet Basket....... 31 Figure 4-6. Aerial photo of site CC-008-C................................................................................... 31 Figure 4-7. CC-008-C site photos upstream (left) and to the intersection of 23rd and Portland (right)....................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 4-8. Field inspection photos showing the condition of Curb-Inlet Basket at the intersection of 23rd St. and Portland (east side)...................................................................... 33 Figure 4-9. Map showing the location of CC-007-F site installed with a FloGard Plus insert.... 34 Figure 4-10. Aerial photo of site CC-007-F.................................................................................. 34 Figure 4-11. CC-010-D site photos upstream (left) and to the intersection of 18th and Flower (right)....................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4-12. Field inspection photos showing the condition of FloGard Plus at the intersection of 18th St. and Flower St. (southwest corner).......................................................................... 36 Figure 4-13: Map showing the location of CC-001-H site installed with a Hydro-Kleen insert..37 Figure 4-14. Aerial photo of site CC-001-H................................................................................. 37 Figure 4-15. CC-001-H Site Photos Upstream (left) and Downstream (right)............................. 38 Figure 4-16. Field inspection photos showing the condition of Hydro-Kleen at the intersection of Washington and Walton....................................................................................................... 39 Figure 4-17. Relatively low-intensity storm showing bypass (FL-006-H, 2/4/04)...................... 40 Figure 4-18. Improper installation of insert that caused bypass (CC-003-F, 2/4/04)................... 40 Figure 4-19. Two inserts operating properly during the 2/4/04 event: CC007-F (left) and CC009-D (right)....................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4-21. Curb inlet screens installed at two sites: FL003-F (left) and CC004-H (right)....... 41 Figure 4-22: Laboratory set up for the evaluation of spill control by catch basin inserts............ 43 Figure 4-23 Oil & grease wash-out concentration versus time..................................................... 44 Figure 4-24. Glass blasting beads used for particulate solids removal tests................................. 45 Figure 4-25. New filter percent sediment mass removal by particle size..................................... 46 Figure 4-26. Box and whisker plots of oil and grease removal tests with new inserts................. 48 Figure 4-27. Photos of bulk solids screening process................................................................... 50 Figure 4-28. Used catch basin insert flow rate tests..................................................................... 53 Figure 4-29. Used insert particulate solids removal test............................................................... 55 Figure 4-30. Box and whisker plots of oil and grease removal tests with used inserts................ 56 v 1 INTRODUCTION Used motor oil and other oils and greases entering storm drains represent a significant source of pollution to the waters of California, especially in highly urbanized areas, such as the City of Los Angeles. Increasingly, pollutants associated with used motor oil, such as heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons, have been identified as primary constituents contributing to the decline of surface water quality in California over the past several decades. Motor oil, including crankcase, transmission, gearbox, and differential lubricating oil, that leaks from automobiles or is disposed of improperly often ends up in storm drains and eventually receiving waters. Although the use of inlet and catch basin filters has become a significant component of many agencies’ non-point pollution control strategies to control oil and grease discharges, only limited third-party performance monitoring and testing has been conducted to quantitatively assess the ability of these technologies to remove oil and grease from stormwater as well as the associated other pollutants. Even fewer studies are available that assess changes in performance as filters are exposed to field conditions and no studies were found that assess the ability of inserts to retain used motor oil after an illegal dumping activity. The City of Los Angeles has installed several types of oil-absorbent catch basin/inlet inserts in their storm drain system in partial fulfillment of the requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAS004001. These inserts have been installed according to the design requirements of the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). However, the effectiveness and long-term performance of many of these inserts at removing and retaining oil and grease, as well as other pollutants is relatively unknown (i.e. limited to vendor reported or claimed performance estimates, which often report percent removals when new or were assessed in only limited studies). Furthermore, the methods used to define performance often vary significantly between vendors, as well as in independent third-party studies. Therefore, the transferability and compatibility of available performance data is extremely limited. 1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The purpose of this study was to provide an independent performance assessment of storm drain inlet filter devices at removing oil and grease and associated pollutants from stormwater. The first goal of the study was to assess the stormwater quality issues of oil and grease in the City of Los Angeles and provide a thorough literature review of catch basin insert technologies and methods for evaluating performance as it relates to the removal of oil and grease from urban runoff. The second goal was to evaluate the performance (at various stages of their useable lives) of four (4) different catch basin filters currently used by the City of Los Angeles in removing and retaining used motor oil and associated pollutants from urban runoff, as well as from illicit and accidental dumping activities. 1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION After this introductory section, this document is organized into four main sections: Section 2 - Literature Review, Section 3 - Methodology, Section 4 - Results and Discussion, and Section 5 - Summary and Conclusions. Section 2 briefly assesses the current stormwater quality issues of oil and grease in the City of Los Angeles and reviews various catch basin insert technologies and available performance studies. Section 3 outlines the methodologies for evaluating catch basin insert performance for both the field and laboratory components of the study. Section 4 discusses the performance implications of the field observations and summarizes the results of 1 the laboratory tests. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the overall study and provides recommendations for future research. In addition to the main text, Appendix A includes detailed maps identifying the location of the catch basins used in the study, Appendix B includes the field inspection photos and notes, and Appendix C provides the extraction method used for the laboratory oil and grease tests. 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The following subsections provide a brief background of the issues regarding oil and grease in stormwater runoff in urban areas in general, and the Los Angeles area in particular (Section 2.1); a literature review of studies that have evaluated the performance of catch basin inserts at removing oil and grease (Section 2.2); expected ranges of stormwater runoff concentrations, as well as the expected level of treatment of catch basin inserts for oil and grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) (Section 2.3). 2.1 BACKGROUND AND IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH NEEDS Oil, grease, and hydrocarbons in urban stormwater runoff originate primarily from leaking vehicles, car maintenance activities, illegal dumping of oil, auto accidents, and spills. Heavy metals in urban stormwater originate primarily from roadway construction materials, deteriorating building surfaces, burning of fossil fuels, and engine wear and leaks and brake pad and tire wear. These pollutants are of environmental concern because nature cannot rapidly degrade or assimilate them. So, even if runoff contains low concentrations of the pollutants, they can accumulate in the environment and have acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic organisms.1 A study conducted by the Pelegrin Research Group in 1997 found that 15% of the residents in Los Angeles County who change their own oil (~20% of the residents) participate in improper disposal, with 1% (of the 20%) disposing of it by dumping directly onto the street, gutter, or storm drain.2 With an L.A. County population close to 10 million people and assuming 4 gallons of used oil per year are disposed of by people who engage in illegal storm drain disposal, these people are may be contributing about 80,000 gallons of oil per year, directly to the Los Angeles County storm drain system. Leaks from automobiles are likely contributing much more than this, as it was estimated that approximately 64 million gallons of the oil sold in California in the 2000/2001 fiscal year either leaked out of, or was burned in engines.3 With nearly 30% of the State’s population living in Los Angeles, approximately 19 million gallons of this leaked or burned oil likely occurred in L.A. County. Motor oil that leaks from automobiles is dispersed; resulting in generally low stormwater concentrations, and therefore, the acute environmental impacts of leaked oil is likely less than environmental impacts of illegal dumping activities. For instance, stormwater monitoring by the County of Los Angeles has shown that the land uses associated with the highest average concentrations of oil and grease are commercial (3.3 mg/L) and transportation (3.1 mg/L).4 In another stormwater characterization study in the City of Santa Monica, average oil and grease 1 Bosworth, N. 1999. Tertiary Treatment of Urban Stormwater. University of Newcastle. http://www.stormwater- resources.com/library.htm 2 Pelegrin Research Group (1997). “Los Angeles County Stormwater Segmentation Study-Resident Population.” Prepared for the Los Angeles County of Public Works. 3 California Integrated Waste Management Board (2002). “California’s Used Oil Recycling Program.” Publication Number 332-97-015. 4 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2002). “Los Angeles County 1994-2000 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report” [Online] http://ladpw.org/wmd/npdes/IntTC.cfm. 3 concentrations were reported as 5.9 mg/L and 8.2 mg/L for commercial and transportation land uses, respectively.5 These data represent storm event averages, or more precisely, averages of mean storm event concentrations (multiple grab samples were taken throughout the duration of individual storms, but they were not necessarily flow- or time-weighted composites). However, these data mask the “first flush” phenomenon that can occur during the beginning of storms and/or any illegal oil dumping activities. For many pollutants, approximately 30% of the mass is released during the first 20% of the storm.6 Therefore, oil and grease concentrations at the beginning of a storm could potentially be much higher than the average storm event concentrations. These data represent storm event averages, or more precisely, averages of mean storm event concentrations Oil, grease, and hydrocarbons interfere with plant photosynthesis and with reproduction, respiration, and growth and development of aquatic organisms. These chemicals can accumulate in sediments and tissues of fish and other aquatic organisms, potentially causing cancer, mutations, and even death. Furthermore dissolved oxygen levels may become depleted through the degradation of hydrocarbons.7 Dissolved metals, that can be associated with motor oils can cause short and long-term toxic effects on aquatic organisms. They can bioaccumulate in animal tissue and affect reproduction rates and life spans of aquatic organisms. Metals deposit in sediments where they negatively impact benthic organisms and their predators. Oil and grease in stormwater runoff can be free-floating, suspended, or emulsified or can sorb to trash, debris, and particles. Between 83-98% of total hydrocarbons in stormwater runoff are bound to particulate matter, and most of these particles are settleable. Most stormwater studies only report free-floating oil concentrations, which typically range from 2-35 mg/L. Free-floating oil and grease can be removed by sorbent materials, such as those found in catch basin inserts.8 In highly urbanized environments, such as the City of Los Angeles, where available space for many traditional Best Management Practices (BMPs) is limited (for example retention ponds, constructed wetlands, or infiltration basins), proprietary devices, such as catch basin filters are often used to capture oil and grease. The manufacturer usually provides some quantitative and/or qualitative measure of the effectiveness of these types of devices at removing pollutants. Inconsistent testing and reporting protocols and the absence of self-imposed testing quality control have generated concerns over the reliability of available performance data. These 5 Woodward-Clyde (1998). “Santa Monica Bay Area Municipal Stormwater/Urban Runoff Pilot Project – Evaluation of Potential Catchbasin Retrofits.” Prepared for Santa Monica Cities Consortium c/o City of Santa Monica. 6 Ma, S., S. Khan, Y. Li, L. Kim, S. Ha, S. Lau, M. Kayhanian, and M. Stenstrom (2002). “First Flush Phenomena for Highways: How it can be meaningfully defined.” Proc. Ninth Inter. Conf. on Urban Drainage, E. Strecker and W. Huber, eds., Lloyd Center, Doubletree Hotel, Portland, Oregon, Sept. 8-13, 2002. 7 Bosworth, N. 1999. Tertiary Treatment of Urban Stormwater. University of Newcastle. http://www.stormwater- resources.com/library.htm 8 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet. Publication # 832-F-02- 020. September. 4 concerns have prompted some agencies to prepare protocols for the verification of proprietary stormwater treatment devices.9, , 10 11 Adoption of these protocols is increasing; however, currently there are few data available on the wide variety of devices currently employed throughout California. (Currently the only stormwater treatment technology certified by the CalCert Program is the AquaShield™ Filtration System, Model SD-100 and the performance claim states the product “removes 92% of oil and diesel fuel in water when influent concentrations are between 1,000 to 2,000 mg/l.”12 These influent concentrations are nearly 3 orders of magnitude greater than typical stormwater concentrations of oil and grease). Independent or “third-party” testing of these devices and detailed effluent quality characterization, can improve estimates of the quality of stormwater reaching receiving water bodies from drainages receiving this type of treatment. Also, an improved understanding of the potential water quality and spill (and intentional dumping) mitigation functionality of catch basin filters, the amount of motor oil captured in the storm drain filters can be estimated. This will help improve the understanding of the fate (mass balance) of motor oil sold in California and the effectiveness of catch basin filter treatment technologies. Typically in practice, catch basin filters have two intended primary functions: (1) to reduce loading resulting from high concentration flows (typically associated with low flow rates) from spills, significant leaks, and improper disposal to storm or surface drains; and (2) to reduce loading from typical urban stormwater discharges (typically relatively lower concentration at much higher flow rates). An initial review of third party stormwater treatment technology evaluations conducted to-date has shown highly variable results in the performance of filter media at removing oil and grease from stormwater and mitigating high concentration, lower flow discharges. This report will review and report on laboratory and field studies conducted on the effectiveness of catch basin inserts in removing oil, grease, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals from urban runoff. 2.2 CATCH BASIN INSERT PERFORMANCE STUDIES Several catch basin insert studies have been performed by various third-party researchers and insert manufacturers and vendors. Due to the wide variety of insert configurations, insert types, and site-specific conditions, more studies are still needed to adequately assess the ability of this technology to reduce the amount of oil and grease reaching receiving streams. Also, few studies (if any) have specifically evaluated the ability of catch basin inserts to retain used motor oil that has been illegally dumped directly into the storm drain. The following studies all determined pollutant removal efficiencies by comparing inlet and outlet concentrations. 9 Washington Department of Ecology (2002). “Stormwater Treatment Facility Performance Evaluation Guidance Document.” Washington Department of Ecology 10 Bachhuber, James, Steven Corsi, and Roger Bannerman (2002). “ETV Verification Protocol Stormwater Source Area Treatment Technologies, Draft 4.1.’ U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program. 11 CalCert (2001). “Stormwater Best Management Practice Demonstration Tier II Protocol for Interstate Reciprocity.” Endorsed by the States of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia [Online Available, April 2002] http://www.calepa.ca.gov/CalCert/documents/Stormwater.pdf 12 California Environmental Technology Certification Program (2000). “Evaluation of the AquaShield™ Filtration System.” [Online] http://www.calepa.ca.gov/CalCert/CertifiedTech 5 2.2.1 INTERAGENCY CATCH BASIN INSERT COMMITTEE (ICBIC) LAB STUDY In a catch basin insert study conducted in Seattle, Washington, oil and grease removals were studied to evaluate changes in removal rates over-time.13 The study consisted of testing four (4) proprietary filter media in a laboratory (before and after being field conditioned), using influent oil and grease concentrations of 20-90 mg/L at a flow rate of 5-10 gpm. Field conditioning included placing each filter in field catch basins that serviced approximately the same drainage areas and land uses (i.e. parking lots), until approximately 0.75” of rainfall occurred. After field conditioning, the filters were taken to the laboratory to be tested again. The field sites included a vehicle maintenance shop yard, an arterial road, a park-and-ride lot, and an industrial storage yard. Drainage areas ranged from 0.11 to 0.34 acres. Results of the study showed a significant decline in oil and grease removal rates from when the filters were new, to after two (2) field-laboratory test sequences. Negative removal rates during some of the tests indicated release of oil and grease from the filter media, which indicated the filter had exceeded its holding capacity and, in fact, washout/leaching was occurring. Furthermore, few of the filters were able to produce effluent concentrations below 10 mg/L, even when the filters were new, at the influent concentrations tested. Table 2-1 summarizes the results of this study. New inserts removed 20 to 90% of petroleum hydrocarbons from water containing 34 to 85 mg/L of oil. For most of the devices tested, performance declined rapidly with use. During the first test, the inserts were removed from the field after two-inches of rain. This test showed that new inserts were able to remove oil and grease by 30 to 90%. After two-inches of rain, the removal efficiency dropped to less than 30%. During the second test, the inserts were removed from the field after 0.5 to 0.75-inches of rainfall. New inserts removed 21 to 85% of oil and grease during this second test. The Stormwater Services devices maintained a removal efficiency of approximately 50%, even after three field tests. In contrast, the Enviro-Drain’s removal efficiency was 50 to 60% when in new condition. One Aqua-Net device’s removal efficiency increased from 21 to 82% with use, while the other device maintained a removal efficiency of around 35%. None of the devices removed copper, lead, or zinc. Inserts captured between 0 to 41-pounds of sediment during a 120-day period. For all but one insert, field observations indicated that stormwater could enter the catch basin without passing through the insert. Instead, the water flows between the pavement and the outer edge of the grate frame and then beneath the frame of the insert. Maintenance frequencies depended on site conditions such as oil and grease loading rates. Because accumulation of sediment can clog the filter and prevent further absorption, the authors recommended maintenance ranging from after every rainfall event to after every five-inches of cumulative rain. Because wood-fiber can become saturated and decompose, these types of filters would need to be replaced after a month or two. 13 Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee (1995). “Evaluation of Commercially-Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater runoff from Developed Sites.” Collaborative research team consisting of King County Surface Water Management Division and Department of Metropolitan Services, Snohomish County Surface Water Management Division, Seattle Drainage and Wastewater Utility, and the Port of Seattle. 6 Table 2-1. Summary of oil and grease removal efficiency of catch basin inserts tested by the Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee (1995) Vendor Device Media Type Test Interval Influent (mg/L) % Removal New % Removal Used All All 2” rain 35 30-90 <35 Aqua-Net Gullywasher AN-A Basket, AbW Wood-fiber 2” rain 35 60 NA All All 2” rain 67, 85 21-85 NA Aqua-Net Gullywasher AN-AW Basket, AbW Wood-fiber 0.75” rain 67, 85 21 82 Aqua-Net Gullywasher AN-AS Basket, Supersorb Wood-fiber 0.75” rain 67, 85 35 35 Environmental Services Enviro-drain ED-SAA Two trays, course screen AbW Wood-fiber 0.75” rain 67, 85 50-60 NA Stormwater Service SS-2O SS-3 Sock with polypropylene strips 0.75” rain 67, 85 50 50 NA - not available 2.2.2 SANTA CLARA VALLEY PARKING LOT STUDY Woodward-Clyde (1996)14 tested the performance of catch basin inserts manufactured by Aqua- Net, Inc.; Enviro-Drain, Inc.; and Stormwater Services during two (2) storm events. The Aqua- Net Gullywasher consisted of two baskets, with Absorbent W (a natural wood fiber cellulose) pillows between the two baskets. A bag filled with PetroLOK (a polymer and activated carbon absorbent) was placed around the outside basket. The Enviro-Drain device has three stacked trays, with the middle and bottom trays containing Absorbent W. The Stormwater Services Stream Guard Type II consists of a boot filled with polypropylene strips that directs water into a polypropylene bag. Drainage basin areas draining to the inserts ranged from 0.77 to 2.5-acres. During the first storm, sediment, leaves, and/or pine needles were observed to cause considerable clogging and bypass of the filter inserts, which limited the performance of the filters. The top tray of the Enviro-Drain and the outer filter of the Gullywasher were easily clogged and the bag of the Stream Guard broke during one storm. The inserts were effective at removing total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), but no significant reduction in TSS concentrations were observed. The authors suggested that since the post-filter samples were pumped out of the bottom of a funnel, surface oils might not have been captured. The Enviro-Drain and the Stream Guard removed an average of 90% and 85% of hydrocarbons with influent concentrations of 9.1 and 4.8 mg/L, respectively. Gullywasher only removed an average of 30% of hydrocarbons with an average influent concentration of 1.2 mg/L. The Aqua-Net gullywasher removed an average of 59.58% hydrocarbons. The authors proposed that the Gullywasher would work better without the additional PetroLOK. No discernible removal of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, or zinc was found. 14 Woodward-Clyde. 1996. Parking Lot Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program. June 11. 7 2.2.3 SACRAMENTO PARKING LOT STUDY Larry Walker Associates (1998)15 studied the performance of Fossil Filter manufactured by KriStar Enterprises, Inc., in a one-acre parking lot during three (3) separate storm events. The Fossil Filter is a ring-shaped filter filled with alumina silicate. The filter removed 50% of total petroleum hydrocarbons, 28% of copper, 33% of lead, and 13% of zinc (although for two storms, the zinc concentration increased). Water bypassed the filter for flows exceeding 0.05 in/hr per watershed acre. It was observed that 60% to 70% of the flow bypassed the filter. In addition, when the grading at the inlet was uneven, bypass flow would occur because the water would not flow evenly through the filter. During a storm in January, it rained 0.56” in 1.5 hours. Samples were not collected at this time, but the insert was full and water with lines of oil and grease was observed flowing into the bypass. The filter media had to be replaced before each storm event due to debris accumulation. 2.2.4 SANTA MONICA BAY STUDY A full-scale laboratory study conducted as part of the Santa Monica Bay Municipal Stormwater/Urban Runoff Pilot Project evaluated the oil removal efficiencies of three (3) different types of proprietary catch basin filter media. Using an influent free oil (i.e. well mixed, but not emulsified) concentration of 25 mg/L at a flow rate of 15 gpm, the study showed significant removals (69-91%) for all of the media types (when new), during the 90-minute test period. The study included both full scale and bench scale tests to evaluate the performance of OARS polymer (Abtech), compost, polypropylene, and alumina silicate (Perlite, X sorb) in removing free oil and grease. Oil and grease removal efficiencies averaged 84% for OARS, 81.33% for Perlite (aluminum silicate), 91.5% for Xsorb (aluminum silicate), 50.33% for compost, and 85.25% for polypropylene. No sorbent was effective at removing emulsified oil and grease. The authors concluded that sorbent breakthrough time depends on the mass of oil applied (concentration and flow) and the mass and packing density of the sorbent. A laboratory study by Lau et al. (2001)16 showed that metal boxes containing OARS sorbent removed an average of 34.5% of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from water containing 50 ug/L of hydrocarbons. Polypropylene insert devices (DrainPac by United Stormwater) removed an average of 65% of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The OARS device removed an average of 71% of oil and grease. The DrainPac had an average oil and grease removal efficiency of 67%. Lau et al. (2001) also performed a field study to determine the effectiveness of polypropylene and OARS polymer inserts in commercial (1.24 acres) and residential (2.97 acres) areas. Over a six-hour period the OARS sorbent efficiency declined linearly from 85% to 40%, and the polypropylene sorbent efficiency declined linearly from 85% to 50%. The oil and grease concentrations were 19.02 mg/L for the first two hours, 14.0 mg/L for the next two hours, and 10.91 mg/L for the last two hours. Flow bypassing the inserts gradually increased as the inserts became more clogged. 15 Larry Walker Associates. 1998. NDMP Inlet/In-line Control Measure Study Report 1997-98. Prepared for County of Sacramento, City of Sacramento, City of Folsom, and City of Galt. June. 16 Lau, S.L., E. Khan, and M.K. Stenstrom. 2001. Catch Basin Inserts to Reduce Pollution from Stormwater. Water Science and Technology. 44(7): 23-34. 8 To prevent debris accumulation in the inserts during the dry season, Lau et al (2001) covered two catch basins with plywood and two with wire screen, leaving a 2.5 cm gap at the bottom to allow runoff to enter the basin. These covers prevented 95% of trash and debris from entering the catch basin. Street sweepers were able to remove the material that accumulated at the bottom of the covers without damaging the covers. 2.2.5 CITY OF LOS ANGELES STUDY During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 wet seasons, the City of Los Angeles Stormwater Management Division studied the performance of five (5) different types of catch basin inserts at removing sediments, trash, oil and grease, and metals.17 Due to a limited number of sampling events (4) and study sites (5), the results of this study were inadequate for a statistically valid assessment of the performance of the inserts studies. However, qualitatively the results of the study found that all of the units were moderately effective at removing oil and grease, suspended solids, and heavy metals. Furthermore, the study indicated that for most insert types, inspection and maintenance should occur before and after each rain event during wet weather and monthly during dry weather to maintain their performance integrity and to minimize leaching of previously captured pollutants. The study included evaluating the performance of AbTech’s Ultra Urban Filter, the Fossil Filter, Remedial Solutions Models CD-300 and SD-100, and United Storm Water’s DrainPac Storm Drain Filter. The Ultra Urban Filter is a galvanized steel basket packed with Smart Sponge (synthetic polymers). The Fossil Filter is a fiberglass trough with 4” thick Fossil Rock (an absorbent) between two stainless steel screens. Both Remedial Solution devices are stainless steel with a sediment removal basin and three stacked filtering baskets containing 100% reclaimed material. The DrainPac is a non-woven filter cloth liner filled with polypropylene. The Fossil Filter was maintained monthly, but was clogged during the first half-hour of light rain. The Remedial Solution devices were maintained weekly during which the filter media were replaced five times during nine months. At a sanitation yard site, the filter collected a total of 16 pounds of plastic, 24 pounds of paper, 7 pounds of grass, and 24 pounds of sediment. At a maintenance yard site, the filter collected a total of 108 pounds of oily sediment and 4 pounds of debris. During three rain events, all the runoff was bypassing the filter due to a gap between the filter and the catch basin opening. No data was collected from the above three filters due to the excessive clogging. The DrainPac had one cleaning during which 400 pounds of trash, debris, and sediment containing 1,480 mg/kg of oil and grease (the CA limit is 1000 mg/kg for nonhazardous waste disposal) was removed from the device. Due to clogging, data from only one storm event was collected, during which the DrainPac removed 52% of the oil and grease. During all storm events the AbTech device was filled almost completely with trash and sediment. It captured 302 pounds of sediment and trash. The 8.2% removal of oil and grease was contributed to the large amount of runoff bypassing the filter. Alternatively, the sponge may not have effectively captured pollutants or may have reached its sorption capacity. Oil and grease removal did not increase during the third event, which occurred three days after a cleaning (two maintenances were performed during the study, one occurring after the third rain event). 17 City of Los Angeles, Stormwater Management Division (2001). “Catch Basin Insert Pilot Study Report and Addendum.” 9 Zinc concentrations increased 45%, which was contributed to leaching by the zinc-coated galvanized steel basket. 2.2.6 CALIFORNIA EPA STUDY The California EPA (2000)18 evaluated the AquaShield Filtration System Model SD-100. The AquaShield is a stainless steel structure containing recycled cellulose fibers packed in a nylon mesh bag. The influent concentrations of oil and grease were very high compared to the 2 to 35 mg/L found in stormwater runoff. The concentrations ranged from 1,022 to 2,192 mg/L with an average of 1,477 mg/L. This system removed 92% of the oil and grease. 2.2.7 KING COUNTY STUDY The Model 3001 StreamGuard™ Insert is designed for oil and grease removal in areas such as parking lots, construction sites, marinas, industrial sites, and vehicle washing facilities. King County Surface Water Management Division of Washington State performed independent testing of this technology and found removal efficiencies of oil and grease at 88% for a StreamGuard installation in a park-and-ride lot. Sea-Tac International Airport installations were also monitored and removal efficiencies were approximately 80% for Total Suspended Solids and 94% for oil and grease.19 2.2.8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES STUDY Strenstrom et al (2002)20 performed a series of experiments to evaluate the removal efficiencies of various Kristar (Fossil Filter) catch basin inserts. The target pollutants were oil and grease and suspended solids. The experiments were conducted in a full-scale catch basin located in a laboratory in UCLA. They tested two different types of inserts, namely Flo-Gard™ and Flo- Gard™ High Capacity. Oil and grease influent concentrations were varied from 16 mg/L to 36 mg/L and Total Suspended Solids influent concentrations were varied 65 mg/L to 100 mg/L. Automobile crank case oil and graded fine sand were used to simulate oil and TSS respectively. They observed oil removal efficiencies of 70% to 80% and sand removal efficiencies of almost 100% for particles 30-mesh (589 to 833 mm) and larger, 20% for particles 60-mesh (250 to 420 mm) and nearly zero for smaller particles. 2.2.9 ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED STUDY Alsaigh et al (1999)21 presents the performance of four catch basin insert technologies monitored for a 19 Month period. The devices were installed at two gas station sites in the Cites of Livonia and Westland, Michigan. The devices are the Gullywasher™, the Hydro-Cartridge®, the StreamGuard™ and the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box. Parameters of interest included capital cost, 18 California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Evaluation of the AquaShield Filtration System (Model SD-100, Series 576). Environmental Technology Certification Program. January. 19 New England Environmental Protection Agency(EPA NE) (2003) “Streamguard™ Catch Basin Inserts” http://www.epa.gov/region1/assistance/ceitts/stormwater/techs/streamguardinsert.html 20 Stenstrom M. K., Lau S. (February, 2002) “Oil and Grease and Particle Removal by KriStar Flo-Gard and Flo- Gard High Capacity Stormdrain Inserts” 12pp http://stormdrainfilters.com/flogard.doc 21 Alsaigh, R., Boerma, J., Ploof, A. Regenmorter, L. (April 1999) “Evaluation of On-Line Media Filters in the Rouge River Watershed”. Task Product Memorandum Nonpoint Work Plan No. URBSW5, Task No.3. Wayne County, MI: 51pp 10 operations and maintenance costs, and pollutant removal efficiencies. They rank the devices as follows: • The Gullywasher™ was found to be the most efficient at removing sediment; • The Hydro-Cartridge® was most efficient in terms of oil removal 9,700(mg/Kg captured /1,000 gallons filtered); • The Hydro-Cartridge® and the StreamGuard™ were the easiest to maintain; • The StreamGuard™ had the lowest initial capital cost; and • The Hydro-Cartridge® had the cheapest replacement inserts. Table 2-2 presents a summary of insert performance with respect to sediment and oil and grease removal in addition to capital cost. Table 2-2. Removal efficiency and capital cost summary. COST Device Average Sediment captured / Gallons Filtered (lbs/1,000 gallons) Average Oil Captured / Gallons Filtered ((mg/Kg)/1,000 gallons) Structure Media Approx. Media Replacement Interval Est. First Year Capital Cost Hydro- Cartridge 0.19 9,700 $700 - $800 $9 3 months $736 - $836 StreamGuard 1.11 5,000 n/a $40-$80 2 months $240 - $480 Gullywasher 6.60 2,100 $440 $60 3 months $680 Grate Inlet Skimmer Box 0.39 700 $475 $25 3 months $575 The authors concluded that all four (4) filters performed well and that filter performance is heavily dependent on site conditions and project objectives. 2.2.10 ABTECH ULTRA-URBAN FILTER - VENDOR STUDIES Summarized below are summaries of several studies by AbTech that evaluate the performance of their Ultra-Urban Filter. 22 Tucson, AZ This study included laboratory experiments to determine the effectiveness of the Ultra-Urban Filter, a galvanized steel basket containing Smart Sponge, in removing motor oil and diesel fuel. A 50-50 mixture of motor oil and diesel fuel with a concentration of 28 mg/L was run through the filter. Studies were run with and without debris (leaves, rocks, and twigs) and sediment. The filter removed an average of 83% of the oil and grease. Performance did not decline with the addition of debris and sediment. Santa Monica, CA In this study, an Ultra-Urban Filter that had been installed in a residential area for two months during the Santa Monica Bay Municipal/Urban Runoff Pilot Project was evaluated. A 28 to 32 mg/L mixture of motor oil and diesel fuel was run through the filter. The concentration of oil and grease was reduced by an average of 91%. 22 AbTech. 2003. Detailed Technical Field Test Results: The Ultra-Urban Filter with Smart Sponge. http://www.abtechindustries.com/Test%20Results%20Menu.htm 11 Seattle, WA Minton (2002)23 performed laboratory studies to determine the efficiency of AbTech’s Ultra- Urban Filter in removing motor and diesel oil. A new unit’s removal efficiency averaged 81%, when the influent concentration was between 10 to 30 mg/L. Performance of the device gradually dropped by 10 to 20% during the 120-minute tests. A device that had been in the field removed 78 to 96% of the 30 mg/L oil and grease. Springfield, MA Astro Environmental, LLC (2003)24 performed field studies of AbTech’s Ultra-Urban Filter. The influent contained either 250 mg/L of oil, grease, and vegetable oil or 100 mg/L of motor oil and diesel. The filters removed an average of 95.88% of the oil and grease. An average of 94% of total petroleum hydrocarbons were removed during two tests. The filters also removed 99% of 50 mg/L lead, zinc, and copper. This study suggested vacuuming out the filters prior to the winter season, since one filter accumulated greater than 95-pounds of debris during the fall season. 2.3 EXPECTED HYDROCARBON RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS AND TREATMENT LEVELS The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) has monitored and characterized stormwater runoff since 1994 as part of the requirements of their NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit25. The first two years of monitoring was done under the 1990 permit, while current monitoring efforts fall under the 2001 Municipal Storm Water Permit adopted on December 13, 2001. The objectives of the County's monitoring program are: (1) to assess compliance with the NPDES Permit; (2) to measure and improve the effectiveness of the stormwater quality management plans (SQMPs); (3) to assess urban runoff water quality impacts to receiving waters; (4) to characterize stormwater discharges; (5) to identify sources of contaminants; and (6) to evaluate the long-term trends in receiving water quality. The monitoring program was expanded under the 1996 permit to include the Mass Emission, Land Use, and Critical Source Monitoring Programs and new pilot studies such as “Wide Channel” and “Low Flow” analyses. The 2001 permit eliminated the Land Use and the Critical Source components to focus on core monitoring, regional monitoring, and three special studies. The mean and median TSS, oil and grease, TPH, and dissolved and total metals concentrations obtained from the 1994-2000 monitoring efforts are summarized in Table 2-3. Note that transportation and commercial land uses yield the highest concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in urban stormwater runoff in the City of Los Angeles and commercial, transportation, and light industrial land uses all yield high copper and zinc concentrations. 23 Minton, G.R. 2002. Technical Review of the AbTech Ultra-Urban Filter. Resource Planning Associates. 24 Astro Environmental, LLC. 2003. Field Test Results of AbTech Industries Ultra-Urban Filter. http://www.abtechindustries.com/Test%20Results%20Menu.htm. 25 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (2001). "NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 - Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges Within the County of Los Angeles, and the Incorporated Cities Therein, Except the City of Long Beach." Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). (August, 2002). “Los Angeles County 2001-2002 Storm Water Quality Monitoring Report” 26pp. 12 However, the range of oil and grease concentrations from each of the land use types are well below the influent concentrations typically used in catch basin insert studies (~10 to 40 mg/l). Table 2-3. Summary of 1994-2000 land use results for TPH, oil and grease, and metals. Land Use Type Constituent Units No. of Samples No. of Non- Detects Percent Detects Mean Median CV TSS mg/L 29 0 100 66 53 0.65 TPH mg/l 8 2 75 3.1 2.9 0.63 Oil and Grease mg/l 8 1 88 3.3 2.9 0.51 Dissolved Copper ug/l 24 3 88 14 11 0.84 Total Copper ug/l 24 0 100 39 22 1.57 Dissolved Lead ug/l 24 20 17 S.I.D. S.I.D. S.I.D. Total Lead ug/l 24 15 38 18 2.5 2.80 Dissolved Zinc ug/l 40 4 90 152 130 0.66 Commercial Total Zinc ug/l 40 0 100 241 192 0.71 TSS mg/L 41 0 100 240 129 1.36 TPH mg/l 5 1 80 1.7 1.4 0.68 Oil and Grease mg/l 5 1 80 1.7 1.4 0.68 Dissolved Copper ug/l 37 5 86 20 14 1.07 Total Copper ug/l 37 0 100 32 21 1.03 Dissolved Lead ug/l 37 32 14 S.I.D. S.I.D. S.I.D. Total Lead ug/l 37 18 51 17 5.1 1.88 Dissolved Zinc ug/l 51 3 94 407 303 1.18 Light Industrial Total Zinc ug/l 51 0 100 639 366 1.53 TSS mg/L 30 0 100 95 61 1.16 TPH mg/l 3 0 100 1.3 1.2 0.23 Oil and Grease mg/l 3 0 100 1.3 1.2 0.23 Dissolved Copper ug/l 32 15 53 8.5 6.7 0.95 Total Copper ug/l 32 2 94 15 11 0.57 Dissolved Lead ug/l 32 28 13 S.I.D. S.I.D. S.I.D. Total Lead ug/l 32 14 56 10 5.4 1.03 Dissolved Zinc ug/l 38 30 21 44 25 1.42 High Density Single Family Residential Total Zinc ug/l 38 13 66 79 66 0.75 TSS mg/L 61 0 100 78 50 1.30 TPH mg/l 4 0 100 3.1 2.8 0.47 Oil and Grease mg/l 4 0 100 3.1 2.8 0.47 Dissolved Copper ug/l 54 0 100 33 27 0.63 Total Copper ug/l 54 0 100 56 39 1.15 Dissolved Lead ug/l 54 48 11 S.I.D. S.I.D. S.I.D. Total Lead ug/l 54 29 46 10 2.5 1.57 Dissolved Zinc ug/l 65 5 92 192 152 0.74 Transportation Total Zinc ug/l 65 0 100 291 218 0.99 Note: The detection limit for TSS is 2.0 mg/L, for both TPH and oil and grease is 1 mg/l, for total and dissolved copper and lead is 5 ug/L, and for total and dissolved zinc is 50 ug/L. S.I.D. = Statistically Invalid Data, not enough data above detection limit collected. 13 A review of the literature pertinent to the evaluation of catch basin insert efficiencies shows that a good number of the available studies use percent removals as a criterion for evaluating insert performance. A major limitation to this approach is that percent removals can be manipulated by increasing or lowering influent concentrations. Examples of other methods that have been used to assess BMP evaluation studies include: summation of loads, regression of loads, mean concentration, efficiency of individual storm loads, reference watersheds, and before and after studies (GeoSyntec Consultants, 2002) 26. One of the most useful methods of evaluating BMP performance is the Effluent Probability Method. For this method, the influent and effluent are first checked to see whether they are statistically significantly different. Then side-by-side cumulative distribution functions of influent and effluent quality (or standard parallel probability plots) are generated to evaluate the nature of the difference. Nonparametric approaches are recommended to estimate the magnitude of the difference, if the influent and effluent concentrations appear to arise from different distributions. As more studies adopt this approach to reporting BMP efficiencies, more data will be available to support values that can be used to estimate reasonable expected effluent concentrations from BMPs such as catch basin inserts. Since the reasonable expected removals for BMPs provided in this section are based on a review of previous studies, we are limited to the use of percent removals. Among the reviewed studies, catch basin insert efficiencies varied significantly. Vendor publications report oil and grease removal efficiencies of 81% to 99% for new inserts. Third party laboratory studies report removal efficiencies of greater than 50% for oil and grease, and greater than 34% for hydrocarbons. Nearly all of the third-party field studies reported clogging and bypass of the filters, which reduces the filter efficiency. In the worst case, excessive clogging resulted in only an 8.2% removal of oil and grease (which was likely not statistically significant). Unfortunately, nearly all of the studies (third-party or otherwise) used influent oil and grease concentrations that were well above the expected concentrations in urban runoff in the Los Angeles area (i.e., greater than 3 standard deviations above the L.A. County data shown in Table 2-3). Furthermore, the achieved effluent oil and grease concentrations for the studies that actually reported them were typically above or near the expected influent levels. Based on these issues, the expected effluent concentrations from catch basin inserts during stormwater runoff events cannot be adequately assessed. However, the studies do suggest that catch basin inserts will not reliably reduce oil and grease concentrations below about 5-10 mg/l. As discussed above in Section 2.1, the low oil and grease concentrations typically observed in urban runoff caused by primarily dispersed sources, likely represent less of a threat to receiving waters than the illegal dumping of used oil directly into the storm drain system. Therefore, the ability of catch basin inserts to remove oil from stormwater may not be as important as their ability to retain previously captured oil from illegal dumping activities during high-flow conditions. However, since no studies were found that evaluated the mass of used oil retained following an illegal dumping activity, it is not possible to assess the ability of catch basin inserts to effectively hold oil and grease until maintenance is performed. 26 GeoSyntec Consultants (April 2002). “A Guidance Manual for Meeting the National Stormwater BMP Database Requirements.” ASCE / EPA 14 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY An integral part of this Catch Basin Insert Performance Study was the selection of catch basin sites and inserts compatible with those sites. This study included the selection of 24 cumulative pollutant capture sites and 12 field-to-laboratory sites. The purpose of the cumulative pollutant capture sites was to assess long-term performance and maintenance requirements, as well as characterize bulk pollutants captured during the study period. The purpose of the field-to- laboratory sites was to numerically evaluate changes in pollutant removals after being exposed to field conditions. The results from both sites were used to qualitatively and quantitatively compare the performance of the four (4) different types of filters tested. The following paragraphs describe the site and catch basin insert selection methodology, the monitoring and testing plan, and the design and construction of the insert testing apparatus. 3.1 STUDY SITE SELECTION Site selection was an important component of this project because one of the objectives was to evaluate insert performance after being exposed to dry weather conditions and wet weather urban runoff from high oil and grease source areas. These areas have a high potential for receiving significant amounts of motor oil and other petroleum products into drains via illicit dumping and improper vehicle maintenance. The City of Los Angles staff provided an initial map of 52 candidate catch basin sites located in areas believed to be high oil and grease source areas. The suitability of these candidate sites were investigated as part of the second phase of the study. Approximate drainage areas, dominant land uses, catch basin dimensions, and other site constraints were evaluated. Other factors considered for the final site selection included representativeness, personnel safety, ease of access, and security. The following paragraphs describe each of these factors in more detail. 3.1.1 REPRESENTATIVENESS Sites chosen for catch basin filter performance comparison were selected based on similar sized drainage areas (gross approximation), land use types, and relative proximity to one another. Sites were located in areas that represent highly-developed urban areas of the City of Los Angeles. Drainage areas with known active or planned construction were intentionally avoided. 3.1.2 SAFETY Site safety is the number one concern for any field investigation. An attempt was made to avoid sites having excessive traffic and high speed limits. For the safety of the monitoring crews who were accessing the sites, only well lit areas with moderate traffic and speed limits below 55 mph were chosen. Areas with excessive pedestrian traffic were also avoided for the general safety of the public and the site crew. 3.1.3 EASE OF ACCESS This was a low priority; however, whenever possible, sites were chosen that were closer to the UCLA laboratory rather than those that are further away. Also sites that had structures that are easily accessible are favored. For instance, catch basins that were only accessible through a heavy drop inlet grate that required two or more people to lift were avoided. 3.1.4 SECURITY Vandalism was as issue that was taken into account in the site selection process. Although hard to predict, situations that present opportunities for vandalism were avoided where ever possible. 15 The catch basin inserts were contained and no equipment was ever left on-site, so the potential for vandalism was low. Nonetheless, well lit open areas were chosen to discourage vandals and criminals alike from interfering with the inserts, the activities of the monitoring crews, or the results of the study. All field monitoring was done in broad daylight. 3.2 CATCH BASIN INSERT SELECTION The initial list of candidate catch basin inserts consisted of products from nine (9) different vendors with a variety of design configurations and media types. Based on cost, ease of installation and maintenance, number and quality of existing evaluation studies, and the target pollutants, these nine candidate inserts were narrowed down during repeated project team discussions to the following four (4) vendors: Drainworks DrainPac, Suntree Curb Inlet Basket, Kristar FloGard-Plus, and Hydro Compliance Hydro-Kleen. All of these inserts were available in a variety of sizes and configurations, but some designs were more compatible with some individual catch basins than others. The descriptions of the selected catch basin inserts in the manufacturers’ words are provided in the next section. 3.2.1 DRAINWORKS INC. – DRAINPAC The DrainPac™ is a flexible storm drain catchment and filtration liner designed to filter pollutants, debris, and solids prior to discharge into storm drain systems. The DrainPac™ is available in four (4) styles: grate top, curb, and round configurations, as well as new styles designed for outfall, or "end of pipe" applications and drop-in drain applications. Each insert is equipped with a choice of two (2) overflow systems, the hydraulic bypass and the new uninhibited bypass, both of which accommodate heavy rains and potential flooding. A picture of the curb inlet DrainPac™ system is shown in Figure 3-1. According to the manufacturer, the DrainPac™ can handle flow rates of up to 150 gpm/sq. ft and hold up to 7100 pounds of material. Tests performed at UCLA (not in this study) show removal efficiencies for the DrainPac™ System at 99% for TSS, and 51% to 88% for PAHs. Typical cost for the DrainPac™ System range from about $1000 for a 21-foot wide curb inlet to about $500 for a 4- to 7-foot wide curb inlet. The manufacturer recommends that maintenance be performed at least twice per year (once before the wet season and once after the wet season). Quarterly inspections during dry periods and monthly inspections during wet periods are also recommended. The cost of a yearly maintenance service agreement with the manufacturer is $225 per unit. Figure 3-1. DrainPac™ catch basin insert. 16 A full description and a complete list of applications are available at the manufacturer’s web site: http://www.drainpac.com/index1.htm. 3.2.2 SUNTREE TECHNOLOGIES INC. – CURB INLET BASKET The Curb Inlet Basket is a multi-stage, removable filtration basket that was designed to capture everything from hydrocarbons to sediment, grass clippings, and human trash. It is made of durable fiberglass with stainless steel filter screens, backed by heavy-duty aluminum grating. The Curb Inlet Basket telescopes to change size, so that it can fit almost any catch basin. However, custom-shaped units are available from the manufacturer. A picture of the Curb Inlet Basket is show in Figure 3-2. The cost of the Curb Inlet Basket ranges from $695 to $795. Pricing for custom units can be obtained from the manufacturer27. The maintenance of the Curb Inlet Basket can be performed by hand, without the need for heavy equipment. Maintenance entails removing the inlet access cover, lifting out the basket by hand or with a manhole puller and dumping out the contents. The basket is placed back into the catch basin and the sorbent boom is replaced. The manufacturer recommends quarterly maintenance of the basket to remove sediment and debris, along with semi-annual replacement of the sorbent boom. Performance evaluation of the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box System performed by the Reedy Creek Improvement District and Walt Disney Imagineering, reported removal efficiencies of 74% for total suspended solids and 54% for oil and grease. A full description and a complete list of applications for the Curb Inlet Basket are available at the manufacturer’s web site: http://www.suntreetech.com/ . Figure 3-2. Curb Inlet Basket functional details and installed configuration. 3.2.3 KRISTAR ENTERPRISES INC. – FLOGARD+PLUS™ The FLOGARD+PLUS™ is a multipurpose catch basin insert designed to capture sediment, debris, trash, and oils/grease from low (first flush) flows. A high-flow bypass screen allows flows to bypass the device while retaining sediment and larger floatables (debris & trash), and allows sustained maximum design flows under extreme weather conditions. The system is designed for use in areas with low to higher than normal sediment, trash, and debris; and moderately high 27 August 2003 Catalog. Sun Tree Technologies Inc. 17 levels of petroleum hydrocarbons such as parking lots, as well as public and private streets. The cost of the FloGard Plus System ranges from $350 for a 2-foot curb opening installation to about $2,200 for a 15-foot curb opening installation. UCLA conducted tests (not this study) to determine the removal efficiency of the fossil filter FloGard System in October 2000. Oil and grease removal efficiencies were found to range from 70% to 90%. The manufacturer recommends at least three (3) inspections per year, and more in high exposure areas. Maintenance entails removing the device from the inlet and dumping the contents into an approved drum for disposal. Cleaning can also be accomplished with a vacuum truck. Maintenance costs for a curb inlet installation with a 7-foot curb opening ranges from $250 to $375 per annum. A full description and a complete list of applications for the FloGard Plus System are available at the manufacturer’s web site: http://www.kristar.com/fosys.html. Figure 3-3. FloGard Plus catch basin insert. 3.2.4 HYDRO COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT INC. – HYDRO-KLEEN The patented Hydro-Kleen Filtration System is a stormwater compliance technology for use with stormwater catch basins and drains to trap hydrocarbons, metals, sediments, and other contaminants contained in stormwater and other surface runoff. The multi-media filtration system contains design features that effectively filter out hydrocarbons and other contaminants, while alleviating concerns with water flow. Flows enter the unit and are directed into a pre-settling sedimentation chamber that collects heavy sediments and debris passing through the grate. Water then passes through transition inlets at the top of the sediment chamber into the filtration chamber. The primary media, Sorb-44, traps hydrocarbons through adsorption to a hydrophobic cellulose material. The secondary media is a special blend of activated carbon (AC-10) that removes most remaining hydrocarbons, as well as a variety of other organics, and metals and other contaminants from the runoff. Water then passes through the bottom of the treatment chamber into the catch basin. The system can fit both circular and rectangular catch basin grates. An illustration of the Hydro-Kleen Filtration System is shown in Figure 3-4. 18 According to the manufacturer, typical cost of a 24-inch square unit is $1150, while a 2-foot by 4-foot unit costs about $2,300. Maintenance costs are typically $300 per year. Maintenance is straightforward and can be accomplished by vacuuming sediment loadings from the sedimentation chamber and replacing the filters. It is recommended that filters be changed every 4 to 6 months, depending on the application. Disposal of the spent media in a typical application may be accomplished through placement into lined landfills, as the filter media is non-leaching. Third part analytical test results obtained from the manufacturer show removal efficiencies of 83% to 95% for BTEX and almost 70% for total suspended solids. A few examples of current applications of this Hydro-Kleen System include installations by American Airlines, Alcoa, Federal Express, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Kroger, Seven Eleven, and the US Army. A full description and a complete list of applications are available at the manufacturer’s web site: http://www.hydrocompliance.com/. Figure 3-4. Hydro-Kleen Stormwater Filtration System. 3.3 SUMMARY OF THE MONITORING AND TESTING PROCEDURES As discussed above, four different catch basin insert technologies were selected for this study: DrainPac, Curb Inlet Basket, FloGard-Plus, and Hydro-Kleen. The performance of these inserts was evaluated in two parts: at field-to-laboratory (FL) sites and at cumulative pollutant capture (CPC) sites. The FL sites were used to evaluate the performance of the inserts by performing a series of laboratory tests on them before and after being exposed to field conditions. The CPC sites were used to evaluate the long-term performance of the insert technologies through periodic field inspections during the wet and dry seasons and then collecting the inserts for pollutant capture analyses at the end of the evaluation period or at the end of their useful lives (determined by the inspection team). A monitoring plan was prepared that outlined the field inspection activities and the laboratory testing procedures. Some elements of the monitoring plan were modified during the course of the study due to circumstances beyond control that caused delays in getting project tasks completed. For instance, the fire disaster that occurred in southern California during the summer 19 of 2003 left a significant amount of ash covering the area and it was decided that the "first flush" event would not likely represent typical conditions so the project team decided to install and begin conditioning the catch basin inserts during the middle rather than at the beginning of the wet season (2003-2004). Also, the catch basin insert testing apparatus at UCLA had to be relocated because of ongoing construction activities. After it was moved, the apparatus needed to be repaired due to leakage, which caused delays in the laboratory testing. Consequently, the study occurred in two phases: cumulative pollutant capture phase (Feb. 2004 - Oct. 2004) and field-to-laboratory phase (Nov. 2004 - May 2005). During the course of these two phases of the study, one insert at a CPC site and three inserts at FL sites were replaced by the City of Los Angeles with an alternative insert system without the knowledge of the research team. This alternative system is shown in Figure 3-5 and consists of a screen that covers the entire bottom of the catch basin. Notice that this design provides no oil absorption, but has ample capacity for capturing bulk solids. The loss of the inserts was unfortunate and reduced the number of inserts available for the study. Figure 3-5. Alternative catch basin insert system installed by the City of Los Angeles. The following subsections briefly summarize the insert monitoring and testing activities. 3.3.1 FIELD INSPECTIONS Field inspection of the cumulative capture sites were conducted to: • Ensure that all inserts were functioning properly • Detect and eliminate unnatural conditions such as excessive clogging or blockage from oversized objects • Detect and replace missing, damaged, or defective inserts • Document the condition of inserts through visual observation, photographs, and field notes Inserts were installed at all sites between October and November 2003. Field inspections began after in February 2004 and continued through October 2004. Sites designated as FL sites were inspected as if they were CPC sites and were generally inspected at the same frequency as the CPC sites. Field inspections occurred on 2/4/04, 2/27/04, 3/23/04, 6/30/04, 10/21-22/04, and 3/24/05. 20 Field procedures included inspecting both the drainage structure and the installed insert and noting any observations that required correction such as damaged structures, missing or damaged inserts, blocked inlets, etc. Photographs of the inside of the structure were taken to document any debris that had bypassed the insert as well as debris that had been collected inside the insert structure. Photographs of the installed inlets looking through curb openings were also taken. During the routine inspections, if any of the insert media appeared to have reached their maximum capacity (e.g., standing water in the insert) or was damaged beyond repair, it was noted, photographed and retrieved for laboratory analysis. 3.3.2 LABORATORY TESTING The primary objectives of the laboratory tests were to: • Quantitatively evaluate changes in pollutant removal rates of 4 different types of catch basin filters after being exposed to field conditions. • Evaluate the quantity of used motor oil captured by catch basin inserts when new and weathered and the potential for captured oil, and associated pollutants, to leach from catch basin inserts. • Estimate the performance of each proprietary filter tested with respect to the removal and retention of used motor oil and make statistically valid performance comparisons. Laboratory tests began during the 2004-2005 wet season after new inserts were installed in all of the FL sites. All laboratory testing was performed at UCLA using an apparatus built by Professor Michael Stenstrom (see Section 3.4). Two categories of laboratory tests were conducted including: New Filter Performance Tests and Used Filter Performance Tests. A large stock of the used motor oil was created for use throughout the study. The total and particulate heavy metals concentrations were measured in the oil stock to determine if the catch basin insert may impact metals removal and if sampling of suspended solids and total metals should be measured in the effluent from the catch basin during the washout experiment. New Filter Performance Tests. Four unused catch basin insert types from four different manufacturers for controlling gross spills were tested. The tests were conducted by pouring 1 quart of used motor oil directly into each catch basin insert type. The amount that drained through the insert was captured and the volume was measured. The test was continued until the insert ceased to drip measurable amounts of motor oil. Following the drainage period, the catch basin insert was placed in the insert testing flume and exposed to a design flow rate (20 to 25 GPM). Oil and grease washout was monitored over the next 90 minutes taking a total of six grab samples, including at the beginning of flow and then every 18 minutes. Each grab sample was then analyzed for total oil and grease. The extracts of the oil and grease measurements were combined and analyzed for PAHs. In addition to the spill tests, one example of each insert type was laboratory tested with a sustained flow of introduced pollutants. The test was conducted for 60 minutes at 20 to 25 GPM using tap water dosed with oil and grease and glass beads to simulate sand and clay. Commercially available glass beads (McMaster Carr, Los Angeles, CA) used for “sand blasting” were used for testing. These beads are provided in several sizes. Four grades of beads were mixed to create the fraction shown in Table 3-1. Ten grab samples, one each 6 minutes, were collected for oil and grease analyses. The suspended solids removal was measured by capturing all the particles that passed through the catch basin insert during the 60 minute test, screening 21 into the same size fractions as used initially, dried and weighed. The influent sand concentration was approximately 200 mg/L and the influent oil and grease concentration was approximately 20 mg/L. To understand the potential removal of heavy metals and PAHs contained in the oil and grease that might be removed by adsorption, the concentrations of both were measured in the used oil. These concentrations can be multiplied by the oil and grease concentrations or removals to estimate the impact of the inserts on removals of metals and PAHs. Table 3-1. Target particle size percentiles by mass for artificial stormwater TSS concentrations. Percentile by Mass Diameter Range Approximate Target Concentration Range 25% Passing 40 mesh (430 µm) but retained on 60 mesh (250 µm) ~ 50 mg/L 25% Passing 60 mesh (250 µm) but retained on 120 mesh (125 µm) ~50 mg/L 25% Passing 100mesh (150 µm) but retained on 170 mesh (90 µm) ~ 50 mg/L 25% Passing 170 mesh (90 µm) but retained on 325 mesh (45 µm). ~ 50 mg/L Used Filter Performance Tests. The UCLA Team placed twelve new inserts into designated catch basins prior to the 2004-2005 rainy season (~early October). At the middle of the 2004- 2005 wet season, the field-to-laboratory inserts (9 total) were collected and transported by the Team to the UCLA laboratory (3 inserts were inadvertently removed by the City of Los Angeles in their experimental program). Each insert was placed in the flume and a fine solids capture screen was placed below the insert. After removing large debris such as plastic bags, newspapers, and leaves, it was hydraulically tested starting at a flow rate of 5 GPM. If the insert was not clogged by fine sediment, the flow rate was gradually increased to the flume’s maximum capacity (60 gpm) or until the insert bypassed. Depth of water in the insert was recorded as a function of flow rate and the flow rate at which bypass occurred was noted. During this hydraulic capacity testing, fine solids that had been captured by the inserts while out in the field that washed out were collected, but no solids removed from the insert while it bypassed flows were collected. These collected solids were characterized by weighing and sieving. After completing the capacity testing, the continuous flow testing was begun. The flow was set to the maximum possible without bypassing up to 25 gpm maximum. Grab samples were collected through the 60 minutes to create a composite sample for oil and grease analysis. Solids removal was quantified by collecting solids in a 325 mesh (45 µm) screen below the insert. This was the same screen used in the capacity testing, although it was cleaned to avoid mixing the two types of solids. The solids retained by the fine screen, were weighed and sieved into the four size fractions as shown in Table 3-1. After all tests were completed, spill tests were performed on the used inserts using the same procedure described for the new filter tests to evaluate any changes in retention capacity after the filters had been used. 22 3.4 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TESTING APPARATUS The design of the UCLA testing apparatus is based on a curb and gutter flume design used for previous catch basin insert studies conducted by Professor Stenstrom, together in some cases with GeoSyntec staff and is intended to simulate the influent hydraulics of a curb inlet catch basin. A plan view schematic of the testing apparatus is shown in Figure 3-6 and a profile view schematic is shown in Figure 3-7. Figure 3-6. Laboratory testing apparatus schematic (plan view). Figure 3-7. Curb inlet schematic (profile view). As mentioned above, the UCLA testing apparatus was moved from its previous location and needed to be repaired due to leaks and needed to be modified to accommodate the inserts tested in this study. A new stilling basin tank was also installed. Pictures of the testing apparatus in its new location are shown in below. Figure 3-8 shows a full view of the apparatus prior to and after being upgraded. Figure 3-9 shows the inlet configuration, the new stilling basin, and the catch basin outlet. Catch Basin Insert Runoff Surface High Flow Outlet Normal Flow Discharge City Water Pollutant Addition Point Lab Catch Basin FlumeStilling Basin 23 Figure 3-8. Testing apparatus prior to upgrade (left) and after upgrade (right). Figure 3-9. Testing apparatus stilling basin (left) and synthetic catch basin (right). 3.5 PRECIPITATION DURING THE STUDY PERIOD The sites received runoff from several storm events during both phases of the study, but the amount of rainfall that occurred during the field-to-laboratory phase (2004-2005 wet season) was much greater than during the cumulative capture phase (02/2004 - 10/2004). Figure 3-10 provides daily rainfall totals for 2004 and Figure 3-11 provides daily rainfall totals for 2005 through April for the Downtown Los Angeles USC Campus rain gage. These data are used to qualitatively relate observed conditions to the amount of rainfall between observations. 24 Figure 3-10. 2004 precipitation record for the Downtown USC Campus rain gage. Source: http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ Figure 3-11. 2005 precipitation record for the Downtown USC Campus rain gage. Source: http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ 25 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The following subsections discuss the results of the field inspections and the laboratory analyses. The cumulative pollutant capture part of the study was based on the field inspections of both the CPC sites and the FL sites. 4.1 FIELD INSPECTIONS The performance of four catch basin inserts selected for this study was evaluated at twenty-four (24) CPC sites and twelve (12) FL sites during the study period 2003-2005. Location maps of all of sites are provided in Appendix A. Figure A1 includes the locations of all of the CPC sites and Figure A2 includes the locations of all of the FL sites. Figures A3 and A4 are aerial photographs of the FL sites grouped into east and west sites, respectively. One of the most consistent observations made during field surveys is that almost all inserts installed in the field were quickly overwhelmed with trash and debris, which causes stormwater bypass and resulting in limited contact with the absorptive media. While the capture trash and debris may provide some pollutant retention, without significant stormwater/media contact the ability of these devices to remove oil and grease, as well as other pollutants, is severely limited. No significant attempt was made to maintain the CPC sites; instead the accumulation of trash and debris was simply observed and the inserts were retired shortly after they reached their holding capacity. All field survey photos and observations made during the inspection of CPC and FL sites are provided in Appendix B. As mentioned earlier, the FL sites were treated as CPC sites during the inspections. However some of the FL inserts had not yet been installed by the vendor during the initial field inspections, so there are fewer observations of these sites than the CPC sites provided in Appendix B. Representative photographs and field observations that provide a qualitative indication of the performance of each type of insert selected for this study are provided below. Since these sites have different drainage areas, land use types, and catch basin configurations, the following observations are not meant to be representative of the overall performance of each insert type and should not be construed as a comparative analysis. The subsections below present some an example site and resulting observations for each of the catch basin insert types. All field notes and photos are provided in Appendix B. 4.1.1 DRAINPAC AT WASHINGTON AND VERMONT A DrainPac catch basin insert was installed at the southeast corner of Washington Blvd. and Vermont Ave. in January, 2004. This site receives runoff from primarily commercial, multi- family residential, and transportation land uses. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the catch basin in relation to the City of Los Angeles' storm drain system including the direction of surface runoff. Figure 4-2 is an aerial photo of the site showing the surrounding land use activities and Figure 4-3 shows two ground-level photographs taken from the site. 27 U01832 01928 01821 01914 01830 01918 01832 01907 01824 01924 01827 U01824 01820 01900 01815 01936 01833 01814 01825 1-8 01922 01912 642016200 1/2016350157301640015710157601614015650163201654015780155001577 1/201638630 1/201611016370164401586016170158201637628 1/2016270161601633015870157901580U01627U01621016390161201636644 1/201558U0164901562015840158301925 01917 01926 01836 01944 01818 01923 01934 01820 01916 01908 01830 01909 01910 01940 01834 01815 1-8 01828 01920U01648 0162601628015890160601601016200160401600016080158501574015490162401618016530163101556016450163001610016150156120 4 6 3 22 7 21 6 16 10 3 9 1921 2 47 48 5 LT 2 49 4 17 8 9 11 LT 1 5 23 12 18 9 8 1 11 10 8 52 5053 4950 4854 5151 51712461111029 5171246111103051712461111034 51712461115171246111104051715171246111105051712461111051 51712461111060 51712461111072EY ALLEYWASHINGTOWASHINGTOWASHINGTOWASHINGTOWASHINGTOVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVD CORDOVA STCORDOVA STCORDOVA STCORDOVA STCORDOVA ST MENLO AVEMENLO AVEMENLO AVEMENLO AVEMENLO AVE CC-010-D Figure 4-1. Map showing the location of CC-001-D site installed with DrainPac insert. 28 Figure 4-2. Aerial photo of site CC-010-D. (Source: http://terraserver.microsoft.com). Figure 4-3. CC-010-D site photos upstream (left) and to the intersection of Vermont and Washington (right). The initial site visit (10-24-03) before the installation of the DrainPac indicated that the site was located at a busy intersection with very high trash loading (Figure 4-4a). The first inspection after the installation of the insert was made on 02-04-04 during a small storm event (~0.75"; see Figure 3-10). Although the insert appeared to be operating at full hydraulic capacity, the inflow was still being processed by the insert (Figure 4-4b). The next visit (02-27-04) occurred in less 29 than a month after a relatively large storm event (>2"). The site examination indicated that some flow bypass had occurred with trash and debris settling at the edge of the insert (Figure 4-4c). Also, standing water indicated the insert was beginning to clog. The site was completely overwhelmed with trash during the fourth visit (03-23-04; Figure 4-4d) and since only one storm (>1") occurred since the previous visit, most of the trash was likely due to wind rather than runoff. The next inspection on 06-30-04 the insert appeared to be completely buried with wind- blown trash (Figure 4-4e). During the last inspection of the site (10-21-04) the insert was retired and captured debris were collected for laboratory tests (Figure 4-4f). (c) 02-27-04 (d) 03-23-04 (b) 02-04-04 Figure 4-4. Field inspection photos of DrainPac catch basin insert at the intersection of Washington Blvd. and Vermont Ave. (e) 06-30-04 (f) 10-21-04 (a) 10-24-03 30 4.1.2 CURB-INLET BASKET AT PORTLAND AND 23RD The study site CC-008-C located at the intersection of 23rd and Portland St. was installed with a ity single family residential land Curb-Inlet Basket. Curb-Inlet Basket. This site receives runoff from high dens uses. Figure 4-5 shows the location of the catch basin in relation to the City of Los Angeles' storm drain system including the direction of surface runoff. Figure 4-6 is an aerial photo of the site showing the surrounding land use activities and Figure 4-7 shows two ground-level photographs taken from the site. Figure 4-5. Map showing the location of CC-008-C site installed with a Figure 4-6. Aerial photo of site CC-008-C. (Source: http://terraserver.microsoft.com). 516134611110815161346111108351613461111082 516134611110863461111087 51613461111090 51613461111092 51613461111093 51613461111095 51613461111096 51613461111100 51613461 5161346 Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Numbe r :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :TOBERMAN STOBERMAN STOBERMAN STOBERMAN STOBERMAN SPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN ST2TTTTT3R23R23R23RD 23RPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND ST23RD ST 23RD ST 23RD ST 23RD ST 23RD ST CC-008-C 31 Figure 4-7. CC-008-C site photos upstream (left) and to the intersection of 23rd and Portland (right). essive earby deciduous trees appears to comprise a significant proportion of the er, The initial site survey was completed on 12-10-03 before the installation of the insert. Exc leafy debris from n material delivered to this catch basin (Figure 4-8a). The first visit (02-04-04) after insert installation was performed just after one storm event (~0.75"). Some trash and debris along with a notable accumulation of coarse sediment were collected by the insert (Figure 4-8b). Howev the insert still had plenty of capacity at this time. During the next visit in less than two months after installation (03-23-04) the insert had accumulated a significant amount of trash, but was still functioning with limited signs of bypass (Figure 4-8c). The site survey conducted on 6-30- 04 showed that the insert had reached its full capacity and was overflowing with wind-blown trash and debris (Figure 4-8d). The final site inspection was performed on 10-21-04 after a few inches of rainfall (see Figure 3-10). There was less trash in the insert than the previous visit and the media boom at the lip of the insert was missing its adsorptive material indicating that the insert was cleaned by Los Angeles County maintenance staff prior to the wet season. Since the absorptive media was missing, this insert was retired during this final visit (Figure 4-8e and Figure 4-8f). 32 (b) 02-04-04(a) 12-10-03 (d) 06-30-04(c) 03-23-04 (e) 10-21-04 (f) 10-21-04 Figure 4-8. Field inspection photos showing the condition of Curb-Inlet Basket at the intersection of 23rd St. and Portland (east side). 4.1.3 FLOGARD-PLUS AT 18TH AND FLOWER The site CC-007-F installed with a FloGard Plus unit is located at the intersection of 18th and Flower Street. This site receives runoff from retail and commercial land uses. However, the close proximity of the I-10 freeway may impact the deposition of airborne debris and particulates. Figure 4-9 shows the location of the catch basin in relation to the City of Los Angeles' storm drain system including the direction of surface runoff. Figure 4-10 is an aerial 33 photo of the site showing the surrounding land use activities and Figure 4-11 shows two ground- level photographs taken from the site. Figure 4-9. Map showing the location of CC-007-F site installed with a FloGard Plus insert. 516144613130 51614461313065 51614461111067 516144613130705161446131328351614461111071 5161446131328151614461313282 51614461351614461111079 5 51614461111086 51614 5161446111128 Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :FIGUFIGUFIGUFIGUFIGULEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANELEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON ST18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST CC-007-F Figure 4-10. Aerial photo of site CC-007-F. (Source: http://terraserver.microsoft.com). 34 Figure 4-11. CC-010-D site photos upstream (left) and to the intersection of 18th and Flower (right). The initial site visit was conducted on 12-10-03 before the installation of the FloGard Plus. The catch basin appeared to be a shallow unit with relatively low trash loading (Figure 4-12a). However, the first inspection (02-04-04) after installation of the FloGard Plus showed standing water in the unit from the approximately 0.75 inches of rainfall that occurred the night and morning before, indicating the unit may have already begun to clog. The adsorbent boom with amorphous alumina silicate was seen floating in the standing water (Figure 4-12b). The second inspection (02-27-04) of the insert showed slightly more capture of debris and trash and the standing water had drained (Figure 4-12c) even though more rainfall had occurred. During the third inspection, which occurred within a month of installation (03-23-04), the insert was nearly at its volumetric capacity (Figure 4-12d). During the next inspection (06-30-04) the insert showed that the insert reached its capacity and was overflowing with trash. As with the other inserts, the majority of the trash appeared to have been transported by wind rather than runoff (Figure 4-12e). The last inspection was conducted on 10-21-04. Some of the trash appeared to have bypassed after a rain event and some has consolidated in the insert. The insert was retired after this visit and the captured debris was collected for laboratory sieve analysis (Figure 4-12f). 35 (b) 02-04-04(a) 12-10-03 (d) 06-30-04(c) 03-23-04 (f) 10-21-04(e) 10-21-04 Figure 4-12. Field inspection photos showing the condition of FloGard Plus at the intersection of 18th St. and Flower St. (southwest corner). 4.1.4 HYDRO-KLEEN AT WASHINGTON AND CATALINA The location of this field survey site, CC-001-H with the Hydro-Kleen insert is near the intersection of Washington and Catalina Streets. This site receives runoff from primarily commercial land uses (auto dealers and repair shops) and transportation (Washington Blvd.). Figure 4-13 shows the location of the catch basin in relation to the City of Los Angeles' storm drain system including the direction of surface runoff. Figure 4-14 is an aerial photo of the site 36 showing the surrounding land use activities and Figure 4-15 shows two ground-level photographs taken from the site. 1234567 1112131415 1 2 3 4 5LT A 4 18 61 62 2019 U01722017160171001706017000170901697016960169401688016860168401682016740166801664016600168501683016790167501671 1/2016670166301826 01827 51715171246111104351712461111045 5171246111105351712461111054 5171246111106251712461111063 Plan Number :Plan NuPlan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :BERENDO STBERENDO STBERENDO STBERENDO STBERENDO STCATALINA STCATALINA STCATALINA STCATALINA STCATALINA STWALTON AVEWALTON AVEWALTON AVEWALTON AVEWALTON AVE CC-001-H Figure 4-13: Map showing the location of CC-001-H site installed with a Hydro-Kleen insert. Figure 4-14. Aerial photo of site CC-001-H. (Source: http://terraserver.microsoft.com). 37 Figure 4-15. CC-001-H Site Photos Upstream (left) and Downstream (right). The initial site survey before the installation of the Hydro-Kleen insert occurred on 12/11/03. Examination of the site showed evidence of high trash loadings and a missing catch basin lid (Figure 4-16a). The first inspection after installation of the insert occurred on 02-27-04. Although there was evidence of bypass (Figure 4-16b), the insert appeared to be in good working condition even after a few storms, including an event greater than 2 inches. The missing concrete cover had been replaced prior to the installation of the insert. During the second inspection, it was noticed that the insert was capturing significant amounts of trash (Figure 4-16c). The third inspection was completed after another few months (06-30-04) and although the insert has captured more trash than the last visit it still appeared to be in good working condition (Figure 4-16d). The final inspection was conducted approximately three months later (10-22-04) and the insert had reached its volumetric capacity. There was a significant amount of oily sediment and debris on the curb indicating blockage of the insert. The insert was retired and the captured contents were collected for laboratory analysis (Figure 4-16e and Figure 4-16f). 38 (b) 02-27-04(a) 12-11-03 (f) 10-22-04 (d) 06-30-04(c) 03-23-04 (e) 10-22-04 Figure 4-16. Field inspection photos showing the condition of Hydro-Kleen at the intersection of Washington and Walton. 4.1.5 SUMMARY OF FIELD INSPECTIONS The field inspections revealed that nearly all of the inserts were quickly overwhelmed with trash after just a couple months and a few inches of rain (3-4 storms). Observations of material hanging over the edge of the inserts and silt build-up on the outside of several of the inserts indicated that flow bypass was common. While these devices are designed to bypass to ensure the road does not flood during large runoff events, bypass was observed at several of the sites during an average size storm event (~0.75 inches). Bypass occurred due to low flow capacity 39 (presumably due to clogging), as well as improper installation. For example, Figure 4-17 shows a HydroKleen insert bypassing a significant proportion of the inflow during this April 4th, 2004 site visit after only one month in the field. Figure 4-18 shows an improperly installed FloGard that created a lip near the inlet that caused the flow to bypass the insert. In contrast, Figure 4-19 shows two properly installed inserts near capacity, but processing the flow. Figure 4-17. Relatively low-intensity storm showing bypass (FL-006-H, 2/4/04). Figure 4-18. Improper installation of insert that caused bypass (CC-003-F, 2/4/04). 40 Figure 4-19. Two inserts operating properly during the 2/4/04 event: CC007-F (left) and CC009-D (right). Two of the sites had screens installed at the curb inlet (FL003-F and CC004-H) as shown in Figure 4-20. These curb inlet screens blocked much of the trash and debris from entering the curb inlet. Consequently, the inserts installed at these locations appeared to show significantly less trash and debris accumulation. While no data yet to support, it is presumed that these simple inlet screens can improve long-term oil retention of any catch basin insert type by reducing the tendency for blinding the absorbent media. Figure 4-20. Curb inlet screens installed at two sites: FL003-F (left) and CC004-H (right). In summary, DrainPac appeared to have the largest capacity for trash and debris and was still able to process high flows. HydroKleen, which appears to have the most effective filtration system, has limited trash holding capacity and tends to bypass at relatively low flows (this is investigated further in the laboratory tests in the preceding section). The absorbent materials in both the Curb Inlet and the FloGard inserts were frequently observed to be missing, damaged, or hanging on the outside of the insert. Also, the "sausage" style absorbents in these two devices are such that not all of the flow through the insert will necessarily contact the media, which inevitably affects the absorbent effectiveness of these insert filters. 41 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS As mentioned above, the laboratory tests consisted of two categories of tests: new filter tests and used filter tests. The used filter tests occurred after new inserts were conditioned in the field for approximately 4 months after installation in November 2004. The following paragraphs provide details of the testing procedures followed by the results of each test. 4.2.1 TESTING OF NEW FILTERS Three tests were performed on new filters of each insert type: 1) spill tests, 2) particle capture tests and 3) oil and grease removal tests. All of these tests were conducted using the insert testing apparatus operating at a design flow rate of 20-25 gallons per minute. 4.2.1.1 Spill Tests This test is designed to assess the ability of a catch basin insert device to capture a gross oil spill. This might occur if a person were to dump oil directly into the catch basin. Evidence of this activity has been observed over the years at many inlet/catch basins and educational activities such as stenciling storm drains have been practiced to teach the public that this is an unacceptable behavior. In order to simulate a gross dump, 1 liter (~ 1 quart) of used motor oil was poured into each catch basin insert tested. The used motor oil was obtained from two sources and the entire volume was mixed to create a common source of used motor oil for all the tests used in the project. The inserts were equipped with new media for these tests. Each insert was suspended on two saw horses above an oval shaped, galvanized tub. One liter of used motor oil was poured into the front of the insert and allowed to drip down the front of and then into the insert. The tests were performed at room temperature (18 to 21 oC) and the pouring was timed and completed over 2 minutes. Figure 4-21 illustrates the laboratory testing procedure for the spill tests. For all tests on all of the insert types, the oil flowed through the insert and was seen exiting the bottom within 10 seconds of entering the top. The oil was allowed to drip from the insert into the tub. Dripping continued for approximately 10 minutes at which time no new drops formed. The tub was then emptied and the contents were measured. The recovered volume was compared to the original 1 liter and the amount of retained oil was recorded (Table 4-1). The oil and insert were allowed to dry for two weeks in the laboratory at room temperature. This simulated drying in the field that might occur between an illegal dump and the following rainfall. The inserts were then placed in the catch basin insert flow testing apparatus and tested to determine how much oil would wash out of the inserts during a storm event. The flume was operated at approximately 25 gallon per minute (equivalent to about 0.1 inch/hour storm over a catchment that is about 50 percent impervious) and the entire flow was directed through the insert. Samples were collected for oil and grease analysis by collecting grab samples as the water exited the bottom of the insert. Six grab samples were collected over 90 minutes. The first grab sample was collected as soon as water exited the bottom of the insert. Samples were analyzed for oil and grease using as solid phase extraction (SPE) procedure (see Appendix C). 42 Table 4-1. Volume of oil retained within each new insert. Catch Basin Insert Volume Retained (ml) Kristar FloGard 120 Curb Inlet Basket 640 DrainPac 290 HydroKleen 980 Laboratory set up for testing oil spill capture efficiency 1-L of used motor oil Pouring oil on HydroKleen Pouring oil on Curb Inlet sorber Figure 4-21: Laboratory set up for the evaluation of spill control by catch basin inserts. The ability of each device to retain oil will depend upon the way the oil enters the front. Only the HydroKleen and DrainPac devices ensure that all the oil will be contacted by the oil absorber. However, the DrainPac has sorption surfaces on the bottom but there is too little 43 sorbent to retain a full liter of used motor oil. The FloGard will have variable results depending on the positions of the oil sorber “sausages” and if they touch the oil and grease flow. The Curb Inlet device has good contact with the oil if the sorber is tightly attached to the leading edge. If the sorber is loose, oil could flow underneath it. Many of the Curb Inlet and FloGard inserts were observed to have loose, damaged, or missing sorbers after the first storm in the field. Figure 4-22 show the oil and grease concentrations versus time from the flume test. The inserts were not effective in retaining the oil. The bulk of the oil flowed out in the first minute of operating. The first grab sample captured higher oil and grease concentration, but was not effective in capturing a representative sample. The oil was seen to flow out as immiscible packets of oil that did not mix with the water. After the test was complete, the sorbers in the inserts were physically examined. Oil could still be observed on the sorbers as dark spots, shinny areas and areas that felt “slick,” but the bulk of the previously retained oil had washed away. The HydroKleen device could not be successfully operated at 25 gallons per minute. Flow was reduced to less than 15 gallons per minute to avoid bypassing. The catch basin inserts, as configured are not effective in trapping at 1 liter oil spill. They initially retained 30 to 85% but released the oil when water was passed through at rates from 15 to 25 gallons per minute. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 020406080100 Curb Inlet 1/6/05 O&G (mg/L) Q (GPM)O&G (mg/L)Q (GPM)Time (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 020406080100 DrainPac 1/6/05 O&G (mg/L) Q (GPM)O&G (mg/L)Q (GPM)Time (min) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 020406080100 FloGard, 1/6/05 O&G (mg/L) Q (GPM)O&G (mg/L)Q (GPM)Time (min) 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20406080100 HydroKleen 1/6/05 O&G (mg/L) Q (GPM)O&G (mg/L)Q (GPM)Time (min) Figure 4-22 Oil & grease wash-out concentration versus time. 44 4.2.1.2 Particle Capture Tests The purpose of the particle capture tests was to evaluate the sediment removal performance of the four insert types at removing various particle sizes. Four different particle sizes were used as shown in Table 4-2. To reduce the possibility particle size changing due to abrasion and to minimize oil sediment absorption, glass beads were used to simulate particulate solids. The glass beads were obtained from McMaster Carr in Los Angeles, CA in the four size fractions illustrated in Figure 4-23 and then sieved into the sizes shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2. Sieve sizes and corresponding grain sizes used in the particle capture tests. Sieve Size Grain Size > #60 >250㎛ > #100 >150㎛ > #200 >75㎛ Pan <75㎛ #170-325 #100-170 #40-60 #60-120 Figure 4-23. Glass blasting beads used for particulate solids removal tests. Using the catch basin insert testing apparatus at a design flow rate between 20 and 25 gallons per minute, each insert type was tested to determine its particle capture efficiency. A known mass of particles from each size range was delivered to the influent stream. After flowing through the insert, the effluent was passed through a silk screen to capture all unfiltered particles. Table 4-3 shows the influent and effluent mass in each particle size range for each insert tested. A control test was conducted to evaluate the loss of particles in the system with no insert installed. Notice 45 that significant losses were observed for the smallest particle sizes, and these occurred via splashing as the flow tumbles down the edge of the catch basin. They are shown as “removal” for the control. Losses occurred by the control was subtracted out of the device tests to account for splash losses. The precision of the tests is probably in the range of +/- 5 to 10%. The “negative” removals shown by the FloGard are within this precision. Table 4-3. New filter effluent sediment loading by particle size. Effluent (grams) Particle Size Influent (grams) Control FloGard DrainPac Curb Inlet HydroKleen >250 ㎛ 266 276 72 0 151 19 150-250 ㎛ 289 279 300 11 272 42 75 - 150 ㎛ 309 283 352 130 160 88 <75 ㎛ 269 182 240 244 102 2 Total 1134 1020 964 386 684 151 The percent removal for each insert type is shown in Figure 4-24. Notice that HydroKleen had the highest removals for most of the particle sizes. However, this insert could not be operated at the 25 gpm design flow rate without bypassing, so the test was conducted at 10 gpm. DrainPac had the next highest removals and was operated at the 25 gpm design flow rate. Curiously, the Curb Inlet Basket removed the smallest particle sizes better than the larger particles, but this is likely due primarily to losses in the testing apparatus since the control test showed about 32 % removal of particles less than 75 microns. FloGard appears to be moderately effective at removing particles greater than 250 microns, but ineffective at smaller sizes. -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Removal (%)>250㎛ -3.7 72.7 100.0 41.2 92.5 150-250㎛ 3.4 -3.5 96.3 9.0 86.0 75-150㎛ 8.4 -13.7 61.1 52.4 73.7 <75㎛ 32.5 10.9 31.6 71.5 99.5 Total 2.4 15.0 66.0 39.7 86.7 Control FloGard Drain Pak Curb Inlet HydroKleen Figure 4-24. New filter percent sediment mass removal by particle size. 46 It is important to understand the mechanism of particle removal. The DrainPac and FloGard devices acted as sieves and retained particles at the bottom of the device, and the entire volume of the device is available for particle retention. The Curb Inlet device retained the fine particles in the oil absorbent sausage. It has a screen in the bottom, but this screen is coarser than most of the particles used during the testing. The mass of particles that can be retained in the sausage is low, compared to the volume for particle retention in the DrainPac or FloGard devices. The particles in the sausage are not tightly retained and can be lost into the effluent if the sausage is flexed or moved about. In this regard, the solids removal test for the Curb Inlet device is not as realistic of a test as it is for the other inserts. The solids retained by the HydroKleen are removed by sedimentation in the first compartment. At high flow rate, the turbulence in this compartment was sufficient to resuspend the fine fraction so that it was discharged in the effluent. A realistic appraisal of the test results suggests that particles removed by DrainPac and FloGard through sieving will be reliably retained. Particles retained by lodging in the sorbers or removed by sedimentation may be lost or resuspended during high flows and/or if the insert is physically moved or disturbed. 4.2.1.3 Oil & Grease Removal Efficiency The effectiveness of each new insert at removing oil and grease from stormwater was evaluated by delivering a steady stream of used motor oil into the flume operating at 25 GPM and taking influent and effluent samples every 6 minutes for one hour. The influent samples were composited at the end of the experiment because these concentrations were not expected to vary substantially, but the effluent samples were analyzed independently to capture the variability in effluent quality. Table 4-4 shows the oil and grease influent and effluent concentrations for each insert type. Notice that HydroKleen shows the lowest oil and grease effluent concentrations, followed by DrainPac and Curb Inlet Basket, which were comparable. FloGard showed the highest effluent concentrations, but this device also received the highest influent concentration. To evaluate the performance in terms of percent removals, Figure 4-25 shows side-by-side box and whisker plots of the oil and grease reduction percentages. Notice that the 95% confidence intervals of the median percent removal for several of the inserts overlap indicating that the differences in performance are not statistically significant. FloGard does appear to have a lower performance than Curb Inlet and HydroKleen, but is not statistically different from DrainPac. Table 4-4. New filter oil and grease effluent concentrations versus time. DrainPac FloGard Curb Inlet HydroKleen Influent (mg/L) 26.3 33.5 30.1 19.5 Time (min) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) 6 7.3 13.7 12.2 5.4 12 12.0 23.4 11.4 4.7 18 12.8 22.1 13.5 9.1 24 10.0 19.4 13.9 5.1 30 11.0 23.9 12.7 3.3 36 13.9 15.4 8.8 11.8 42 10.3 16.1 10.1 4.5 48 11.2 19.7 11.1 6.8 54 18.8 16.6 9.9 2.4 47 60 21.1 17.4 12.9 7.5 Median 11.6 18.4 11.8 5.3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DrainPac FloGard Curb-Inlet HydroKleen% Removal Median 95% Confidence Interval Inter-quartile range (IQR) Values 1.5 to 3 IQRs away Values over 3 IQRs away Figure 4-25. Box and whisker plots of oil and grease removal tests with new inserts. The stock oil solution was analyzed for metals concentration to estimate the potential removals of metals if oil and grease were removed. Table 4-5 provides the metals concentrations in the oil stock solution and the calculated effluent metals concentrations based on the median oil and grease concentrations for each insert. Notice that the effluent metals concentrations are all extremely low; below most analytical method detection limits, with the possible exception of zinc. Table 4-5. Metals concentrations in oil and the calculated metals removals for each insert type. Calculated Metals Effluent Concentrations Conc. in Used Motor Oil DrainPac FloGard Curb Inlet HydroKleen Metals ug/g ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Cr 0.53 0.006 0.010 0.006 0.003 Ni 1.72 0.020 0.032 0.020 0.009 Cu 21.16 0.245 0.390 0.250 0.112 Zn 501.83 5.821 9.249 5.922 2.645 As 0.03 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 Cd 0.04 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 Pb 3.36 0.039 0.062 0.040 0.018 4.2.2 TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF USED FILTERS The used inserts were retrieved from the field and taken to the laboratory for final testing and analysis. The bulk solids captured by the CPC and FL inserts during the cumulative pollutant capture part of the study period was characterized by size and weight. Four tests were performed 48 on the FL inserts after the field-to-laboratory portion of study, including flow rate tests, solids removal tests, oil and grease removal tests, and used oil spill tests. The following subsections describe the results of these tests and analyses. 4.2.2.1 Captured Bulk Solids Analysis After the cumulative pollutant capture period of the study, material recovered from the inserts was characterized. The materials captured by all four types of inserts (Catch Basin Inlet, DrainPac, FloGard, and HydroKleen) at various sites were returned to the UCLA campus for analysis. Consisting of primarily coarse sediment, leaves, debris, and litter, the material captured by each insert was weighed wet and then a representative volume of the material was sampled, air dried, sieved into two size fractions using a 1-inch screen, and then weighed. Figure 4-26 includes photographs illustrating this solids analysis procedure. 49 Figure 4-26. Photos of bulk solids screening process. Table 4-6 summarizes the screening results for the CPC inserts and Table 4-7 summarizes the screening results for the FL inserts. Notice that the majority of the material mass was generally smaller than 1-inch. This result supports visual observations that much of the captured material appeared to consist of coarse sediment, degraded trash, and composted debris. Hence, the duration that material is left in an insert appears to have an affect on the particle size distribution of the captured bulk solids. Lead tire weights, cell phones, batteries and other potentially hazardous materials were also found in the retained material. Given the state of decay of the material, all the interesting spiders, worms and insects, and the fact that potentially hazardous material were accumulating in the inserts, it is concluded that if the inserts are allowed to stay in 50 the field too long, they could likely become a nuisance and a potential public health hazard. Table 4-6. Accumulated bulk solids screening analysis for CPC inserts. After Drying (kg) Catch Basin Total S Sample Representa Date & 1" Sieving Passed Date & % S Represent ative Weight (kg) tive Sample Volume (L) Order Order olidsNo. ample Weight (kg) CC-008-C 6.2 8.0 11/15_1 0.9 1.3 11/17_2 35.2 6.1 CC-007-C 8.0 7.8 12.0 11/15_2 0.8 3.9 11/17_1 60.3 CC-014-C 28.2 11.3 16.0 11/12_6 0.8 5.3 11/15_2 54.0 CC-014-C2 22.2 8.5 16.0 11/10_4 1.7 4.6 11/12_2 72.9 CC-004-C 17.0 11.8 16.0 11/10_8 1.1 7.8 11/12_4 75.0 CC-002-C 14.3 10.3 16.0 11/10_1 0.9 4.5 11/12_7 51.9 CC-009-D 19.8 13.4 16.0 11/12_5 1.1 7.5 11/15_1 64.2 CC-010-D 37.3 9.7 16.0 11/10_7 4.1 4.0 11/12_1 83.5 CC-009-F 28.4 13.3 16.0 11/12_2 0.3 6.8 11/15_6 53.4 CC-007-F 22.8 4.7 16.0 11/12_4 1.2 1.3 11/15_4 53.2 CC-013-F 29.9 6.2 16.0 11/10_6 1.6 2.9 11/12_3 71.8 CC-003-F 49.5 12.0 16.0 11/10_3 1.8 5.4 11/12_5 59.6 CC-011-F 86.0 30.5 32.0 11/10_2 2.3 23.6 11/12_6 84.6 CC-004-F 55.0 9.9 16.0 11/12_1 0.5 5.3 11/15_7 58.9 CC-003-H 14.8 11.9 16.0 11/8_1 2.3 5.1 11/10_1 62.2 CC-001-H 12.3 9.1 13.0 11/12_3 1.7 3.1 11/15_5 53.0 CC-003-H2 15.4 13.7 16.0 11/10_5 1.2 4.3 11/15_3 40.1 51 Table 4-7. Accumulated bulk solids screening analysis for FL inserts. Sieving (kg) Insert Type Catch Basin No. Total Sample Weight (kg) Total Sample Volume (L) Date & Order #1 Sieving Passed FL-004-C 0.35 4.0 11/19_1 0.15 0.20 FL-003-C 0.60 6.0 11/19_2 0.15 0.45 FL-001-C 2.70 4.0 11/19_3 0.25 2.45 Curb Inlet FL-008-D 0.90 4.0 11/19_5 0.15 0.75 FL-003-D 1.20 5.0 11/19_6 0.25 0.95 FL-001-D 1.30 1.5 11/19_7 0.15 1.15 FL-003-F 3.35 8.0 11/19_8 0.20 3.15 FL-001-F 5.25 8.0 11/19_9 1.05 4.20 FL-004-F 0.25 1.0 11/19_10 0.05 0.20 FL-006-H 1.10 3.0 11/19_4 0.10 1.00 FL-008-H 0.25 0.5 11/19_11 0.05 0.20 FL-002-H 0.25 0.2 11/19_12 0.00 0.25 FloGard DrainPac HydroKleen 4.2.2.2 Flow Rate Tests A problem reported with catch basin inserts in the past has been clogging and bypassing. This is to be expected since the fine screens or meshes in some of the devices can be overwhelmed, or "blinded" by debris, as well clogged by sediment. The volume of the insert can also fill with litter and trash so that there is little room for stormwater to accumulate to create sufficient pressure to flow through the screen. During this study, the captured material caused both blinding due to large items, such as plastic bags and newspaper, and clogging due to sediment. The sediment coats the screens at the bottom of the insert and appears as a moist mud layer when the insert is wet. After the insert dries out, the mud layer forms a largely impermeable barrier. Barriers such as this were noted in many of the used inserts. In the case of the HydroKleen, barriers were formed in the top of the second compartment, which prevented stormwater from passing through the sorbent pillows. In order to evaluate clogging of the used inserts, a flow test was performed. The insert was subjected to low flow at first and the water level in the insert was allowed to stabilize. The depth of water in the insert was then measured. Next the flow was increased and the depth was remeasured. This process was continued until the maximum capacity of the flume was reached (60 GPM), or the insert bypassed. Figure 4-27 shows the results of several tests where the 52 maximum flow rate achieved without bypass shown at the endpoint. (Note as mentioned above three inserts were replaced by the City of L.A. and were not available to test). All but two inserts bypassed at less than 60 GPM flow (equivalent of about 0.2 inches per hour over a catchment with 70% imperviousness). Both of the FloGards (FL001-F, FL003-F) passed more than 50 GPM before bypassing. One DrainPac (FL001-D) did not bypass at 60 GPM and the other (FL008-D) bypassed at 50 GPM. Three Curb Inlet Basket devices were tested. One bypassed at 20 GPM, another (FL003-C) at 50 GPM (FL001-C), and the final device (FL004-C) did not bypass. The oil sorbent sausage was missing from this particular insert; it was somehow lost during operation in the field or perhaps cleaned out by City maintenance personnel not familiar with project. The HydroKleen devices bypassed at 12 GPM (FL008-H) and 40 GPM (FL001-H). It was noticed during the suspended solids testing (next subsection) that the hydraulic capacity was further reduced by the accumulation of glass beads. FloGard 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 03691215 Depth (inch)Q (GPM)FL003-F FL001-F DrainPac 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 03691215 Depth (inch)Q (GPM)FL001-D FL008-D Curb-Inlet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 03691215 Depth (inch)Q (GPM)FL001-CFL004-C FL003-C HydroKleen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 03691215 Depth (inch)Q (GPM)FL001-H FL008-H Figure 4-27. Used catch basin insert flow rate tests. During the flow rate tests sediment particles that washed out of the used inserts were captured and sieved to evaluate the mass of retained particles released during a runoff event. Table 4-8 shows the mass of particles within each size range that were washed out from each insert. Notice that DrainPac and Curb Inlet tended to release the largest amount of particles. However, since the mass particles retained prior to the washout test was not known these results are only useful for a qualitative assessment of the ability of the insert to retain particles. 53 Table 4-8. Washout of particles from used inserts during the flow rate tests. FloGard DrainPac Curb Inlet HydroKleen Particle Size (microns) FL001-F FL003-F FL001-D FL008-D FL003-C FL001-C FL004-C FL008-H FL001-H > 400 9.51 g 3.92 g 5.31 g 44.80 g 10.07 g 5.70 g 8.70 g 8.00 g 0.00 g 250-400 2.10 g 1.83 g 2.43 g 18.70 g 7.98 g 3.59 g 11.03 g 5.67 g 3.50 g 150-25- 2.07 g 1.92 g 1.80 g 18.70 g 6.66 g 2.43 g 12.80 g 4.40 g 0.00 g 75-150 2.58 g 2.55 g 2.76 g 10.32 g 6.40 g 2.62 g 18.20 g 3.42 g 0.00 g < 75 2.05 g 1.33 g 0.16 g 3.50 g 0.00 g 1.06 g 0.00 g 0.00 g 0.00 g Total 18.31 g 11.55 g 12.46 g 96.02 g 31.11 g 15.40 g 50.73 g 21.49 g 3.50 g 4.2.2.3 Solids Removal Tests Suspended solids testing were performed on used inserts in the same manner as the new inserts. Figure 4-28 shows the removal efficiencies of the inserts recovered from the field. The removal rates were better than observed with new inserts likely due to the retained material retained in the filters from the field. This retained material acts as a pre-coat or dynamic membrane and improves removal efficiency at the expense of reduced flow capacity and increased bypass, as noted in the previous section. This improved performance/decreased capacity relationship is shown in Figure 4-28 for the Curb Inlet insert FL003-C and HydroKleen insert FL008-H, where the flow rate was reduced to 5 GPM to avoid bypass. Comparing only the inserts that were successfully tested at 25 GPM, FloGard and DrainPac appear to have the highest removals for the full range of particle sizes. However as mentioned previously for the new filter particulate capture tests, small particles are easily lost in the testing apparatus, so the results for these smaller particles likely over-predict the actual removals. 54 FloGard 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 Sand Size(micron)Percent Retained (%)FL003-F (25 GPM) FL001-F (25 GPM) DrainPac 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 Sand Size(micron)Percent Retained (%)FL001-D (25 GPM) FL008-D (25 GPM) Curb-Inlet 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 Sand Size(micron)Percent Retained (%)FL001-C (25 GPM) FL004-C (25 GPM) FL003-C (5 GPM) HydroKleen 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 Sand Size(micron)Percent Retained (%)FL001-H (25 GPM) FL008-H (5 GPM) Figure 4-28. Used insert particulate solids removal test. 4.2.2.4 Oil & Grease Removal Tests The tests were performed in the same way as the tests on the new inserts, except that the maximum flow rate without bypassing was used. Flume testing for oil and grease removal is limited to about 10 GPM minimum due to the oil addition pumps. Below 10 GPM, it is not possible to added motor oil at a low enough flow rate to produce 10 to 25 mg/L concentration range that was desired for the test. Testing at higher oil and grease concentrations would not be representative of the performance at lower concentrations. Consequently, only 6 of the 9 inserts recovered from the FL sites had acceptable flow rates for this test based upon the above testing (see Section 4.2.2.2). (Recall that 3 of the original 12 FL inserts had been removed by the City and were unavailable for the FL tests). Only one of the HydroKleen (FL008-H) units was tested at 10 GPM. The other units (one DrainPac, one Curb Inlet, and one HydroKleen) were not tested because the flow rates were too low. Table 4-9 shows the oil and grease effluent concentrations for each 6 minute sample collected during the 1-hour test. All inserts were tested at 25 GPM except for HydroKleen, as discussed above, was tested at 10 GPM. As with the test while new, this insert had the lowest overall effluent quality. For the inserts tested at 25 GPM, DrainPac showed the lowest median effluent quality followed by FloGard. Curb Inlet had the highest median effluent quality. 55 Table 4-9. Used filter oil and grease effluent concentrations versus time. DrainPac FloGard FloGard Curb Inlet Curb Inlet HydroKleen* FL003-D FL003-F FL001-F FL004-C FL001-C FL008-H Influent (mg/L) 16.33 20.72 27.65 23.91 26.43 22.25 Time (min) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) 6 3.74 5.94 8.7 15.54 23.72 1.02 12 3.12 7.4 9.52 17.36 18.84 1.46 18 4.52 7.72 14.08 14.12 14.84 3.04 24 9.4 7.02 15.86 14.7 25.66 3.68 30 6.66 6.88 10.2 21.66 24.9 6.2 36 8.52 7 6.46 18.36 16.34 5.28 42 7.68 6.6 13.44 15.04 13.94 6.74 48 5.48 8.6 12.78 16.1 19.82 9.38 54 7.02 8.96 9.78 16.92 13.34 7.06 60 4.32 9.92 7.5 12.04 14.3 5.98 Median 6.1 7.2 10.0 15.8 17.6 5.6 * Tested at 10 GPM. To investigate whether the oil and grease removals are statistically different from one another, Figure 4-29 is a side-by-side box plot of the percent removals of the used inserts. Note that all inserts except for Curb Inlet have overlapping 95% confidence intervals about their median percent removals. The HydroKleen insert slightly outperforms FloGard insert FL003-F, but is not statistically different from FL001-F. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FL003-D (DrainPac) - %Removal FL003-F (FloGard) - %Removal FL001-F (FloGard) - %Removal FL004-C(CurbInlet) - %Removal FL001-C (CurbInet) - %Removal FL008-H (HydroKleen) - %Removal Figure 4-29. Box and whisker plots of oil and grease removal tests with used inserts. 56 Table 4-10 compares the median oil and grease effluent quality and percent removals for the new and used inserts. Note that the effluent quality is reduced for DrainPac and FloGard, but is slightly increased for Curb Inlet and HydroKleen. However, this difference is not significant due to the variability in the data. In general the removal efficiencies of the used inserts was greater than the new inserts because it is likely that the retained material from the field acts as a sorbent just as the captured material acted as a filter for the particulate solids removal test. However, the percent removals for Curb Inlet decreased. This reduction in performance for the Curb Inlet is likely due to loosely held absorbents after it has been used and is consistent with field observations that indicated the absorbent was easily disturbed causing limited contact with the inflow. Table 4-10. Comparison of new and used insert oil & grease removal efficiency. Median Effluent Quality (mg/L) Median Percent Removals (%) New Used New Used DrainPac 11.6 6.1 56.0 62.8 FloGard 18.4 7.2 - 10 33.3 63.9 - 65.2 Curb Inlet 11.8 15.8 - 17.6 60.8 33.8 - 33.5 HydroKleen 5.3 5.6 72.9 74.7 4.2.2.5 Spill Tests on Used Inserts After the completion of flow, suspended solids removal and oil and grease removal testing, a second series of spill tests was performed to assess how the oil retention capacity of the inserts are affected after they have been field conditioned. One liter of used motor oil was pored through each insert in the same way as performed on the new inserts (see Section 4.2.1.1). The only difference was the condition/age of the insert. In this case the inserts were used and contained removed solids from field testing as well as the glass beads from laboratory testing. The large litter had been removed prior to hydraulic testing. The volume of oil retained for a representative used insert of each type is shown in Table 4-11. For all inserts except the HydroKleen, more oil was retained by the used insert than the clean inserts. This likely is the results of the accumulation of solids and small liter retained in the insert act as sorbents. FloGard, which had the lowest retention capacity of all the inserts while new, showed the largest increase its oil retention capacity after it had been used. DrainPac had the highest retained percentage while used and HydroKleen had the highest retained percentage while new. Table 4-11. Volume of oil retained within each used insert and the % increase compared to the new insert oil retention. Catch Basin Insert Volume Retained (ml) % Increase from New FloGard (FL003-F) 630 425% Curb-Inlet (FL004-C) 460 59% DrainPac (FL001-D) 730 152% HydroKleen (FL008-H) 600 -39% 57 5 RESEARCH SYNOPSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This research was performed to provide an independent performance assessment of storm drain inlet filter devices at removing oil and grease and bulk pollutants from stormwater in the City of Los Angeles. A review of literature found that several researchers have studied the pollutant removal effectiveness of catch basin inserts, but the large variety of devices, the different methods for evaluating performance, and the fact that the technology is continually evolving indicates that there are still data and knowledge gaps in this area of stormwater BMP research. Four different catch basin insert technologies were selected for testing in this study: DrainPac, Curb Inlet Basket, FloGard, and HydroKleen. The selection was based on the number and quality of existing studies testing these devices, the budgetary and technical feasibility of testing them during the course of this study, and the perceived or advertised ability of these devices to remove and retain oil and grease from stormwater and illicit dumping activities. The performance of the selected inserts was subsequently evaluated in twenty-four CPC (cumulative pollutant capture) sites and twelve FL (field-to-laboratory) sites during the study period of 2003- 2005. This was accomplished in two phases. In Phase I, the CPC sites were evaluated for long- term performance of the inserts through periodic field inspections and qualitative and quantitative assessment of accumulated pollutants during the wet and dry seasons. In Phase II, the FL site inserts were evaluated by conducting a series of laboratory tests before and after exposing them to field conditions. Significant conclusions derived from this study are provided below. 5.1 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS Conclusions Related to Literature Review: The limited available data on oil and grease removal indicates that catch basin inserts would provide some removal of oil and grease from stormwater. In general, some devices have been tested more thoroughly than others. However due to the variety of configurations and media types among the large number of competing products, it is difficult to comparatively assess their performance. Due to the inconsistencies in reporting performance monitoring data and the fact that percent removals (a misleading measure of BMP efficiency) are most often reported, it is not possible to determine the average achievable effluent oil and grease concentrations from catch basin inserts from the existing data. It "appears" that oil and grease can only be reduced to about 5-10 mg/L by catch basin inserts. However the available data are too limited to statistically support this assertion. Also, the ability of inserts to retain oil, once it has absorbed to the media has not been thoroughly investigated. 59 Conclusions Related to Field Inspections: In general, catch basin inserts are excellent litter removal devices, although they have limited capacity as compared to the inflow of litter observed. In higher litter producing areas in the City of Los Angeles, almost all of the inserts clogged or reached their trash loading capacity very early in the rainy season. All manner of litter was collected including paper, plastics, and coarse sediments as well as oil and grease. Litter collection interferes with the insert’s other desired functions. Excessive accumulation of trash and debris and evidence of clogging at almost all sites would significantly affect oil & grease capture efficiency. DrainPac and FloGard have larger capacities and finer screens and therefore retained bulk solids most effectively. Efficient capture of bulk solids consequently helped continued oil capture up until the accumulated debris caused bypass. For FloGard, the presence of lip at the curb caused the insert to be bypassed at least on one site. Curb-Inlet Basket does not appear to remove sediment except for on the inlet shelf and the insert does not contain a filter fabric. The absorbent boom has low structural integrity because the media was observed to have been washed from the boom. HydroKleen, appeared to have the highest potential for removing oil and grease based on the laboratory testing (see below). However, by-passes at low flows and limited capacity for bulk solids (e.g., bulk solids and fine solids caused by-pass to occur quickly) are some of the observed problems for this insert and would limit its actual ability to be effective overall at oil and grease removal. Also, the settling chamber permanently retains water that can breed mosquitoes. Conclusions Related to Laboratory Tests: Retention in the inserts of a gross spill of 1 liter of used motor oil ranged from 10 to 90%. However, most of the captured oil was lost during subsequent flow testing, and in the field, would surely have been lost during the next rain event. Apparently, accumulated litter and sediments may help capture of a gross spill of used motor oil up to the point where bypassing occurs. Most of the inserts were effectively able to remove particles larger than 250 µm. The DrainPac and FloGard inserts remove solids by sieving. The HydroKleen removes solids by sedimentation in the first compartment and then filtration in the second compartment. Curb Inlet removes small particulates in the absorbent boom and larger particles in mesh screen. etimes removed by entrapment in sorber “sausages” (Curb Smaller particles were som Inlet and FloGard) but it is unlikely that this mechanism would be quickly overwhelmed in the field due to the limited capacity for retaining sediments. ber of the HydroKleen Retention of particles also occurred via settling in the first cham 60 unit and on the shelf of the Curb Inlet Basket. However, sediments captured by settling appear to be easily lost during high flows. inding" (e.g., clogging of flow paths) Laboratory tests showed that significant "bl occurred with solids accumulation and resulted in overflow/bypass. ter and solids: tter ¾ ds have less room for sorbents and therefore ¾ ce of high loads of litter and solids ¾ with devices such as coarse screens installed at the 5.2 CHALLENGES, LESSONS LEARNED, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE Some monitoring plan were modified during the course of the study due to d t icant challenges faced during this study included the initial selection, installation, e d the ability to compare sites. Since the after y recommended that if a large number of catch basin sites are to be studied in the future that site is Trade-offs exist between O&G removal capabilities and capture of lit ¾ Inserts with lots of sorbent for O&G removal have little room for solids and li and therefore blind more quickly. Inserts with room for litter and soli are less effective for oil and grease removal. Inserts to remove oil and grease in the presen may not be a good choice. Inserts protected from litter, curb, could then be optimized for oil and grease removal by maximizing the volume of sorbents available. RESEARCH elements of the circumstances beyond the research team's control that caused delays in getting project tasks completed. For instance, the catch basin insert testing apparatus at UCLA had to be relocate because of the demolition of a laboratory building, so laboratory testing was delayed. Also, the fire disaster that occurred in southern California during the summer of 2003 left a significant amount of ash covering the area and it was decided that the first events of the season would no likely represent typical conditions. Therefore the project team decided to install and begin conditioning the catch basin inserts during the middle of the wet season rather than at the beginning. Other signif and tracking of installed inserts. Only approximate drainage areas for the catch basins could b estimated, as it was impossible to determine the rooftop contributing areas. Also, the variety of catch basin configurations (e.g. depth, width, manhole size and shape, etc.) made it difficult to find sites with similar characteristics and in close proximity to one another. Some of these characteristics made installation difficult for some of the inserts, even when detailed field measurements were made. For instance, the plastic lip on the HydroKleen insert had to be trimmed to fit into a couple of the catch basins. The relative timing of the installations also limite vendors of each insert type installed the inserts, some inserts were installed several weeks others were installed so the amount of field conditioning differed somewhat between sites. In fact, a couple of the inserts at CPC sites lagged so much that it was decided to switch previousl designated FL sites to CPC sites (which were subsequently switched back to FL sites for the field-to-laboratory phase of the study). Choosing new sites or switching sites from CPC to FL was confusing and cumbersome with the original naming convention that was used. It is 61 given a unique site number that is never reused as well as a study number that can be reuse when a substitution is made. Another lesson learned during this study is that it is important to ensure communication is established with the departmen d t responsible for maintenance of catch basins (Wastewater 's hat of the s nd an observed in the previous studies conducted by the investigators.5,28 n for ) y locations. These are expected to keep out large objects that obstruct the inserts Collection Systems Division for the City of Los Angeles). It is clearly evident that the City Watershed Protection Division, who was a participant in this project and was aware of the location of the study catch basin sites, did not notify the Wastewater Collection Systems Division of this study. While the loss of the four study inserts reduced the amount of data t was obtained from this study, it did not seem significantly change the overall conclusions study. However, if the City expects to further its goal of improving the quality of runoff from it storm drain system, it is absolutely vital that these two organizations establish more efficient communication channels. The litter generation rates at the locations of the inserts used in this study were several times a perhaps ten times greater th While the field observations indicate that oil generation, particularly from illicit dumping of used oil, was also particularly high in the study area, the large amount of litter often blocked the entrance to the catch basin itself. If further work is preformed to use catch basin inserts to trap oil spills (which appears to be needed in the study area), a modified approach should be take areas generating such large amounts of litter. Coarse screens, either with square meshes (~1 inch or expanded metals screens (although expanded metal is more difficult to clean) should be used to protect the catch basin inserts from excessive litter. Street sweeping can be used to pick up the rejected litter and it was demonstrated in the researchers' previous study that the screens are not damaged by street sweepers and vice versa. While the frequency of street sweeping may need to be increased to avoid complete blockage of the inlet, the frequency of catch basin cleaning may be significantly reduced. Also, if the inserts are protected from litter they can be optimized for oil removal and retention. Much greater masses of sorbents, such as is used in the HydroKleen insert, can be used in the insert to provide more oil sorption capacity while reducing the tendenc for clogging. Curb inlet trash screens have been installed by the City of Los Angeles at a few of the field-to- laboratory study and prevent the inserts from functioning properly. A recommendation for further research is to compare the performance of the same insert types with and without curb inlet trash screens. Catch basin insert vendors are beginning to market curb inlet trash screens. For instance, Kristar Enterprises, the manufacturer for FloGard, is currently marketing a curb inlet trash screen to provide pre-treatment to their catch basin insert devices. United Stormwater, the Los Angeles area representative for DrainPac, also markets curb inlet screens. 28 Lau, S-L and M.K. Stenstrom, “Best Management Practices to Reduce Pollution from Stormwater in Highly Urbanized Areas,” WEF Tech, Chicago, IL, September 30-October 3, 2002. 62 APPENDIX A- SITE LOCATION MAPS !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( CC-004-H CC-001-H CC-012-H CC-007-H CC-003-H CC-013-F CC-011-F CC-009-F CC-007-F CC-004-F CC-003-F CC-004-D CC-011-D CC-010-D CC-009-D CC-014-D CC-008-C CC-007-C CC-004-C CC-002-C CC-014-C CC-003-H2CC-014-C2CC-014-D2 6th St Hill St8th St 1st St Broadway Vermont AveTemple St Soto StFigueroa StFlower StAdams BlvdGrand AveOlive StMain St 3rd St Alameda StSun s et B l vd Wilshire Bl vd Central Ave16th S t Beverly BlvdVirgil AveM is si on Rd Venice Blvd 9th S t 30th St Jeffer s on Blvd 15th St Griffi n Av e 14th S t Boyle AveAlvarado StLos Angeles StSanta Fe AveW all StBenton Way26th St Court St Olympi c Blvd Cesar E C h a vez AveNormandie AveSichel St7th St Whittier Bl vd 2nd S t M aple Ave27th StSilver Lake BlvdScott Ave 31st St San P edro StJames M W ood B lvd Breed StHooper AveEcho Park Ave12th St 20th St Pico BlvdDaly St18th S t Crocker StSpring StAcademy Rd 23rd St Johnston StP asa dena A ve Blak e A v e Gl endale B lv dWorkman StRampart Blvd37th Pl Saint Louis St36th St 39th St Melrose Ave 37th Dr Euclid AveEffie St Chicago St37th St Santee StReno StMicheltorena StGriffith Ave25th St A v e n u e 1 9 Council St Lamar StBeaudry AveLucile AveElysian Park Dr Alpine St 39th Pl Coronado StAve n ue 2 6 Hoover StExposition Blvd Gates St34th S t 38th St Arapahoe StWashingto n Blvd P ark Dr Irolo StManitou AveLemoyne StLucas Ave14th P l Anderso n S t 7th Pl S an Julian StAlbany St35th St 29th S t Oakwood Ave Santa Monica Blvd Mareng o S tIdell StSta d i u m W a y Cypres s Av e 12th Pl Kent StMadison AveCollege St I sabel S t Montan a S t Kenmore Ave32nd S t Lexington Ave Bonnie Brae StGless StHancock StAvenue 28 Towne AveTrinity StBellevue Ave Yale StWestmoreland AveLong Beach AveHu mbold t St 11th Pl Colton S t Mathews StAtlantic St 10th S t San F e r n a n d o R d Lorena StAlta StWitmer StHyperion AveChilds Way Reservo ir St Dillon StAve n ue 3 7 Edgemont StMaltman AveThomas StZonal Ave Garn e t S t Hu ron St Hill PlVign es S tWesterly TerCompton AveNe wto n S t Baldwin St M aceo St State St35th Pl Ord St Industrial StStanford AveVestal AveAvon StFickett StButte StHope StMagnolia AveA nn S tSanborn AveBridge S t P ar k R ow S t Avalon St Elden Ave4th St Myers StM armion W ay Glenn A v e M erced S tHeliotrope DrDewey AveWatt WayAliso S t Carlota BlvdCerro Go r d o S t A v e n u e 2 0 Gr a n d e V i s t a A v ePaloma StLondo n S t Alhambra Ave A v en u e 1 8 Tularosa DrFenn StCl ifton St Bay StMcCollum StUnion Pl22nd St Shatto S t Cherry StBurns Ave Violet StOak StMonroe St Commonwealth Ave11th St Leighton Ave Albion StState DrJuliet StLogan StRosewood Ave 17th S t L ucreti a Av e Francis Ave Westlake AveIngraham S t 33rd St Utah St28th St Manzanita StRedcliff StBeacon AveBanning StDouglas StLebanon StKohler StMarathon St McClintock AveBoyl st on S t Lawrence StAngelus Ave4th P l Sacramento StEasterly TerBudlong AveLeeward Ave Cry sta l St Parkman AveRobinson StEmery St M orton A v e Camulos StRedesdale AveEdgecliffe DrBaxter St Allesandro StCornwell StFargo S t Clay StPecan StHomer StLake StA m a d o r S t Boyd St Commercial St Na omi A veSan Marino St A ven ue 33 Kenwood AveCenter StUnion AvePlea sa n t A ve Allison Av e Miram a r S t Gl over PlKensington RdBirch St 36th P l Glenalbyn DrEwing St Gladys AveLockwood Ave Occidental Blvd24th St Penn s ylvani a A v eRotary DrLafayette Park PlMenlo AveLacy St Jesse St Clinton St Winston St S argent PlLugo St Berenice AveClarence StBaker StAv e n ue 2 3 Elysian Park Ave 21st St Walnut StColumbia AveColiseum Dr Lake Shore AveDuane S t Michigan AveValentine StAv e n u e 2 1 3rd Pl Hoover Bl vdPortia StL er o y S t Eastlake AveRio StHyans St Figuer o a T e r Valley St Tra c tion A ve Mott StElm y ra S t Opal StEast Edgeware RdWillow Brook Ave Cordova St Darwin Ave Burlington AveClifford St Harlem PlMarket CtMidland StL ilac P lMargo StInez S tSolano AveRio Vi sta Av e 5th St Ara g o n A v e Fremo n t Ave Ri verdale Av eMesquit StCatalina StVelasco StJudson St Produce St Agat h a S t Gibbons StAaron S t Sunset Pl Bixel StBerendo StMidway PlMohawk StUl y s s e s S t Norwood StAven ue 4 2 Juanita AveGlassell St Avenue 24 Lilac Te rLaveta TerNew Hampshire AveCarroll Ave Lyon StEssex StCamulos Pl De wap RdGrand View StTerminal StOrchard AveBrand e n S t Ceres AveDana St Sherid a n St Porter St He mloc k S tGolden Gate AveBost on S t Elsinore S tPlata St Lord St30th Pl Valencia StImperial Stla Fayette Park PlDescanso DrAltm an St M eadowv ale AveHunter St Alvarado Ter Minnesota StMariposa AveSpru c e S t Bimini PlDawson S t 8th Pl Garey StMerchant StKeller StUnion DrRoselake AveNevin AveKearney St Cummings StMarview AveToberman StCarondelet StMinerva AveNa ud St Short St Brittania StAlexandria AveCentennial StBlackstone CtApex AvePaseo el Rio 9th PlDucommun StHamil ton WayRoland Curtis PlVan Buren PlImogen AveAvila StMiddlebury St Terra c e Heig h t s Ave R o s a l in d P l Perr ino P lHartford AveCrosby LnEmerald St Hollins StMateo StRidge W ay Rogers A v eMoulton AveP ark Ro w Dr Bis h o p s R d Orme AveInnes Ave McGarry StCove Ave Du vall StRi verside Dr Channing StDacotah StWyn Glen LnLittle StDryden PlMontro s e St Barlow St Marietta StMitchell Pl Lemon StShatto PlDiana St Scout Wa y W erdin P lAvenue 35 Bauchet St Avenue 34 Altivo Way 29th Pl Gleaso n Ave Concord StLobdell PlEverett StStaunton AveHooper PlOros S tBlaine StCa bot StModoc StDamon St Eagle StFedora StVendome StMyra AveMark StArtesian StWalton AveSolano Cyn Dr For t M o ore Pl Narva StMerwin StAvenue 30 Liberty StOni zuka StPark View StGeorgia StWaterloo StCambria S t Maryla nd St Bruno S tCoronado TerEvergreen AveCottage PlAngelina S t Ho pe P l Bartl e t t S t Avenue 32 B ailey St Wilde S tFrancisco StLanfra n c o St Seymour St Saint Paul AveHolabird Ave Coronel St Clement StDecatur StSanta Y nez St Ezra StBernard S t Ellett Pl Altura Walk Tree Ave Vermont Pl Belmont AveBoaz StB arr an ca S t Broadway PlNew Je r s e y StLemoyne St22nd St Union Ave4th StCoronado TerWestlake Ave11th St 4th St Main StTrinity StLiberty StGladys Ave35th St Wall StKenmore Ave21st St McGarry St20th St 14th S t 2nd St 30th St 22nd St Maple Ave25th StWitmer StBoyd St 27th St 36th S t Harlem Pl Clinton S t Witmer StBaxter St 11th St Catalina StDillon StMateo StBixel StCouncil StMadison Ave36th Pl Mott StCatalina StLilac Te r 10th S t 21st S t 7th St 5th St Duane S t 5th S tRobinson StInez StWestmoreland Ave20th St Ewing St Hoover St25th St 25th S tGrand View St27th St Alta StLacy StMaltman Ave20th S t Thomas St24th St 24th StWestmoreland AveMenlo AveHope St39th St 1st St Washingt o n Blvd 3rd St Hope StStadium W a y 3rd St Hunter St 11th StUnion Ave5th St 2nd S t 37th S t 23rd St 22nd S t 4th Pl 38th St 27th St 8th St Bay St Catalina St3rd St Fickett StOrme AveBerendo St33rd St 31st S tLake StGrand Ave2nd S t 25th St 14th StPark View St3rd St 2nd St Cordova St Inez S t 28th S tKenmore AveKent StCoronado StBerendo St32nd St 35th St Bellevue Av e Vign es St25th S t 6th St 33rd St 6th St 33rd St 15th S t 29th S t 5th St Hoover StCompton AveAlta StRiverside Dr Werdin Pl7th St 27th St College St Fargo S t 32nd St 4th StVendome St32nd S t 30th St 31st StMariposa AveOlympic Blvd Fremont Ave29th St 7th St 5th St 28th St Clinton St Lake StSpring St16th StMenlo AvePark View St21st S t State StRampart BlvdPaloma St30th St 23rd St Solano Ave15th St 29th St Carondelet StEffie St 35th St Garnet S t 17th St 8th StNew Hampshire AveNormandie Ave23rd St Hope StMott St24th StMadison AveSan Marino St Wall StImperial St29th St 2nd St 27th St 8th P l San Pedro St38th St 2nd St 36th St 24th S t 38th St 28th StNew Hampshire AveElsinor e S t Montan a S t 7th St 2nd St Coronado St5th St 2nd S t 23rd StFedora St37th StAlexandria AveKenmore AveCarondelet StMathews St8th St 22nd S t Exposition Blvd Darwin Ave Bay StBurlington AveBonnie Brae StBellevue Av e Pico Blvd 4th St Budlong AveClarence St11th St 22nd St Towne AveOccidental BlvdMariposa AveStanford AveEdgemont StFi gueroa St 23rd St 31st St 12th S t 34th St 25th St 12th St Clinton St 12th StAlexandria Ave12th StBerendo St§¨¦5 §¨¦10 §¨¦110 £¤101 UV2 §¨¦710 §¨¦10 §¨¦405 §¨¦110 §¨¦210£¤101 UV42 UV72 UV19 UV2 Legend Limited Access Higwhay Highway Ramps Local Roads !(Cumulative Pollutant Capture Sites City of Los Angeles Boundary Figure A1 Cumulative Pollutant Capture Catch Basin Insert Sites 0 10.5 Miles - GeoSyntec ConsultantsMay 2005 FL-001-H FL-008-H FL-004-F FL-003-F FL-001-F FL-003-D FL-001-D FL-008-D FL-004-C FL-003-C FL-003-H2 FL-001-C Hill StPico Blvd 11th S t Flower StMain StFigueroa StGrand Ave8th S t 30th St Broadway Olive StVenice B lvd Adam s BlvdHoover StVermont AveWashington Blvd 7th S t Olymp i c Blvd Jeffers on Bl vd Union Ave12th S t 31st St 20th St 9th S t 21st St 16th S t 34th St Los Angeles St6th S t Albany St29th S t San Pedro St12th P l 36th Pl 32nd S t Maple AveTrinity St11th P l Santee St22nd St Arapahoe StChilds Way Exposition Blvd Griffith AveStanford AveMagnolia Ave37th Pl 36th St Lake StWatt Way37th Dr Alvarado StJames M W ood B lvd Cherry StOak St37th St Ellendale PlJuliet St28th St Wilshire B l vd Lebanon StWestlake AveState DrMcClintock Ave27th S tBudlong Ave5th S t 38th St 33rd StDewey Ave35th Pl Burlington AveWestmoreland Ave25th S t 24th S tBonnie Brae StElden Ave35th S tMenlo AveHoover BlvdUniversity AvePortland St17th Pl Margo St23rd StCatalina StBeacon AveBerendo StMidway Pl18th S t Hope StWall StScarff St22nd Pl Norwood StNew Hampshire AveCentral AveOrchard AveDana St Trousdale Pky17th S t Camero n L n 30th Pl Valencia StNew England StAlvarado Ter Bonsallo AvePaloma StDowney W ay 14th P l 8th Pl 14th St Garland Ave15th St Toberman StConstance StBlackstone CtPark Grove AveEstrella AveGrattan StPembroke LnRoyal St29th Pl Ingraham S t Chester PlColumbia AveGrand View StBlaine StShrine PlHartford Ave10th Pl Walton AveSeverance StBixel StGreen AveSanta Monica Frwy RampAdair StGeorgia StConnecticut St Cottage PlSunbury StFlorida StMalvern AveWisconsin StFrancisco StLovelace AveBond StMidway LnMonmouth AvePalm DrBroadway PlAmey StWest Adams Gardens Wright StCatalina AveWashington StSaint James PlFigueroa WayPardee Menlo AveOak StPortland StFrancisco StGrand AveRoyal StCatalina St35th S t 33rd St 14th S t 15th S tGeorgia StGeorgia St35th St Menlo Ave8th P l Oak St35th P l 18th St 24th StCatalina St35th St 29th St 18th S t 21st St 20th S t 30th St 14th S t 32nd S tMagnolia AveHope StToberman StLebanon St33rd St 28th S t 36th S t 25th S t 22nd St Wall StEllendale Pl35th S t 24th St 8th Pl New Hampshire Ave17th St 23rd St 31st St 22nd S tValencia StHoover St27th St 20th S t 17th St Georgia St22nd S t 27th S t Hope St15th St 18th S t 29th St 38th St Bixel StBlaine St17th S t 28th S t 32nd S tToberman StEllendale Pl20th St Hope St11th St Arapahoe St21st S t Santee StMaple AveHope St17th St 30th St 12th St 22nd S t 31st St 24th S tPembrok e LnBixel St36th P l 21st StMenlo Ave24th St 24th St 17th St 28th StBonnie Brae StMenlo Ave37th St 12th St Catalina St31st St 23rd St Wall St22nd S t Wall StOlive St20th StBurlington Ave18th St 27th StOrchard Ave36th StBonnie Brae St12th S t 22nd St Wall St29th StCatalina St35th St 32nd S t Budlong AveTrinity St25th St 33rd St 25th S t Hope St15th S tMenlo Ave22nd St 29th St 37th P lBudlong Ave37th Pl 20th StMagnolia Ave21st St27th StBerendo StExposition Blvd 14th S t 18th St 23rd St 25th St Orchard Ave14th St 35th St 25th St 21st St 25th St 28th S t 33rd St 28th St 27th St §¨¦110 §¨¦10 §¨¦710 §¨¦10 §¨¦405 §¨¦110 §¨¦210£¤101 UV42 UV72 UV19 UV2 Legend Limited Access Higwhay Highway Ramps Local Roads Field-to-Laboratory Sites City of Los Angeles Boundary Figure A2 Field-to-Laboratory Catch Basin Insert Sites 0 0.50.25 Miles - GeoSyntec ConsultantsMay 2005 15th S t Main StHill St16th S tBroadway Maple AveWashingt o n BlvdLos Angeles StOlive StPico Blvd 12th S t Trinity St21st St Venice Blvd 14th S t 23rd St Grand AveWall St18th S t 20th St 17th S t 14th P l 22nd S t Myrtle StSan Pedro StSantee St24th S t Saint Josephs PlSan Julian StAdair StStanford AveHope St11th S t 18th S t 21st St Maple AveWall StWall StSantee St14th P l 15th St 14th S t San Julian St24th St 23rd St 22nd S t San Pedro St20th StWall StAdair St17th St FL-004-F FL-003-F FL-003-D FL-004-C FL-003-C FL-003-H2 10 Hill StMain St7th S t Flower St8th S t 6th S tBroadway Olive StFigueroa StGrand Ave4th S t 12th S t Alameda StCentral AveHoover St16th S t Adam s Blvd 9th S t 3rd S t 30th S t Washingt o n Blvd 14th S tLos Angeles St1st S t Maple AveVenice B lvd San Pedro StSpring St31st S t 2nd S t Crocker St18th S t Hooper AvePico Bl vd 21st S tUnion AveJeffer s on B l vd 23rd StSantee StGriffith AveLake StAlbany StSan Julian St14th P l 37th S t 29th S t Trinity StWilshire B l vd 12th P l Towne AveAlvarado St32nd S t 20th S t Ol y m p i c B lv d 28th S t Jame s M W ood B lvd Long Beach Ave33rd St 11th P l 35th S t 10th S tWestlake AveStanford AveNewton St Paloma StTe m pl e S t Oak StCherry StCompton Ave36th S t Lawrence St22nd St 11th S tBeacon AveLebanon St15th S tKohler St17th S t 27th S tBurlington AveBixel StNaomi AveGladys Ave38th St 25th S t 24th S t Wins ton S t Rose StPortland StMargo StHope St5th S t Wall StValencia StTarleton StBonsallo AveMyrtle StToberman StAlvarado Ter 9th P l McGarry StPembroke LnW erdin P l29th P l Georgia St27th S t Wall StMaple Ave36th S t 29th S t 23rd St 21st S t San Pedro StOlym p i c B lvdHope St14th S t 22nd S t 25th S t 27th S t 15th S t 28th S t 18th S t 22nd S t 32nd S t 18th S t Grand Ave23rd St110 10 Legend Field-to-Laboratory Sites Local Roads Limited Access Higwhay Highway Ramps Figure A4 Aerial View of East Field-to-Laboratory Catch Basin Insert Sites 0 1,000500 Feet GeoSyntec ConsultantsMay 2005 0 10.5 Miles APPENDIX B - FIELD INSPECTION PHOTOS AND NOTES Area 1 - Site A Photo looking east from FL-001-D Intersection Washington Blvd. & Walton Ave. 1234567 1112131415 1 2 3 4 5LT A 4 16 17 18 2 1 61 60LT A62 2019 0181901823 01825 01821 0182301825 01827 0181601820 01822 U017220171601710017060170001709016970169601694016880168601684016820167401668016640166001685016830167016701671 1/2016670166301826 01824 01820 1/2 01824 1/2 01826 01827 51715171246111104351712461111045 5171246111105351712461111054 5171246111106251712461111063 Plan Number :Plan N B1 95uPlan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :BERENDO STBERENDO STBERENDO STBERENDO STBERENDO STCATALINA STCATALINA STCATALINA STCATALINA STCATALINA STWALTON AVEWALTON AVEWALTON AVEWALTON AVEWALTON AVEFL-001-C FL-0001-F No. of Installations 4 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth FL-001-D DrainPac 380519 3767123 3.5 3.2 3 FL-001-F Flogard+Plus 380466 3767357 3.5 3.2 3 FL-001-C Curb Inlet Basket 380532 3767363 3.5 3.2 3.5 CC-001-H Hydro-Kleen 380530 3767336 3.5 3.2 3.1 Site : CC-001-H Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) HydroKleen Date inspected: 12/11/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Notice the missing cover and damaged inlet. CC-001-H FL-001-D B2 Site : CC-001-H Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) HydroKleen Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: After a few storm events this device appears to be in good working order. Notice the missing concrete cover has been replaced. B3 Site : CC-001-H Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) HydroKleen Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: This site had a significant amount of trash inside the catch basin prior to installation. Now the insert is capturing nearly all of the trash. This was previously a field-to-laboratory site that was switched due to installation timing conflicts. Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: Significant oily sediment and debris present at the curb; evidence of blockage. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: It was raining during this visit to retrieve this insert. After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B4 Site : CC-001-H Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) HydroKleen Site : FL-001-D Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This is the first visit after installation and one storm event. Notice water flowing into catch basin appears to be coming from a roof drain. The bottom of this catch basin shows significant oil and grease on the ponded water surface The insert was removed from the catch basin and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory for testing during this site visit. B5 Site : FL-001-D Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Note this is not one of the inspections sites. These photos were taken just downstream (west) of the FL-001-D catch basin site. Notice the excessive amount of trash, including used motor oil and oil-soaked debris. Also note this basin had been cleaned by LADPW maintenance personnel only 1-2 months prior to this photo as indicated by the painted month and year. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B6 Site : FL-001-F Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: 12/11/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is downstream. The catch basin was relatively clean with minor dry weather flows. Note that this catch basin is inline with the storm drain system. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first site visit after one storm event. This insert was removed from the site and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory for testing. B7 Site : FL-001-F Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: Comments: This insert showed significant signs of sediment caking. The absorbent was hanging outside the insert. After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: During this visit the insert was cleaned and the media was replaced. Site : FL-001-C Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: 12/11/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is downstream. The bottom right photo shows resurfacing activities on Catalina Ave. Note that this catch basin is inline with the storm drain system. B8 Site : FL-001-C Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This is the first visit after installation and one storm event. An oil pan with automotive fluid was found at the inlet of this catch basin during this visit. No signs of oil inside the insert, but plenty of coarse sediment and some vegetative debris. The insert was removed from the catch basin and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory for testing during this site visit. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: During this visit, the insert showed significant signs of sediment accumulation and oily sediment. It also appeared to have recently bypassed. After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B9 Site : FL-001-C Location: Washington and Walton (Area 1 - Site A) Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: These photos were taken immediately after it was installed in preparation for the wet season. Area 1 - Site B Looking upstream (east) of CC-010-D Intersection Washington Blvd. & Vermont Ave. Vermont & Cordova U01832 01928 01821 01914 01830 01918 01832 01907 01824 01924 01827 U01824 01820 01900 01815 01936 01833 01814 01825 1-8 01922 01912 642016200 1/2016350157301640015710157601614015650163201654015780155001577 1/201638630 1/201611016370164401586016170158201637628 1/2016270161601633015870157901580U01627U01621016390161201636644 1/201558U0164901562015840158301925 01917 01926 01836 01944 01818 01923 01934 01820 01916 01908 01830 01909 01910 01940 01834 01815 1-8 01828 01920U01648 0162601628015890160601601016200160401600016080158501574015490162401618016530163101556016450163001610016150156120 4 6 3 22 7 21 6 16 10 3 9 1921 2 47 48 5 LT 2 49 4 17 8 9 11 LT 1 5 23 12 18 9 8 1 11 10 8 52 5053 4950 4854 5151 51712461111029 5171246111103051712461111034 51712461115171246111104051715171246111105051712461111051 51712461111060 51712461111072EY ALLEYWASHINGTOWASHINGTOWASHINGTOWASHINGTOWASHINGTOVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEVERMONT AVEWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVDWASHINGTON BLVD CORDOVA STCORDOVA STCORDOVA STCORDOVA STCORDOVA ST MENLO AVEMENLO AVEMENLO AVEMENLO AVEMENLO AVE No. of Installations 2 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-010-D DrainPac 380866 3767153 3.5 3.2 3.2 CC-012-H Hydro-Kleen 380849 3767053 3 3.2 5.7 Site : CC-010-D Location: Washington and Vermont Ave, SW (Area 1 - Site B) DrainPac Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream into the intersection. As shown in the figures, obviously this site is located in a very busy intersection with high trash loading. CC-012-H CC-010-D B10 B11 Site : CC-010-D Location: Washington and Vermont Ave, SW (Area 1 - Site B) DrainPac Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first site visit after installation. It was raining and appeared to be at full hydraulic capacity but still processing the flow. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Trash at lip of insert indicates bypass may have previously occurred. Standing water in insert slowly draining indicates the filter media is beginning to clog. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: This site was completely overwhelmed with trash during this visit. Subsequent events are likely to dislodge larger objects and floatables. B12 Site : CC-010-D Location: Washington and Vermont Ave, SW (Area 1 - Site B) DrainPac Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: The insert is now completely buried by trash. This device will be retired during the next site visit. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: Some of the trash that was in the insert has been removed and some bypass, but still lots of trash and debris. The insert was retired during this visit. B13 Site : CC-012-H Location: Vermont, N of Cordova, West side (Area 1 - Site B) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. This deep catch basin had a significant amount of trash. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: This insert was installed in the second week of February. After about a week and a half, there is already significant trash and debris with signs of bypass. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: After another month in the field this insert has nearly reached its trash loading capacity. B14 Site : CC-012-H Location: Vermont, N of Cordova, West side (Area 1 - Site B) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: The insert is now overflowing with trash and should be retired during the next site visit. Area 1 - Site C Looking toward intersection from Burlington Ave. (south) Intersection 18th St. & Burlington Ave. 51609461111125 51609461111126 51609461111134 51609461111147 516094611 51609461 51609461111155 51609461111157 51609461111 51609461111160 Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Number :Plan Number :17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD No. of Installations 2 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-003-H Hydro-Kleen 381658 3767369 3.5 3.2 2.8 CC-003-F Flogard+Plus 381649 3767368 3.5 3.2 3 Site : CC-003-H Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, S corner (Area 1 - Site C) HydroKleen Date inspected: 12/11/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream to the intersection. All residential area. Little trash and debris in catch basin. CC-003-F CC-003-H B15 B16 Site : CC-003-H Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, S corner (Area 1 - Site C) HydroKleen Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: As intended by the design, notice the standing water in the sedimentation chamber and the captured trash and debris in the filtration chamber. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: There was less water during this visit, but there is evidence of recent high flow bypass with the sediment residue on the lid and lip of the insert. The media appears to be beginning to clog. B17 Site : CC-003-H Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, S corner (Area 1 - Site C) HydroKleen Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: The insert is completely full and the media is likely clogged. The insert will be retired during the next site visit. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: As before, this insert was filled with material during this visit. The trash was removed for laboratory analysis. This site was converted to an FL site for the next wet season. B18 Site : CC-003-H Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, S corner (Area 1 - Site C) HydroKleen Site : CC-003-F Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, N corner (Area 1 - Site C) Flo-Gard Plus Date inspected: 12/11/03 Comments: This was the initial site inspection prior to insert installation. Notice the relatively small amount of trash and debris inside the catch basin. B19 Site : CC-003-F Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, N corner (Area 1 - Site C) Flo-Gard Plus Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: These pictures were taken during an actual storm event. Notice bypass flows along the lip and down the side of the insert. Also notice the absorbent boom floating at the surface of the insert; which is the intention of the design. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Notice the significantly greater amount of trash and debris since the last inspection. B20 Site : CC-003-F Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, N corner (Area 1 - Site C) Flo-Gard Plus Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: The insert is now shown nearly at full capacity. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: The insert cannot hold anymore trash. Any further loadings will bypass. Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: The material in this insert was removed during this visit. New media was inserted and it was converted to an FL site. B21 Site : CC-003-F Location: 18th and Burlington Ave, N corner (Area 1 - Site C) Flo-Gard Plus Area 1 - Site D Looking upstream (southeast) of FL-008-D Intersection 23rd St & Portland St No. of Installations 3 516134611110815161346111108351613461111082 516134611110863461111087 51613461111090 51613461111092 51613461111093 51613461111095 51613461111096 51613461111100 51613461 5161346Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :TOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN STTOBERMAN ST23RD23RD 23RD 23RD23RD SCARFF STSCARFF STSCARFF STSCARFF STSCARFF STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND STPORTLAND ST23RD ST 23RD ST 23RD ST 23RD ST 23RD ST FL-008-D CC-008-C FL-008-H Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-008-C Curb Inlet Basket 381765 3766656 3.5 3.2 2.7 FL-008-D DrainPac 381851 3766453 3.2 3.5 3.0 FL-008-H Hydro-Kleen 381758 3766660 3.5 3.2 2.7 Site : CC-008-C Location: 23rd and Portland, East Side (Area 1 - Site D) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. Nearby deciduous trees appear to deliver excessive leafy debris to this catch basin. B22 B23 Site : CC-008-C Location: 23rd and Portland, East Side (Area 1 - Site D) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: First site visit after installation and one storm event. Some trash and debris accumulation, but still plenty of capacity. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Compared to the last inspection, the insert has accumulated significant trash and debris. It now appears to be near capacity and probably should be retired. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: As before, this insert is full and is beginning to overflow with trash. B24 Site : CC-008-C Location: 23rd and Portland, East Side (Area 1 - Site D) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: This insert was retired during this visit. Site : FL-008-D Location: 23rd and Portland, NE on 23rd (Area 1 - Site D) DrainPac Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. B25 Site : FL-008-D Location: 23rd and Portland, NE on 23rd (Area 1 - Site D) DrainPac Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first inspection of this site. Notice the device has accumulated significant trash for only one storm event. This was originally a CC site, but was changed to an FL site due to installation timing conflicts. Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: This FL insert was installed during this visit in preparation for the wet season. B26 Site : FL-008-D Location: 23rd and Portland, NE on 23rd (Area 1 - Site D) DrainPac Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B27 Site : FL-008-D Location: 23rd and Portland, NE on 23rd (Area 1 - Site D) DrainPac Site : FL-008-H Location: 23rd and Portland, NE on 23rd (Area 1 - Site D) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. There is evidence of significant trash loading to this catch basin as shown in the photo. B28 Site : FL-008-H Location: 23rd and Portland, NE on 23rd (Area 1 - Site D) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: Notice the standing water. This device is actually designed to have standing water in the first chamber to allow for settling. This was originally a CC site, but was changed to an FL site due to installation timing conflicts. It was removed and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory during this visit. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: After a few months in the field this insert did not show significant accumulation. After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. Area 1 - Site E Looking upstream (southeast) Intersection Washington Blvd & Bonsallo Ave. 5 6 49 50 4 3 51 52 19 20 1 3 4 5 5 2 U01917 01912 01914 U0191100 759007570075500801008130081900823U00725U0073500749007470075100745U00828008300 6U00810 008060080000720U0071651613461313186 51613461313027 51613461111031 51613461111034 51613461111036 51613461111039 51613461313040 51613461313046 51613461111051 5161346131318Plan NuPlan Nu m be r :Plan Number :Plan Number : Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number : Plan Number : Plan Number : Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :BONSALLO AVEBONSALLO AVEBONSALLO AVEBONSALLO AVEBONSALLO AVEWASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD No. of Installations 1 19 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth FL-006-H Hydro-Kleen 382356 3766644 3.5 3.2 3.0 B29 Site : FL-006-H Location: Washington Blvd & Bonsallo Ave. (Area 1 - Site E) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. Bottom left picture is looking down Bonsallo Ave. Notice the large amount of trash and debris within the catch basin. FL-006-H B30 Site : FL-006-H Location: Washington Blvd & Bonsallo Ave. (Area 1 - Site E) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This installation utilizes a weir to route flows into the insert because the inlet width is wider than the insert width. Majority of the flows at this site were found to bypass the insert during this storm event. The insert was removed and transported to the laboratory for testing. Note that the lip of the insert had to be trimmed and notched to fit in this catch basin. It was sealed using black caulking. Thus, upon reinstallation the insert should again be caulked to minimize the chance for bypass. 537014611110175370146111101853701461111020 53701461111026 53701461111027 53701461111028 5 53701461111041 5370146111104253701461111046 Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number : P la n Nu m be r :Plan Number :Plan NumPlan Number :Plan Number :27TH ST 27TH ST 27TH ST 27TH ST 27TH ST FLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STADAMS BLVD ADAMS BLVD ADAMS BLVD ADAMS BLVD ADAMS BLVD Looking across the intersection from the north east corner. Looking across intersection from southeast corner. Intersection Figueroa St. & Adams Blvd. No. of Installations 4 CC-014-D CC-014-D2 CC-014-C2 CC-014-C Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-014-C2 Curb Inlet Basket 382170 3766022 3.5 3.2 3.3 CC-014-C Curb Inlet Basket 382226 3766007 7 3.2 5.9 CC-014-D DrainPac 382274 3765843 7 3.2 4.6 CC-014-D2 DrainPac 38220 3766028 7 3.1 4 B31 B32 Site : CC-014-C Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right photo is looking downstream. This catch basin is at a bus stop that gets a lot of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: First site visit since installation indicates significant trash loadings at this site. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Notice this site exhibits very high sediment loadings and evidence of oil and grease. B33 Site : CC-014-C Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: After just two months, this insert is completely filled with mostly anthropogenic refuse and sediment. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: Additional trash has accumulated in the insert and on the sedimentation shelf. This insert should be retired during the next site visit. B34 Site : CC-014-C Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: The insert at this busy intersection has received lots of trash and sediment. The media shown in the lip of the insert appears deflated indicating the absorbent material has been lost during operation. Significant sediment build-up on weir indicates coarse sediment removal is occurring. B35 Site : CC-014-C Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb-Inlet Basket Site : CC-014-C2 Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right photo is looking downstream toward the intersection. Significant trash and debris loads present at site. Notice the catch basin outlet appears to be nearly clogged. Site : CC-014-C2 Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: First site visit since installation. As compared to CC- 014-C across the street, this site contains more leaf litter and sediment than human-generated trash. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: More trash and debris has accumulated since last visit and some has bypassed insert, but still appears to be slightly below capacity. B36 Site : CC-014-C2 Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: The insert is now at capacity and should be cleaned prior to the next wet season. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: As before, this insert is full and needs to be cleaned. The last cleaning of this catch basin appears to have been Sept. 2003. Notice the build-up of sediment and growth of weeds at the inlet of this catch basin. B37 Site : CC-014-C2 Location: Adams and Figueroa St (Area 1 - Site F) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: This insert receives mostly sediment, leaves, and pine needles. The media appears to be "deflated" indicating the absorbent material was lost during operation. It was retired after this inspection. Site : CC-014-D Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right photo is looking downstream toward the intersection. This site is located at a bus stop. B38 B39 Site : CC-014-D Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first site visit after installation. The photo on the top left is a "birds-eye" view of the insert. Notice there is still some water from the previous day's storm event. The photo on the top left shows the relatively clean catch basin bottom due to the high capture rate of the insert. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Compared to the last inspection there is significantly more trash and debris, but the insert still has capacity and appears to be functioning properly. Only a small amount of bypass is indicated by the limited amount of debris at the bottom of the catch basin. B40 Site : CC-014-D Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: Since the last visit a lot more trash has accumulated in the insert and is now nearly at capacity. B41 Site : CC-014-D Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Site : CC-014-D2 Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right photo is looking downstream toward the intersection. This site is located at a bus stop. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This is the first inspection after installation and it appears to be functioning well. B42 Site : CC-014-D2 Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: After nearly two months, this insert is still functioning well and has remaining capacity. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: More trash and debris have accumulated since the last visit. However, it appears to still have some remaining capacity. B43 Site : CC-014-D2 Location: Figueroa St and Adams (Area 1 - Site F) DrainPac Area 1 - Site G Northwest corner of 18th and Flower St. Intersection 18th St. & Flower St. No. of Installations 2 51614461313047 516144613151614461313049 516144613130 51614461313065 51614461111067 516144613130705161446131328351614461111071 5161446131328151614461313282 51614461351614461111079 5 51614461111086 51614 5161446111128 Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :FIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANEPEMBROKE LANELEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON STLEBANON ST18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST 18TH ST CC-007-F CC-007-C Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-007-C Curb Inlet Basket 382871 3766585 3.5 3.0 6.5 CC-007-F Flogard+Plus 382771 3766801 3.5 3.2 3.5 B44 Site : CC-007-C Location: 18th and Flower St., South East Corner (Area 1 - Site G) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. B45 Site : CC-007-C Location: 18th and Flower St., South East Corner (Area 1 - Site G) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This visit occurred about a week after installation. Notice the oil collecting on the surface of the absorbent boom. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: As compared to the last inspection, this insert has received a significant amount of oil; probably from a direct illicit discharge of used motor oil. Notice the puddle of oil on the lip of this insert. B46 Site : CC-007-C Location: 18th and Flower St., South East Corner (Area 1 - Site G) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: This insert is no longer visible due to the excessive trash and debris. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: As before, this insert is completely overwhelmed with trash and needs to be cleaned. It should be retired during the next site visit. B47 Site : CC-007-C Location: 18th and Flower St., South East Corner (Area 1 - Site G) Curb Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: The presence of standing water indicates that this insert is clogged. It was retired after this visit. B48 Site : CC-007-C Location: 18th and Flower St., South East Corner (Area 1 - Site G) Curb Inlet Basket Site : CC-007-F Location: 18th St. & Flower St, Southwest corner (Area 1 - Site G) FloGard Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. This is a shallow catch basin with a relatively small amount of trash deposition. B49 Site : CC-007-F Location: 18th St. & Flower St, Southwest corner (Area 1 - Site G) FloGard Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: Standing water indicates the filter media may be beginning to clog. Notice the floating absorbent boom of amorphous alumina silicate in the picture on the left. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Not much changed from last inspection except the standing water had drained and there was slightly more trash and debris. B50 Site : CC-007-F Location: 18th St. & Flower St, Southwest corner (Area 1 - Site G) FloGard Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: The insert appears to have reached its trash holding capacity and probably should be retired. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: As before, this insert appears to be at capacity and is currently overflowing with trash. Much of the trash appears to have been transported by wind rather than runoff. B51 Site : CC-007-F Location: 18th St. & Flower St, Southwest corner (Area 1 - Site G) FloGard Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: Appears that significant trash has bypassed the insert. It was retired after this visit. Area 1 - Site H Looking upstream (~north) of CC-009F Intersection 20th St & Flower St No. of Installations 2 516144611111265161446111112751614461111129 51614461111287 5161446111113451614461111138 51614461111148 51614461111157 51614461111162 516144611111 51614461111172 64 51614461111179 51614461111185 516144611111896144611111905161446111128951614461111192 51614461111195 5161446111120051614461111201 5161446111120351614461111205 51614461111207 51614461111214 51614461111217 51614461111219 51614461111221 51614461111224 51614451614461111226Plan Number :Plan Number :Pl anr :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number : Plan Number : NumbeNumber Plan Number :Plan Number :FLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER STFLOWER ST21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STFIGUEROA STIGUEROA STIGUEROA STIGUEROA STIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STFIGUEROA STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STHOPE STWASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVD WASHINGTON BLVDACCCECC CC-009-F CC-009-D Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-009-D DrainPac 382592 3766501 3.5 3.2 3.7 CC-009-F Flogard+Plus 382699 3766287 3.2 3.5 5 Site : CC-009-D Location: 20th and Flower St., West Side (Area 1 - Site H) DrainPac Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. B52 B53 Site : CC-009-D Location: 20th and Flower St., West Side (Area 1 - Site H) DrainPac Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: Notice the insert is nearly at its flow capacity during this runoff event, but is still passing the flow. B54 Site : CC-009-D Location: 20th and Flower St., West Side (Area 1 - Site H) DrainPac Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Very little accumulation of trash since last site visit. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: There doesn't appear to be a lot of trash, but notice the build-up of fine sediment on the surface of the filter. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: As compared to the last visit, a significant amount of trash has accumulated in the insert, but it still has remaining capacity. Some wind-blown trash appears to have bypassed the unit. B55 Site : CC-009-D Location: 20th and Flower St., West Side (Area 1 - Site H) DrainPac Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: Mostly sediment in this insert. Appears to have been cleaned since last visit. Site : CC-009-F Location: 20th and Flower St., East Side (Area 1 - Site H) Flo-Gard Site : CC-009-F Location: 20th and Flower St., East Side (Area 1 - Site H) Flo-Gard Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: These pictures were taken during an actual event. The effluent from the insert was relatively clean and the inlet bottom was also relatively clean B56 Site : CC-009-F Location: 20th and Flower St., East Side (Area 1 - Site H) Flo-Gard Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Notice the absorbent boom has nearly floated out of the device. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: A later inspection reveals the debris is still trapped in the insert. The upper portion of the insert appears to be less effective for trapping sediment and small debris, so this insert is at capacity even though it may not appear full. Also, the absorbent is not likely providing much treatment with the way it is hanging out of the basket. B57 Site : CC-009-F Location: 20th and Flower St., East Side (Area 1 - Site H) Flo-Gard Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: The absorbent with this insert appears to have been dislodged. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: As compared to the last visit, this insert appears have been cleaned and is in good working condition. B58 Site : CC-009-F Location: 20th and Flower St., East Side (Area 1 - Site H) Flo-Gard B59 Area 1 - Site I Looking west from across the street from CC-0130F Looking south toward CC-003-H2 from Main Intersection 22nd St and Broadway St. 22nd St. & Main. 0 0212 02100 0202205 0 02207 02111 02121 021 02101 02107 02118 U0012300140U0011500118U00117001460011500116U00135001200011900117141 1/2U0011400125001214 11 13 7 8 6 9 3 2 5 5 7 4 2 12 9 10 1 3 6 B60 3 3 8 1 4 35370246 53702461111006 53702461111007 53702461111009 53702461111013MAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN ST22ND ST 22ND ST 22ND ST 22ND ST 22ND ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 1111005 STSTSTSTST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST ST 21ST STBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAYBROADWAY S BROADWAYS BROADWAYS BROADWAYS BROADWAYS BROADWAYNo. of Installations 2 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-013-F Flogard+Plus 383060 3765882 3.5 3.2 3.4 CC-003-H2 Hydro-Kleen 383159 3765836 3.6 3.5 2.7 Site : CC-013-F Location: 22nd and Broadway St., NW Corner (Area 1 - Site I) Flo-Gard Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking across the street toward the curb inlet. CC-003-H2 CC-013-F B61 Site : CC-013-F Location: 22nd and Broadway St., NW Corner (Area 1 - Site I) Flo-Gard Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first site visit after installation and one storm event. The insert is already nearly at capacity. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: About two weeks later, this site was already overwhelmed with leaves and trash. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Later inspections still show a lot of the leaves and trash were still trapped in the insert. The insert is completely full at this point and needs to be cleaned. B62 Site : CC-013-F Location: 22nd and Broadway St., NW Corner (Area 1 - Site I) Flo-Gard Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: As before, this insert is completely overwhelmed with trash and debris and needs to be retired. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: It was retired after this visit. B63 Site : CC-013-F Location: 22nd and Broadway St., NW Corner (Area 1 - Site I) Flo-Gard Site : CC-003-H2 Location: 22nd St. & Main (Area 1 - Site I) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right photo is looking downstream. Notice about a garbage bag worth of trash had been deposited in the catch basin. This site was originally an FL site, but was changed due to installation timing conflicts. B64 Site : CC-003-H2 Location: 22nd St. & Main (Area 1 - Site I) Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: The insert had not yet been installed at the time of this visit. Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: This site was only briefly inspected during this visit and has been inadvertently overlooked during subsequent site visits because it was thought to be an FL site. The catch basin was cleaned prior to installation of the insert. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B65 Site : CC-003-H2 Location: 22nd St. & Main (Area 1 - Site I) Hydro Kleen Area 1 - Site J Looking north from FL-003-C Intersection 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. 17th St. & Main St. No. of Installations 3 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth FL-003-D DrainPac 383386 3766539 3.5 3.2 3 FL-003-F Flogard+Plus 383452 3766626 3.5 3.2 3.6 FL-003-C Curb Inlet Basket 383550 3766421 3.5 3.2 3.0 Site : FL-003-C Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. There is a Chevron gas station on the corner that may be contributing to some of the runoff to this CB. 51614461111113 516144611111165161446111111851614461111119 51614461111123 5161446111114051614461111143 51614461111145 51614461111147 51614461111149 51614461111151 51614 51614461111161 51614461313165 51614461313171 Plan Num be r :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan NumPlan Number :Plan Number :MAIN STM AIN STMAIN STMAIN STMAIN STLOS ANGELES STLO S ANGELES STLOS ANGELES STLOS ANGELES STLOS ANGELES STBROADWAYBRO ADWAYBROADW AYBROADW AYBROADW AYVENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD VENICE BLVD 17T H ST 17T H ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 17T H ST 17T H ST 17TH ST FL-003-C FL-003-F FL-003-D B66 B67 Site : FL-003-C Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: Notice the coarse sand accumulating on the shelf of this insert. This may help reduce the chance of clogging, but the plastic bags are the overflow screen. Note the insert has been removed in the bottom picture for subsequent transport to the UCLA testing laboratory. B68 Site : FL-003-C Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/27/04 Comments: Note the insert has been removed for laboratory testing and only the debris shelf and mounting brackets remain. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: The contents of this insert were removed and a new absorbent was installed in preparation for the wet season. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: Since the last visit this insert shows significant accumulation of pine needles and sediment. After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B69 Site : FL-003-C Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) Curb-Inlet Basket B70 Site : FL-003-F Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) FloGard Plus Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. Notice the inlet to this CB has an expanded metal screen, so that only small debris and sediment makes it into the CB. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This is the first site visit after installation. Notice the relative minor amount of sediment and debris in this insert - mostly pine needles and sand. The bottom of the catch basin is clean. This insert was removed from the CB and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory during this visit. B71 Site : FL-003-F Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) FloGard Plus Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: As with many other sites with this insert, the absorbent media is sticking out of the insert. After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B72 Site : FL-003-F Location: 16th St. (Venice Blvd) & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) FloGard Plus Site : FL-003-D Location: 17th St. & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) DrainPac Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. This site apparently receives lots of leaf litter and street trash. Notice the outlet in the bottom photo is nearly clogged with debris. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This is the first site visit after installation and one rain event. Only a minor amount of debris was found in the insert. This insert was removed from the CB and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory during this visit. B73 B74 Site : FL-003-D Location: 17th St. & Main St. (Area 1 - Site J) DrainPac Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. Area 1 - Site K Looking east from west side of intersection. Intersection 15th and Maple St. to San Pedro St. 13 12 11 10 8 7 112 105 B75 98 91 84104 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 6 3 1 2 3 LT 111 12 13 14 15 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 "UNNUMBERED LT"6 9 9 3 26 2 1 32 01626 U0 01500 U01506 01602 U01370 01370 U014510041700421004230041500411U00529 00509U0063500449U00437U00443U00445014180142 01430 01428 01426 0050200424U00510005150050700505U00501U01371 00422 1/4 1/2 3/40041600506 1/2 3/4005040051400516U00518U0145 4 8 U0145 0145 0 014 01350 01360 00431U0043500439 1/201433 0143 1 0142901435U01441 5161546111111 51615461111116 51615461111119 51615461111122 5161546111113051615461111133 5161546111113751615461111139 51615461111147 5161546111114951615461111151 51615461111216 5161546111121551615461111155 51615461111160 51615463333166 51615463333167 3 1 68 51615463333172516154613131741175 51615461313179 51615463333182Number :Plan Number : Plan Number :WALL STWALL STWALL STWALL STWALL STMYRTLE STMYRTLE STMYRTLE STMYRTLE STMYRTLE ST16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST SAN PEDRO STSAN PEDRO STSAN PEDRO STSAN PEDRO STSAN PEDRO ST16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST AN PEDRO STAN PEDRO STAN PEDRO STAN PEDRO STAN PEDRO ST15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH ST 15TH STSAN JULIAN STSAN JULIAN STSAN JULIAN STSAN JULIAN STSAN JULIAN STCC-004-H No. of Installations 4 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-004-D DrainPac 383876 3766430 7 4.3 3.1 FL-004-F Flogard+Plus 383940 3766382 3.6 3.2 3.6 FL-004-C Curb Inlet Basket 384034 3766333 3.5 3.2 3.6 CC-004-H Hydro-Kleen 383800 3766465 3.5 3.2 3.3 Site : CC-004-D Location: 15th and Wall St. (Area 1, Site K) DrainPac Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. This was originally an FL site, but was changed to a CC site because the inlet was 7' and the laboratory is set up for 3.5' wide inserts. FL-004-C FL-004-F CC-004-D B76 Site : CC-004-D Location: 15th and Wall St. (Area 1, Site K) DrainPac Date inspected: 1/30/04 Comments: Couple of days after installation. No debris inside of insert. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Still relatively clean since last visit; significant capacity remaining. B77 Site : CC-004-D Location: 15th and Wall St. (Area 1, Site K) DrainPac Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: This inserts has not received much additional trash and debris since last inspection and is still well below capacity. Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: As before, this site received a relatively small amount of debris. This site was retired after this visit. B78 Site : CC-004-H Location: 15th and Maple St. (Area 1, Site K) HydroKleen Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. Note that black widows were observed in this catch basin. This site originally was to be an FL site, but it was decided that the screen would not allow for a good comparison between technologies that do not have screens. The overburden of trash loadings now observed for nearly all of the sites indicates that sites with these screens may be among the best for evaluating the performance of catch basin inserts at removing fine sediment and oil and grease. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: This is the only site that already had a curb screen. Notice how clean the insert is with mostly only water and oil in the sedimentation chamber of the insert. B79 Site : CC-004-H Location: 15th and Maple St. (Area 1, Site K) HydroKleen Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: This insert is still relatively clean and the standing water has nearly all evaporated. This indicates the curb side screen is a very effective method for keeping catch basin inserts in working order. B80 Site : CC-004-H Location: 15th and Maple St. (Area 1, Site K) HydroKleen Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: As before, this site showed limited trash accumulation, indicating the effectiveness of the trash screen. Site : FL-004-C Location: 15th and San Julian St. (Area 1, Site K) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. This catch basin is located across the street from the LA Unified School District bus storage yard. Notice this catch basin is in-line with the B81 Site : FL-004-C Location: 15th and San Julian St. (Area 1, Site K) Curb-Inlet Basket storm drain system (e.g., there are both inlet and outlet pipes) and there is evidence of dry-weather flows. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: Couple of days after installation and one storm event. Notice the school bus parked in next to curb in the top right photo. This street gets lots of school bus traffic because the LACUSD properties nearby. The bottom left photo shows the shelf and mounting bracket of the insert after removal. The insert was subsequently taken to the UCLA laboratory for testing. B82 Site : FL-004-C Location: 15th and San Julian St. (Area 1, Site K) Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: During this inspection it was noted that the City had installed one of their complete capture devices. Luckily, our insert was compatible with this design and did not get removed. B83 Site : FL-004-C Location: 15th and San Julian St. (Area 1, Site K) Curb-Inlet Basket B84 Site : FL-004-F Location: 15th and Myrtle St. (Area 1 - Site K) Flo-Gard Plus Date inspected: 12/10/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. This is an inline catch basin with a small amount of trash and minor dry weather flow. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: First site visit after installation and one storm event. This catch basin appears to have only received a small amount of trash and debris. The insert was removed and subsequently transported to the UCLA laboratory for testing. B85 Site : FL-004-F Location: 15th and Myrtle St. (Area 1 - Site K) Flo-Gard Plus Date inspected: 10/21/04 Comments: The insert at this site was removed by the City and replaced with one of their complete capture devices. Date inspected: 03/22/05 Comments: After this visit, this insert was taken to the laboratory for its final tests. B86 Site : FL-004-F Location: 15th and Myrtle St. (Area 1 - Site K) Flo-Gard Plus Area 2 - Site L Looking upstream (east) Intersection 6th St. & Mateo St. No. of Installations 2 B87 Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-011-D DrainPac 386309 3766893 7 2.2 (bottom) 4.6 (top) 6.7 CC-011-F Flogard+Plus 386226 3767081 7 2.8 5.9 551509461111098 51509461111113 51509461111135 51509462121116 5150946111111851509461111119 51509461111136 an Number :Plan Number :umber : Plan Number :Plan Number WILLOW STWILLOW STWILLOW STWILLOW STWILLOW STMATEO STMATEO STMATEO STMATEO STMATEO STSANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANTA FE AVESANSANTA FSANTASANTASANTAIMPERIAL STIMPERIAL STIMPERIAL STIMPERIAL STIMPERIAL STMATEO STMATEO STMATEO STMATEO STMATEO ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST 6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST 6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST6TH ST CONWAYCONWAYCONWAYCONWAYCONWAYCC-011-D CC-011-F Site : CC-011-D Location: 6th and Mateo St. (Area 2 - Site L) DrainPac Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top two photos are looking upstream; Middle left is looking downstream. Note all runoff to this site is roadway runoff. B88 Site : CC-011-D Location: 6th and Mateo St. (Area 2 - Site L) DrainPac Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first site visit after installation. Some trash was present, but not nearly at capacity. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Significant trash and debris captured in the insert since last visit. Appears to be at capacity and should be cleaned before the next wet season. B89 Site : CC-011-D Location: 6th and Mateo St. (Area 2 - Site L) DrainPac Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: More trash and debris have accumulated in this insert. It probably should be retired during the next site visit. B90 Site : CC-011-D Location: 6th and Mateo St. (Area 2 - Site L) DrainPac Site : CC-011-F Location: 6th and Mateo St., South East Corner (Area 2 - Site L) FloGard Date inspected: 10/24/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top two photos are looking upstream; Middle left is looking downstream. All runoff to this site is roadway runoff. Notice the amount of trash deposited in the catch basin is much less than the catch basin across the street. B91 Site : CC-011-F Location: 6th and Mateo St., South East Corner (Area 2 - Site L) FloGard Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This was the first site visit after installation and one storm event. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Notice the upstream insert has collected significantly more trash and debris than the downstream insert, indicating that runoff is the primary transport mechanism. However, wind transport appears to also contribute significantly. B92 Site : CC-011-F Location: 6th and Mateo St., South East Corner (Area 2 - Site L) FloGard Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: Since the last visit, not much additional trash and debris have accumulated in the insert. Nonetheless, it is nearly at capacity and should be retired. Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: As compared to the last visit, this insert appears to have been cleaned, but still a significant amount of debris had been captured. B93 Site : CC-011-F Location: 6th and Mateo St., South East Corner (Area 2 - Site L) FloGard Area 2 - Site M Looking toward intersection from Santa Fe (looking North) Intersection Santa Fe & Violet SE No. of Installations 1 Measurements (see Figure 2) B94 Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-007-H Hydro-Kleen 386536 3766241 7.0 3.0 4.0 Site : CC-007-H Location: Santa Fe and Violet, South East Corner (Area 2 - Site M) HydroKleen Date inspected: 10/21/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. Notice the damage to the 7' curb inlet. AVE00800 00806 U00805 U00809 U0U0U00200825 00821 U02034U02038U02042U00817 U00813 00829 00827 U00814 00816 00820 00826 00900 00910 U00912 U00905 0090900911 0091300915 U00919 02117U02035U020390204500810 02116U009160205151513461111093 51513461111096 51513461111102 51513461111104Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :Plan Number :VIOLET STVIOLET STVIOLET STVIOLET STVIOLET ST CC-007-H B95 Site : CC-007-H Location: Santa Fe and Violet, South East Corner (Area 2 - Site M) HydroKleen Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: Two devices were placed in this catch basin to accommodate the larger opening. It appears runoff is reaching both inserts, but the floatable debris is accumulating more on the upstream end (top left photo). Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: Evidence of by-pass shown by plastic bag hanging over the top of the insert. B96 Site : CC-007-H Location: Santa Fe and Violet, South East Corner (Area 2 - Site M) HydroKleen Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: Without our knowledge, the insert has been removed and replaced with this trash screening device by the City. Wing Tam is trying to locate our insert so that we can take it to the UCLA laboratory for its final analysis. B97 Site : CC-007-H Location: Santa Fe and Violet, South East Corner (Area 2 - Site M) HydroKleen Area 2 - Site N Looking across street from 004-C (southeast) Intersection Mission Rd. & Griffin Ave. No. of Installations 2 2 2 19 20 21 22 3456 7 8 9 5 7 L T 11 6 4 89 10 2 1 121 1A 017150171701719 01727 01722 01724 U01713 U01721 01219012370 1 3 3 0 0 1 3 3 60131019301321 0 1 3 0 0 U01233012250122101313013170 1 3 0 8 01711 0130101716 49514449514461111130 49514461111160 49514461111135 49514461111137 49514461111161 Plan Number :Pl an Number : Pl an N u m b e r :Plan Number :Pl an Numb e r : P la n N u m b e r :Plan Number :Plan Nu m ber :MISSION ROADMISSION ROADMISSION ROADMISSION ROADMISSION ROADM IS SIO N R O A D M ISS IO N R O A D M IS S IO N R O AD M IS S IO N R O AD M IS S IO N R O AD M ISS IO N R O A D M IS S IO N R O A D M IS S IO N R O A D M IS S IO N R O A D M IS S IO N R O A D CC-004-F CC-004-C Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-004-C Curb Inlet Basket 388302 3769613 7 3.1 3.3 CC-004-F Flogard+Plus 388208 3769792 7 3.1 5 Site : CC-004-C Location: Mission and Griffin Ave., NE Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 10/20/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. B98 B99 Site : CC-004-C Location: Mission and Griffin Ave., NE Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This visit was shortly after installation. Date inspected: 3-23-04 Comments: Sediment and pine needle debris have completely filled this insert. However, there is no evidence of clogging or significant bypass. B100 Site : CC-004-C Location: Mission and Griffin Ave., NE Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: This insert has recently been cleaned. Notice the absorbent boom is no longer present; probably due to vactor truck. Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: This insert appears to have been recently cleaned and the absorbent boom removed. B101 Site : CC-004-F Location: Mission and Griffin Ave., NW Corner Flo-Gard Date inspected: 10/20/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top left photo is looking upstream; top right is looking downstream. There was about 1 garbage bag of trash present in the bottom of the catch basin during this visit. Notice the location of this catch basin is on the edge of the road, not in the middle as shown in the location map above. Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This visit was shortly after installation. The installation consists of two Flo-Gard Plus inserts side-by-side to cover the entire 7' curb opening. B102 Site : CC-004-F Location: Mission and Griffin Ave., NW Corner Flo-Gard Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: As with the one across the street, this insert is filled with pine needles almost to capacity, but notice only the upstream insert is at capacity. Date inspected: 6/30/04 Comments: Similar to the one across the street, this insert was recently cleaned as indicated by the month and year painted on the curb. However, both installations are at full capacity indicating the insert was not actually cleaned. B103 Site : CC-004-F Location: Mission and Griffin Ave., NW Corner Flo-Gard Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: The upstream insert was at capacity during this visit and the downstream insert about half full. The insert was removed and the contents extracted for laboratory sieve analysis. Area 2 - Site O Looking upstream from 002-H (east) Intersection Mc Clure St. & San Fernando Rd. No. of Installations 2 MC CLURE ST 7 8 9 10 11 U00652 U00656 U00650 U00636 00646 00648 U00658 U02611U02615U02606U02610U02614U0262049501461111113 49501461111115 49501467171002 49501 1004 Pl an Number :D-221Plan Number :D-221 Plan Number :D-221 Plan Number :D-30636Pl an Number :D-221AVENUE 27AVENUE 27AVENUE 27AVENUE 27AVENUE 27CC-002-C FL-002-H Measurements (see Figure 2) Inlet Number Technology Type Easting Northing A-Curb Opening B-Drain inside width C-Drain inside depth CC-002-C Curb Inlet Basket 386929 3772531 3.4 3.2 3.4 FL-002-H Hydro-Kleen 387010 3772343 3.7 3.2 3.3 Site : CC-002-C Location: McClure and San Fernando Rd., S Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 12/11/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Top photos are looking upgradient. Auto repair shop across the street; appears to be parking customer's vehicles on street in front off catch basin. B104 B105 Site : CC-002-C Location: McClure and San Fernando Rd., S Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: This site has high sediment and O&G loads. Oil was flowing in the gutter and into this insert during the visit. The picture on the right was taken a few days after installation. Date inspected: 3/23/04 Comments: This insert at this site has collected a lot of sediment and oily residue appears on the absorbent boom and the captured sediment. B106 Site : CC-002-C Location: McClure and San Fernando Rd., S Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Date inspected: 6/03/04 Comments: This insert has recently been cleaned by the LADPW staff. Notice the absorbent boom is no longer present. The media may have been sucked out with a vactor truck. Date inspected: 10/22/04 Comments: This insert was retired after this visit. B107 Site : CC-002-C Location: McClure and San Fernando Rd., S Corner Curb-Inlet Basket Site : FL-002-H Location: McClure and San Fernando Rd., N Corner Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 10/23/03 Comments: Initial site visit. Notice the large amount of leaf matter collected in the catch basin. A car repair shop is located next to this site. Top right picture is looking upstream; top bottom picture. Note that this site was originally a CC site, but was changed to an FL site due to installation timing conflicts. B108 Site : FL-002-H Location: McClure and San Fernando Rd., N Corner Hydro Kleen Date inspected: 2/4/04 Comments: First site visit after installation and a single storm event. The insert was installed backwards with the filtration chamber before the sedimentation chamber. The media was placed in the sedimentation chamber, which caused it to float out of the chamber during storm flows. This device was removed from this location during this visit. APPENDIX C- LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS C.1 OIL AND GREASE ANALYSIS Oil and grease was measured using a solid phase extraction (SPE) technique developed earlier by the authors (Lau and Stenstrom, 1997). This technique uses a known volume of sample (generally 500 ml or 1000 ml for this study) which is pumped through an SPE column at a constant but low rate (e.g., 5 ml/min). The oil and grease in the sample is sorbed on the SPE column. After the sample is pumped through the column, it is eluted with a small volume of solvent (5 ml): methylene chloride and hexane. The sample bottle is also washed with a small volume of solvent (isopropanol). The two solvent volumes are combined and placed in a tarred container. The solvents are allowed to dry at 50°C using a gentle nitrogen purge. The residue is weighed. The results are reported as mg/L based upon the original sample volume. This method is not yet a standard method, but is being developed by the US EPA and others as a standard method. It has the advantages of higher recovery, especially for the more volatile components in oil and grease, and using less solvent (the solvents used for traditional oil and grease analyses are usually flammable, toxic and either green house gases or ozone depleting gases). By using different sample volumes is it possible to have low detection limits, and the limit with 500-ml sample volume is typically 0.25 mg/L. This method does not quantitatively measure oil and grease adsorbed to solids, and an alternate technique must be used for particle-bound oil and grease. However, this is not important for this study because no particles were added to the tap water when testing for oil and grease removal. C.2 METAL DIGESTION Samples for metals analysis were prepared by digesting ~ 0.4 grams of used motor oil in 10 ml concentrated nitric acid for 25 minutes using a microwave unit (CEM Corp., Mathews, NC). This is a modified method from SW Method 3051A (US EPA, 1999). Due to the build-up of high pressure from heated motor oil, a specialized digestion vessel, OMNI™, was used for this purpose. The sample initially was heated to 200°C (in 15 min.) and hold at 200°C for 10 min. After cooling, the digested samples were filtered, diluted to 50 ml and analyzed using a using an inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrophotometer (ICP-MS). Appropriate blanks and standards were used to insure quality control. C1 CatInlet FiltrationFloGard CatCh Basin insert Filter Stormwater SolutionsTM Removes pollutants from runoff prior to entering waterways InletFiltration Efficient catches pollutants where they are easiest to catch, at the inlet. Focused Treatment removes petroleum hydro- carbons, trash, and TSS. Variable Design applications with the ability to be retrofitted or used in new projects. Two-part insert to filter solids and oil/grease Easy to install, inspect and maintain, even on small and confined sites Treatment Train can be incorporated as part of a “Treatment Train”. By the Numbers*: • Filter shall remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) • Capture at least 70% of oil and grease and 40% of total phosphorus (TP) associated with organic debris. *approx. for urban street application No Standing Water helps to minimize vector, bacteria and odor problems. Economical Receive a higher return on investment. Catch Basin Filter Test Results Summary UCLA U of Auckland Tonking & Taylor, Ltd. (for City of Auckland) U of Hawaii (for city of Honolulu) 80 78 to 95 80 70 to 80 Testing Agency % TSS Removal % Oil & Grease Removal 20 to 40 % PAH Removal Maximum Flexibility available in a variety of standard sizes to fit round and square inlets. (800) 579-8819 www.oldcastlestormwater.com www.stormcapture.comStormwater SolutionsTM INLET FILTRATIONInletFiltrationMultipurpose Catch Basin Insert designed to capture sediment, debris, trash & oils/grease from low (first flush) flows, even during the most extreme weather conditions. The FloGard® Catch Basin Insert Filters provide solids filtration through a filter screen of filter liner, and hydrocarbon capture shall be effected using a non-leaching absorbent material contained in a pouch or similar removable restraint. They are recommended for areas subject to silt and debris as well as low-to-moderate levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (oils and grease). Examples of such areas are vehicle parking lots, aircraft ramps, truck and bus storage yards, business parks, residential and public streets. Catch Basin Filter Competitive Feature Comparison Evaluation of Catch Basin Filters Oldcastle Stormwater Other Insert Filter Types** (Based on flow-comparable units) (Scale 1-10) Flow Rate 10 7 Removal Efficiency* 80% 45% Capacity - Sludge & Oil 7 7 Service Life 10 3 Installation - Ease of Handling / Installation 8 6 Ease of Inspections & Maintenance 7 7 Value 10 2 *approximate, based on field sediment removal testing in urban street application **average Long-Term Value Comparison Oldcastle Stormwater Other Insert Filter Types (Based on flow-comparable units) (Scale 1-10) Unit Value - Initial ($/cfs treated) 10 4 Installation Value ($/cfs treated) 10 7 Absorbant replacement (annual avg ($/cfs treated) 10 2 Materials replacement Value (annual avg ($/cfs treated) 10 10 Maintenance Value (annual avg ($/cfs treated) 10 7 Total first yr ROI ($/cfs treated) 10 5 Total Annual Avg Value ($/cfs treated, avg over 20 yrs)* 10 5 Combination Inlet Flat Grated Inlet Circular Frame Catch Basin Captured debris from the Catch Basin Filter, Dana Point, CA Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency 74%57%24.3 10.4 57% 73%79%79% 978 329 66%18.6 0.452 98%48.08 9.86 79% 86% Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency 99% 13.7 0.73 95%1.5 0.2 87%1.9 0.1 95% Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency 0.38 0.23 39% 33%94% Inlet Outlet Removal Efficiency 90% 199 10.43 95% Creech Engineering Report - Pollutant Removal Testing for a Grate Inlet Skimmer Box - 2001 Longo Toyota - Field Test - City of El Monte - 2002 - Independent Test Numeric Reductions (mg/L) Zinc mg/L Lead mg/L Location Total Suspended Solids mg/L Total Phosphorus mg/L UC Irvine Total Nitrogen mg/L Location Universal Engineering - 2007 (100 Microns) LATEST REPORT Longo Toyota Grate Inlet Skimmer Box/Round Curb Inlet Basket - Removal Efficiencies Ammonia, Salicylate mg/L Fecal Coliform CFU/100 mL Cadmium Site Evaluation - Reedy Creek Creech Engineering Report Witman's Pond Copper mg/L Location Site Evaluation - Reedy Creek UC Irvine Location Universal Engineering Sciences - Suspended Soils Retention Study - 2007 - Independent Test Reedy Creek - Site Evaluation of a Grate Inlet Skimmer Box for Debris, Sediment, and Oil & Grease Removal - 1999 - Independent Test UC Irvine Longo Toyota Hydrocarbons mg/L Witman's Pond - Restoration Project - Massachusetts Dept of Environmental Management - 1998 - Independent Test UC Irvine - Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface - Dept of Environmental Health - 2005 - Independent Test DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | Machado Lake Work Plan C-1 | Page 2015 Appendix C Machado Lake Work Plan 3031 Torrance Boulevard • Torrance, California 90503 • Phone: 310.618.5880 • Fax: 310.618.5891 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx City of Torrance, California MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN May 18, 2011 CAROLLO ENGINEERS i May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx City of Torrance, California MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN May 18, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Conditions and Characteristics .................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Study Site Location ........................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics ................................................................. 2 1.2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................... 3 1.2.4 Water Quality Issues ........................................................................ 4 1.3 Special Study Work Plan ................................................................................ 10 2.0 PRE-BMP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY ..................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Objectives of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study .......................................... 11 2.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) .................................. 12 3.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN ........................................................................................... 12 3.1 Sampling Locations and Access ..................................................................... 12 3.2 Sample Collection Frequency ......................................................................... 20 3.3 Selection of Analytical Parameters ................................................................. 20 3.4 Continuous Flow Monitoring ........................................................................... 21 3.5 The Sampling Team ....................................................................................... 21 4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES ................................................................... 22 4.1 Preparation for conducting the sampling ........................................................ 22 4.1.1 Sampling Equipment ...................................................................... 22 4.2 Sampling Method ............................................................................................ 23 4.3 Personal Safety .............................................................................................. 24 4.4 Clean Sampling Techniques ........................................................................... 24 4.5 Sample Packing and Shipping ........................................................................ 24 4.6 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................ 25 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ................................................. 25 5.1 Data Quality Objective .................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 Field Quality Control Samples ........................................................ 26 5.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ......................................................... 27 5.2.1 Equipment Blanks ........................................................................... 27 5.2.2 Field Duplicate Samples ................................................................. 27 5.2.3 Matrix Spike Samples ..................................................................... 27 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS ii May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 5.3 Laboratory Quality Control .............................................................................. 27 5.3.1 Method Blanks ................................................................................ 27 5.3.2 Matrix Spike and Laboratory Control Samples ............................... 27 6.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING ................................................................ 28 APPENDIX A – Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations APPENDIX B – Field Data Sheet APPENDIX C – Chain of Custody LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Waste Load Allocations ....................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Total Annual Nutrient Load Entering Machado Lake(1) ........................................ 4 Table 3 Schedule or Work Plan Elements ..................................................................... 11 Table 4 Sampling Location Characteristics .................................................................... 14 Table 5 Monitoring Constituents .................................................................................... 21 Table 6 Monitoring Constituents and Sample Container Requirements ........................ 23 Table 7 Quality Assurance Objective ............................................................................. 26 Table 8 Field Quality Control Sample Types .................................................................. 26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Map of Torrance ................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 Subregional Watersheds ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 2007 Satellite Imagery of Machado Lake and Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Overview ............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5 General Location Map of Sampling Locations .................................................. 15 CAROLLO ENGINEERS 1 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx City of Torrance, California SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Field Sampling Plan (FSP) presents the approach and procedures to implement stormwater sampling activities in 2011 for a Special Study of the City of Torrance (City) storm drains discharging stormwater into Machado Lake. The field study sampling procedures, methods, and analyses for stormwater are described in this document. 1.1 Background The City is subject to the requirements of the Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) per the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board’s (Regional Board’s) Resolution R08-006. Under the Regional Board’s resolution, the City shall submit to the Regional Board’s Executive Officer a Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP) within 1 year of the effective date of the resolution or propose a Special Study Work Plan following the requirements of one of three optional studies. This Special Study Work Plan details the approach proposed by the City to perform Optional Study No. 3, to assess compliance with the Waste Load Allocations (WLA) on a mass basis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus originating from the City’s watersheds. The Special Study Work Plan proposes a pre-Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation Study including field sampling and data collection to be followed by submittals to the Regional Board including a BMP Evaluation and Selection Report, a MRP, and a BMP Implementation Report to be provided at a later date. Machado Lake is identified on the 1998 and 2002 Clean Water Act 300(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to eutrophic conditions, algae, ammonia, and odors. Resource agencies, local governments, project implementers, the scientific community, environmental groups, decision-makers at the city, county, state, and federal levels, and many others have continued to take meaningful steps towards the restoration of Machado Lake and its basin. Among these efforts, restoration activities are expanding through continued implementation of erosion control, stormwater management, and riparian restoration projects, development of the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL that is providing a quantitative, science-based approach for pollutant reduction, and a strong research/monitoring effort to evaluate key ecological processes and response to water quality improvement projects. The Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL allows for the establishment of annual mass-based WLAs for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) equivalent to monthly average concentrations of 0.1 mg/L TP and 1.0 mg/L TN, based on approved flow conditions. When the concentration based WLAs are met under the approved flow condition of 8.45 hm3, the annual mass of the TP discharged to the lake will be 845 kg and the annual mass of TN discharged to the lake will be 8,450 kg. The City of Torrance mass-based WLA will be proportional to the City owned area in the sub-watershed. The City of Torrance area CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 2 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx accounts for 35.6% of the Machado Lake Watershed. Table 1 lists the interim and final WLAs based on this area. Table 1 Waste Load Allocations Responsible Party Years after TMDL Effective Date TP (kg) TN (kg) City of Torrance 5 3,760 7,370 9.5 (final WLAs) 301 3,008 1.2 Site Conditions and Characteristics 1.2.1 Study Site Location The City is located about 15 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles (LA), in southern LA County, just north of the Palos Verdes Hills. The City was incorporated on May 12, 1921, and is just over 20.5 square miles in area. The City is bounded by Redondo Beach on the west and north, Lawndale and Gardena on the north, LA on the east, Lomita to the southeast, and Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates on the south. The City is also bounded by approximately 4,000 feet of Santa Monica Bay coastline. The City’s storm conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. Neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estate and Palos Verde Estate discharge stormwater into the City’s and/or LA County’s storm conveyance systems located within the City’s boundaries. Figure 1 shows a regional location map of the City. 1.2.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Machado Lake subwatershed is located in the southwestern area of the Dominguez Watershed and includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Carson, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, and the communities of unincorporated Los Angeles County, including Wilmington and Harbor City. However, much of the Machado Lake watershed consists of the hilly regions of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. This portion of the watershed is unique, as it consists of relatively steep hills with drainage into the canyons. The Machado Lake Watershed covers an area of approximately 20 square miles and is itself divided into six primary subdrainage areas. These subdrainages are the Walteria Lake, Project 77/510, Wilmington Drain, Project 643 (72-inch Storm Drain), Project 643 (Figueroa Drain), and Private Drain 553. Machado Lake, about 40 acres in area and the Machado Lake Wetlands (64 acres) are located within the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park in the southeastern corner of the Machado Lake Watershed. Both Machado Lake and the Machado Lake wetlands serve as flood retention basins for the Machado Lake Watershed. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 3 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 1.2.2.1 Storm Drain As the area is highly urbanized, drainage is primarily conducted through an extensive network of underground storm drain facilities. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works maintains the system of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The primary use of the Dominguez Channel and all other open channels in the Dominguez Watershed (including Wilmington Drain, Machado Lake, and Madrona Marsh) is flood protection. Machado Lake receives urban and storm water runoff from a complex network of storm drain systems. The first of three primary storm drain channels that flow into Machado Lake is the Wilmington Drain. Approximately 65 percent of the runoff from the Machado Lake Watershed flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. The other two primary storm drain channels are the Project No. 77 Drain and the Harbor City Relief Drain. Several smaller storm drains also discharges into Machado Lake, including Project No. 643’s Figueroa Street Outlet and a 72-inch storm drain outlet. Machado Lake discharges at the southern end by overflowing a concrete dam into the Machado Lake wetland. Water discharges from the wetland through the Harbor Outflow structure and into the West Basin of the Los Angeles Harbor. The Walteria Lake, located within the City’s boundaries, is owned and operated by LA County. It is approximately 1,005 acre-feet in capacity and receives raw stormwater mainly from Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates. Effluent from the lake is pumped at a maximum rate of 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) through a force main system into a 54-inch drain line that lies under Skypark Drive. The discharge eventually leaves the City near the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Amsler Street. Figure 2 shows the drainage basins and stormwater conveyance infrastructure in the City. The figure also shows nearby communities discharging stormwater into the City’s drainage system. 1.2.3 Land Use The City of Torrance is predominantly residential land use, with concentrations of industrial and commercial uses. This reflects the City’s history as a “company town,” where homes were built to house the local work force of industries. Residential development covered almost half of the City’s land area. Industrial uses occupied the second largest land area, at 22 percent. Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space uses represent the third largest land uses in the City, about 12 percent each. Torrance also had a limited supply of vacant land mostly within commercial and industrial areas. Given the built-out character of the community, only minor land use changes from baseline year 2010 conditions will occur over the long term. Residential uses are located throughout Torrance at varying development densities. The highest residential densities occur along major streets and near major transportation corridors, in older neighborhoods, and in apartment or condominium developments and Planned Development communities around Sepulveda Boulevard and Plaza Del Amo between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards. The lowest residential densities are largely CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 4 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx located in the western and southern portions of the City. Figure 3 identifies the land uses in Torrance. 1.2.4 Water Quality Issues Machado Lake, located in the Dominguez Channel watershed in southern LA County, is identified on the 1998 and 2002 Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to eutrophic conditions, algae, ammonia, and odors. The Machado Lake eutrophic, algae, and odor impairments are caused by excessive loading of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, to Machado Lake (Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft – April 2008). Ammonia is found to be at levels below the toxicity standards, but nevertheless, these concentrations contribute to the total nitrogen loading in the Lake. Table 2 provides a summary of the quantifiable loads entering Machado Lake on an annual basis (Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft – April 2008). Nutrient flux from the sediments and atmospheric nitrogen deposition are the two directly quantifiable non-point sources included as part of the total nutrient load. The total annual nitrogen and phosphorus loads are estimated to be 24,327 kg and 10,421 kg, respectively. Machado Lake is located in the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP), which is a 231 acres LA City Park serving the Wilmington and Harbor City areas. As shown on Figure 4, the park is located west of the Harbor freeway (110) and east of Vermont Avenue between the Tosco Refinery on the south and the Pacific Coast Highway on the North. Machado Lake is one of the last lake and wetland systems in LA; the area is approximately 103.5 acres in total size. The upper portion, which includes the open water area, is approximately 40 acres and the lower wetland portion is about 63.5 acres. Machado Lake is a shallow polymictic lake; the depth is generally 0.5 to 1.5 meters; the average depth is approximately 1.0 meter. The lake was originally developed as part of Harbor Regional Park in 1971 and intended for boating and fishing. Over the years water quality generally declined; boating was stopped and signs were posted warning of the risk of eating fish from the lake. Table 2 Total Annual Nutrient Load Entering Machado Lake(1) Source Total N (kg) Total P (kg) Ortho-P (kg) Inorg-N (kg) External Load 7,587 3,260 737 3,736 Sediment Flux 16,520 7,161 4,963 16,520 Atmospheric Deposition 220 Total Annual Load 24,327 10,421 5,700 20,256 Notes: 1. Source: Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft - April 2008. The dominant land use in the Machado Lake Watershed is high-density single-family residential, accounting for approximately 45 percent of the land use. Industrial, vacant, retail/commercial, multi-family residential, transportation, and educational institutions each account for 5 to 7 percent of the land use, while "all other" accounts for the remaining 23 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 5 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx percent. Machado Lake is a receiving body of urban and stormwater runoff from a network of storm drains throughout the watershed. As indicated on Figure 4, there are three discharge points into Machado Lake from the following storm drain channels:  Wilmington Drain.  Project No. 77.  Harbor City Relief Drain. Approximately 88 percent of the Machado Lake Watershed drainage area flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. I-110AnaheimNormandieVermontPacific Coast Wetland Area Machado Lake Golf CourseProject 77 Project 510 Figure 3 2007 Satellite Imagery of Machado Lake and Ken Malloy Harbor Park Overview 4 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 10 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 1.3 Special Study Work Plan This document provides the overall structure of the Special Study Work Plan with submittals to the Regional Board, as well as providing the initial Pre-BMP Implementation Study Plan (including a proposed field data collection and sampling plan). The Special Study Work Plan addresses the requirements of Optional Study No. 3 to assess compliance with WLAs for total nitrogen and total phosphorus originating from the City’s watersheds. The scope of work for this plan includes the following:  Pre-BMP Implementation Study Period - Including conducting dry weather sampling as outlined within this submittal as well as reviewing water quality models developed by LA County for wet weather events and Machado Lake.  BMP Evaluation and Selection Study Report - This study report is to be submitted at a later date (see proposed schedule of work plan elements), and will summarize the collected field data and the applicable results obtained from the regional water quality model being developed by LA County for wet weather conditions. The field data and the water quality model data will be used to assess compliance with WLAs under the TMDL. Based on the assessment of compliance, the BMP and Selection Study Report will identify and screen structural BMPs for mitigation to bring the City into compliance with the TMDL.  Monitoring and Reporting Plan - Subsequent to acceptance by the Regional Board of the findings and conclusions of the City’s BMP Evaluation and Selection Study Report, the City will submit an MRP specific to the needs for assessment of future compliance with the TMDL.  BMP Implementation Report - This report will summarize the monitoring data collected after 12 months of BMP implementation and will provide to the Regional Board an assessment of the success of the structural BMPs implemented by the City to support compliance with the TMDL. The actual start date for the sampling will be determined following the Regional Board’s approval of this Special Study Work Plan. Other conditions that may affect the sampling schedule are weather and equipment conditions and availability. The schedule for the work plan is summarized in Table 3. The Special Study Work Plan identifies the proposed tasks the City agrees to perform, their timelines, and the roles and responsibilities of various parties in completing the work. The purpose of this document is to serve as a starting point for work planning discussions between the City and the Regional Board. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 11 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Table 3 Schedule or Work Plan Elements ID Work Plan Element Schedule 1 Special Study Work Plan May, 2011 (submittal) 2 Regional Board Review/Approval June, 2011 (approval) 3 Pre-BMP Implementation Study July, 2011 – July, 2012 (field sampling) 4 BMP Evaluation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan September, 2011 (submittal) 5 Regional Review/Approval August, 2012 (approval) 6 BMP Implementation Nov., 2012 (implementation) 7 BMP Implementation Report Nov., 2013 (submittal) 2.0 PRE-BMP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 2.1 Introduction The Pre-BMP Implementation Study includes a 12-month FSP and evaluation of regional water quality models for wet weather conditions and Machado Lake to assess the City’s current compliance with WLAs. The FSP covers sample collection methods, analytical procedures, data analysis and reporting, and health and safety aspects. The FSP will generate a variety of data including discharge rates and flow volumes, the concentrations of chemical parameters, and the measurement of physical parameters. Utilizing the mass balance approach, the data will be used to estimate the mass of nutrients originating from the City as well as nearby agencies discharging stormwater into the City’s storm drain system. The data will also be examined for patterns and trends, comparing stormwater quality between different sampling locations over time. The Pre-BMP Implementation Study will be undertaken once approval is obtained from the Regional Board for the Special Study Work Plan. The remaining sections of this document contain the FSP providing field sampling methods and analytical procedures that will be used to collect dry weather water quality data and continuous flow data. 2.2 Objectives of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study The Pre-BMP Implementation Study will provide the City data needed to assess water quality impacts to the City’s drainage network. The objective of this study is to support the City’s compliance with the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL by performing Special Study No. 3. Data and information elements that are part of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study include: 1. Dry weather flow data including calculation of continuous volume data and water quality data obtained through field monitoring and sampling (data to be collected by implementing the FSP included within this document). CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 12 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 2. Estimates of wet weather stormwater quality impacts identified using an integrated water quality model developed by the City of Torrance. The water quality model is described in Section 2.2.1. 3. Identification of BMPs that will be implemented by the City to mitigate observed water quality impacts in the City’s outflows to Machado Lake. 2.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) In order to estimate wet weather stormwater quality impacts, the City has developed an integrated watershed modeling tool to simulate watershed hydrology, nutrient, sediment, and contaminant dynamics. This tool called Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT), incorporates existing and commonly used watershed models. The main models used by PLAT are PLOAD, Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds (P8), and U.S EPA SUSTAIN model. PLAT is based on spatially distributed inputs derived from high resolution satellite imagery. PLAT has four main components: pollutant hot-spots characterization, BMP screening, continuous simulation, and BMP design, optimization, and placement. The SUSTAIN model provides an optimization routine that helps identify the appropriate size of BMPs for treating stormwater runoff from respective source areas to meet TMDL reduction goals. The tool has been validated with results from the LA County Watershed Management Model System (WMMS). 3.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN The 12-month FSP is designed to collect continuous flow data and discrete dry weather water quality data to support the overall study objectives summarized in Section 2. 3.1 Sampling Locations and Access Site selection is a major challenge, given the scarcity of funding for sampling and laboratory analysis. The number of locations to be sampled was decided based on the program objectives, regulatory requirements, and the size and complexity of the drainage sub-basins and conveyance system. In addition, the frequency of sampling at each location was considered. As a first step in the selection process, the City’s watersheds, sub-basins and drainage system network were reviewed. Based on this review, nine locations were identified that could be used to characterize the flows in and out of each subbasin. Four of these locations are needed at a minimum to characterize the flows conveyed to Machado Lake. The final selection of sample locations was based on factors such as site permission, access, clustering, personal safety, equipment safety, and the likelihood that stormwater would flow at the location. Table 4 summarizes the proposed stormwater sampling locations, types, and characteristics. The general sampling locations are depicted on Figure 5. Appendix A shows detailed characteristics of each sampling location. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 13 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx At a minimum, four sampling locations will meet the objectives of this program. However, the City will sample five additional locations, Tor-S3, Tor-S6, Tor-S7, Tor-S8, and Tor-S9 as shown on Figure 4 because the results will support critical decisions including identifying sources originating outside of the City’s boundaries or sources not under the direct control of the City. The sampling locations Tor-S6, Tor-S7, Tor-S8, and Tor-S9 are discharge points for Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates. The sampling locations are described below. Tor-S1 This site is located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. The total upstream drainage area is approximately 63 acres. The drainage area is mainly residential and commercial land use. Residential and commercial land uses represent 36 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of the drainage area. This site is easily accessible and safe for conducting sampling during both dry and wet weather conditions. The storm sewer conveying stormwater to this site is a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe. This site is one of the four sites that will provide information on the amount of pollutants leaving the City limits. Sampling Site: TOR-S1 CAROLLO ENGINEERS 14 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIASPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN Table 4 Sampling Location Characteristics Sampling Location Name Description Land Use GPS Coordinates Associated Upstream Storm Drain Name Diameter (in) and Material Tor-S1 Located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. . Residential/ commercial 33° 49.3572’118° 18.5208’ City 36 RCP Tor-S2 Approximately 50 ft west of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. Mixed 33°48.093’ 118° 19.5252’ City 33 RCP Tor-S3 Effluent of Walteria Lake, approximately 100 ft east of Madison St. and Skypark Drive intersection. Mixed 33°48.6312 118° 20.8674’ Walteria Lake 54 Tor-S4 Approximately 210 ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. Mostly residential 33° 48.7056’118° 18.5196’ City 9’-2”Wx11’H RCB Tor-S5 About 25 ft west of intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). Residential/ Airport 33° 47.8956’118° 19.6872’ City 8’-9”Wx9’-7”HRCB Tor-S6 Approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. Mostly residential 33° 47.1822’118° 20.43’ Rolling Hills Estates 36 RCP Tor-S7 About 160 ft south and 280 ft east of Rolling Hills Road and Hawthorne Blvd. intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. Mostly residential 33° 47.6826118° 20.9232’ Rolling Hills Estates 10’x10’ RCB Tor-S8 About 500 ft northwest of Paseo De Las Tortugas and Mesa St. intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. Mostly residential 33° 48.0522’118° 21.4254’ Rolling Hills Estates 24 RCP Tor-S9 About 830 ft east and 120 ft south of Paseo de las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. Mostly residential 33° 48.2742’118° 21.7776’ Palos Verdes Estates 42 RCP CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 16 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S2 Tor-S2 is approximately 50 ft west of the intersection of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue. The total upstream drainage area is about 2,605 acres. The drainage area is a mixed land use, about 32 percent residential, 10 percent commercial and 11 percent industrial. The Torrance Airport accounts for 12 percent of the drainage area. Tor-S2 is easily accessible and safe for conducting sampling during both dry and wet weather conditions. Stormwater is conveyed to this site through an 8’ x 7’ reinforced concrete box. This site is one the four sites that will provide information to quantify the amount of pollutants leaving the City limits. Sampling Site: TOR-S2 Tor-S3 This site, which is approximately 100 ft east of Madison St. and Skypark Drive intersection, will assist the City in characterizing discharges from Walteria Lake. The total upstream drainage area is approximately 2,285 acres. This site is upstream of Tor-S2. Land use is mixed with 37 percent residential, 10 percent commercial and 9 percent industrial. A 54-inch pipe conveys stormwater to this site. The site is easily accessible and safe for all weather sampling. Sampling Site: TOR-S3 Sampling Site: TOR-S3 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 17 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S4 Tor-S4 is approximately 210 ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. The total drainage area upstream of this sampling location is approximately 1,014 acres. Residential land use represents nearly 60 percent of the drainage area. Commercial and industrial land uses represent only 9 percent of the drainage area. The storm drain serving this site is a 9’-2” x 11’ RCB. The site is safe for all weather sampling and it is easily accessible. Sampling Site: TOR-S4 Tor-S5 This site is about 25 ft west of the intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). This sampling site serves an upstream drainage area of approximately 661 acres. This site is mainly residential and airport land use; residential and airport land uses represent 43 and 24 percent of the drainage area, respectively. The storm drain discharging stormwater to this site is an 8’-9” x 9’-7’ RCB. This site is easily accessible and safe for sampling activities. Sampling Site: TOR-S5 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 18 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S6 Tor-S6 is located at approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. This site will monitor flow entering the City’s storm drain from Rolling Hills Estate. The sampling site is safe and easily accessible. Sampling Site: TOR-S6 Tor-S7 This site is about 160 ft south and 280 ft east of Rolling Hills Road and Hawthorne Blvd. intersection. It will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. The site is easily accessible and safe for sampling at all weather conditions. Sampling Site: TOR-S7 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 19 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S8 This site is located at about 500 ft northwest of Paseo De Las Tortugas and Mesa St. intersection. It will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. The site is easily accessible and safe for sampling at all weather conditions. Sampling Site: TOR-S8 Tor-S9 Tor-S9 is about 830 ft east and 120 ft south of Paseo de Las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. This site will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. The site is accessible and safe for sampling activities. Sampling Site: TOR-S9 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 20 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 3.2 Sample Collection Frequency The City’s sampling program consists of three major elements: 1. Monthly sampling during dry weather conditions for all sampling locations. Grab samples will be collected from each sampling location. Dry weather conditions must be preceded by at least 24 hours of no greater than trace precipitation or have an intensity of less than 0.1 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. 2. Samples will be collected from Tor-S3 during four discrete storm events and anytime time the LA County pumps stormwater from the Walteria Lake into the 54-inch storm drain. Pumping schedule will be obtained from LA County. 3. Continuous recording of stage or flow depth during dry weather periods for flow estimation will be collected from the proposed sample locations during dry weather flow conditions. Regarding Tor-S3, one grab sample for each of the four storm events will be collected under the following conditions: 1. Sampling will occur during a storm event with at least 0.1 inch of precipitation (defined as a “measurable” event). Weather forecasts will be evaluated before deciding whether or not to sample a particular rain event. The monitoring manager will periodically establish a modem connection with each sampling unit to monitor rainfall, flow rates, and sampling activity. The monitoring manager will download stored data from the National Weather Service as needed. 2. Sampling will not occur at a frequency greater than once every 72 hours. 3. Sampling will not occur unless there has been at least 72 hours of continuous dry weather immediately preceding the “measurable” event. 4. Grab samples will be collected from this location during approximately the first 30 minutes to 1 hour of stormwater discharge (where possible). The intention of the sample collection frequency and stormwater event requirements described above is to collect samples that are representative of runoff conditions from Tor-S3. No samples will be collected from the remaining eight sampling locations during storm events. The City’s Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) will be used to estimate nutrient loading for these sampling location during storm events. 3.3 Selection of Analytical Parameters The City proposes to use a mass based WLA compliance option to evaluate TMDL compliance. Samples submitted for nutrients will be tested for ammonia-N (NH3+), ammonium, nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate (PO4). Water samples submitted for conventional water parameters (general chemistry) will be tested for alkalinity, pH, chloride, total suspended solids (TSS), total solids, dissolved solids, turbidity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), and standard metals. The constituents to be sampled are listed in Table 5. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 21 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Table 5 Monitoring Constituents Analyte Method of Analysis Detection Limits NH3+ SM 4500-NH3-H 0.02 mg/l NO3 SM 4500-NO3-F 0.02 mg/l NO2 SM 4500-NO3-F 0.01 mg/l TKN EPA 351.3 0.1 mg/l TP EPA 365.4 0.06 mg/l PO4 SM 4500-P-F 0.01 mg/l TSS EPA 160.2 0.5 mg/l Turbidity n/a 0.01 NTU 3.4 Continuous Flow Monitoring Accurate assessment of flow is crucial to pollutant loads assessments and analysis. Continuous flow data will be collected as part of this sampling effort for all nine sampling locations. The primary benefit of these continuous monitoring sites is the ability to gauge the increase in flow due to a storm event and apply concentration data to calculate pollutant loading. Global Water’s FL16 Water Flow Logger will be used for flow data collection. The FL16 Water Flow Loggers will record over 81,000 depth, temperature, water flow and velocity readings in the drainage pipes. The specially engineered, non-fouling water level sensor works in depths as little as ½ inch and allows for deployment in manholes and other difficult to access areas without the need to enter the confined space. FL16 Water Flow Recorder’s user-friendly Windows-based software is tailored specifically for calculating water flows in partially filled sewer and drainage pipes using the Manning’s Equation, with pull-down menus for selecting and entering the necessary information. The Water Flow Recorder software has a unique calibration feature which allows users to view calculated water velocity, compare this to actual measured data, and adjust the water flow parameters to calibrate for the water flow conditions of a specific application. The flow measuring systems will be calibrated before data collection begins and that these will be re-calibrated monthly. 3.5 The Sampling Team Grab samples from the nine sampling locations will be collected by a contract lab retained by the City. Pre-labeled sample bottles will be provided by the certified laboratory that will be conducting the analyses. The Sampling Team will be responsible for ensuring that all required equipment is ready for field operation. They are also responsible for performing the entire field sampling activities and most of the sampling preparation. Any member of the Sampling Team may recommend canceling sampling if the predicted conditions do not materialize or if health or safety of the team could be imperiled due to site conditions or extreme weather. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 22 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES This section describes the sampling procedures, record keeping, sample handling, storage, and field quality control procedures that will be used during stormwater sampling. 4.1 Preparation for conducting the sampling Several things will be done to prepare to conduct stormwater sampling. First, the laboratory to analyze the samples will be contacted. The following information will be sought from the lab:  Type and size of bottles needed  Procedures to filling the bottles  Sample volume requirements  Labels or additional forms required  Explanation of the chain of custody form  Sample preservation requirements and/or holding time restrictions  Means of sample delivery to the lab  Overnight delivery requirements  Costs Once a lab has been selected the sampling equipment (sampling bottles from a lab, sampling instruments, and personal safety equipment) will be made ready, as well as the field sheet to document the required information. Table 6 lists constituents and sample container requirements. Field personnel will complete a field condition data sheet. The following items will be listed on the field sampling sheet and included in the stormwater discharge monitoring report:  Person who conducted the sampling  Date and time of discharge  Length of storm event  Time between sampled storm event and previous storm event (at least 72 hrs)  Total rainfall during storm event  Photo documentation A field data sheet is attached as Appendix B. 4.1.1 Sampling Equipment Monitoring equipment will be gathered ahead of time because opportunities to sample during rainfall events often come with little advanced notice. The following equipments will be required for the sampling efforts:  Field forms  Waterproof pens  Permanent markers CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 23 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx  Powder-free nitrile gloves  Clear glass jar for visual examinations  Sample containers  Sample preservatives  Sample container labels  COC forms  COC seals  Ice chests  Ice  Foul-weather gear  Manhole sampler Table 6 Monitoring Constituents and Sample Container Requirements Analyte Container Volume Preservation Holding Time NH3+ Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C H2SO4 PH < 2 28 days NO3 Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 48 hours NO2 Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 48 hours TKN Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 28 days TP Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 28 days PO4 Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C 48 hours TSS Plastic 200 ml ≤ 6°C 7 days 4.2 Sampling Method Water samples will be collected from storm sewer manhole and outfall sites. All samples will be collected as individual grabs. Samples will be collected directly into sample containers or with a laboratory-supplied container attached to a pole with duct tape or other means. Sampling containers will be held with container openings facing upstream to prevent contamination during sampling. Field personnel will wear powder-free nitrile disposable gloves. Each sample will be given a field identification, tagged, and kept cool at 4 degrees C. Chain-of-custody (COC) procedures will be observed and samples delivered to the laboratory within the allowable holding times for each parameter. It is assumed that sampling locations will have well-mixed conditions so that single grabs are representative of water quality. Field personnel will record the degree of turbulence or quiescence as well as the dimensions of the conveyance sampled and/or a description of water flowing in the conveyance. Field personnel will also record the date and time of sample collection and the flow rate. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 24 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Sampling containers for direct grabs (either by hand or with pole attached to laboratory supplied container) will be pre-cleaned by the laboratory. It will be made certain that if a sample is transferred (either for collection purposes or to form grab-composite samples), that only laboratory-supplied containers are permitted to come in contact with the sample. 4.3 Personal Safety A Health and Safety Plan approved by the contract lab will be reviewed by the all field personnel before the sampling operations covered in this monitoring plan begin. Personal safety will be of primary concern while conducting all stormwater sampling related activities. All persons involved in the sampling operation will be made aware of the hazards associated with monitoring and should freely voice any concerns if potential hazards become apparent. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides regulations and guidance on occupational safety, many of which are directly applicable to the types of activities involved in stormwater monitoring. It is the direct responsibility of each person involved in the monitoring program to read the Health and Safety Plan and adhere to its requirements. The following list provides a few basic health and safety procedures that will help to create a safer sampling environment.  Do not sample alone, a minimum of two-person field crews will be used for stormwater sampling.  Do not enter a confined space without proper training, equipment, and surface support.  Never remove or replace manhole covers with your bare hands or feet.  Never leave an open manhole unattended.  Do not start staging or sampling until traffic control has been established. 4.4 Clean Sampling Techniques Clean sample collection techniques will be followed to minimize the potential for contamination of stormwater runoff samples. Care will be taken during all sampling operations to avoid contamination of the water samples by human, atmospheric, or other potential sources of contamination. The monitoring team should prevent contamination of any of the following items: composite bottles, lids, sample, tubing, and strainers. 4.5 Sample Packing and Shipping Monitoring personnel will deliver the samples to the laboratory. Sample bottles will be placed in coolers or some other package that is rigid enough to provide protection of the samples and is insulated to keep samples cold. During packing, the sample from one monitoring location will not be separated into separate shipping containers unless bottles of one size need to be shipped together because of container size. If samples from a location are separated a copy of the field-sampling sheet pertaining to the bottles will be enclosed in each shipping container. Prior to shipping, all sample bottles will be recorded on the packing lists, which will include the shipping date and the method of transporting the samples. Samples will be delivered to the analytical laboratory within 4 hours of sampling to ensure the maximum holding time for bacteria of 6 hours is not exceeded. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 25 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 4.6 Chain of Custody After samples have been obtained and the collection procedures properly documented, a written record of the COC of each sample will be made. This record ensures that samples will not be tampered with or inadvertently compromised in any way, and it also tracks the requested analysis for the analytical laboratory. COC refers to the documented account of changes in possession that occur for samples. The COC record tracks the sampling path from origin through laboratory analysis. Information necessary in the COC includes:  Name of the persons collecting the sample(s).  Date and time of sample collection.  Location of sample collection.  Names and signatures of all persons handling the samples in the field and in the laboratory.  Laboratory analysis requested and control information (e.g., duplicate or spiked samples etc.) and any special instructions (e.g., time sensitive analyses). To ensure that all necessary information is documented a COC form will accompany each sample or set of samples. COC forms will be printed on multipart carbonless paper so that all personnel handling the samples may obtain a copy. A COC record should accompany all sample shipments and the sample originator will retain a copy of the forms. When transferring custody of samples the transferee will sign and record the date and time of each transfer. Each person who takes custody will complete the appropriate portion of the chain of custody documentation. A sample COC form to be used for this field sampling is attached as Appendix C. 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 5.1 Data Quality Objective The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program will be implemented to satisfy the data quality objectives of the monitoring program. The primary data quality objectives are to obtain defensible data of acceptable sensitivity and quality to:  Evaluate the stormwater management program.  Evaluate stormwater quality.  Evaluate of BMP as corrective measure. The analytical laboratory selected for this study will evaluate the accuracy of its sample extraction and/or analytical procedures using spiked samples, which may include matrix spikes (MS), laboratory control samples (LCS) and surrogate spikes. Acceptable spike recoveries must fall within statistically derived laboratory “control limits.” Precision is the agreement among a set a replicate measurements of the same parameter. The analytical laboratory will evaluate precision by performing matrix spike duplicate (MSD), laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) and duplicate stormwater sample analyses (typically CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 26 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx performed for inorganic parameters only). The data quality objectives also include obtaining data that are comparable and representative of the water quality conditions at each monitoring location. Comparable data will be collected if comparable sampling, analysis, QA/QC and reporting procedures are implemented throughout the monitoring program. Representative samples will be collected by performing sampling activities compliant with the procedures described in this monitoring plan. Duplicate samples will be collected and the results will be used to evaluate representativeness. Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. Data are comparable if collection techniques, measurement procedures, methods, and reporting are equivalent for the samples within a sample set. Data quality assurance objectives are summarized in Table 7. Table 7 Quality Assurance Objective Analyte Units Precision Accuracy Reporting Limit Completeness NH3+ mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.10 mg/l 90% NO3 mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% NO2 mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% TKN mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% TP mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% PO4 mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.025 mg/l 90% TSS mg/l ±20% ±30% 1 mg/l 90% 5.1.1 Field Quality Control Samples Field quality control samples will be collected at a 10% frequency in order to provide quality performance information for the sampling program. One in ten samples submitted for analysis will be one of three field QC sample types: field blank; field duplicate; and/or performance evaluation blank. Table 8 lists the quality performance goals that each of the three types of field QC sample types is intended to address. Table 8 Field Quality Control Sample Types Quality Performance Goal Field Blank Field Duplicate Performance Evaluation Blank Minimize false positive results X X Sample bottles free of contamination X No contamination introduced by sampling process X Measurement error attributable to sample inhomogeneity X CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 27 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 5.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control This section summarizes the QA/QC procedures that will be implemented by field personnel to evaluate sample contamination, sampling precision, and matrix interference. 5.2.1 Equipment Blanks After the intermediate sample container or scoop is cleaned, an equipment blank will be collected by pouring reagent-grade water into the apparatus. The water will be transferred into sample bottles and analyzed for the full analytical suite. 5.2.2 Field Duplicate Samples Field duplicate samples will be collected to evaluate the precision and representativeness of the sample collection procedures as well as sample homogeneity. The duplicate sample will be collected using the specified manual grab sampling techniques. Twice the volume required for the analytical suite will be collected with each duplicate sample. For grab samples, intermediate sample containers will be used, and the volume collected will be apportioned equally between the intermediate containers. The water in each intermediate container will be poured into a discrete set of sample bottles. One set of bottles will be labeled with fictitious sample identification and submitted “blind” to the laboratory. 5.2.3 Matrix Spike Samples MS and MSD analyses will be performed by the laboratory using project samples. Field crews will submit twice the required sample volume for the sample selected as the matrix spike sample. Field personnel will identify the MS/MSD sample on the COC form. 5.3 Laboratory Quality Control This sub-section summarizes the QC procedures the laboratory will perform and report with the analytical data packages. These procedures are not inclusive of the QA/QC that is required for compliance with the analytical method. 5.3.1 Method Blanks A method blank is prepared using reagent-grade water, and is extracted and analyzed with each sample batch (typically 20 samples extracted and/or analyzed on a given day). Method blank results are used to identify potential sources of sample contamination resulting from laboratory procedures. Target analytes should not be detected in the method blank above the practical quantitative limit. 5.3.2 Matrix Spike and Laboratory Control Samples MS, MSDs, LCS, and LCSDs will be performed by the laboratory to evaluate the accuracy of the sample extraction and analysis procedures. MS/MSDs will also be performed to evaluate matrix interference. Matrix interference is the effect of the sample matrix on the analysis, which may partially or completely mask the response of the analytical instrumentation to the target analyte(s). Matrix interference may affect the accuracy of the extraction and/or analysis procedures to varying degrees, and may bias the sample results high or low. The CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 28 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx MS/MSD is prepared by adding known quantities of target analytes to a sample. The sample is then extracted and/or analyzed as a typical environmental sample, and the results are reported as percent recovery. 6.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING The sampling results will be reported by the laboratory as hard copy and as electronic files. Hard copy data will be entered into an electronic format, and checked at least once by a different person. Electronic submittal of results will be discussed with the analytical laboratory in advance of delivery and its format arranged. A separate record will be generated for each sample analysis. In addition, the key information such as station ID, sample date and time, name of sampler, name of constituent, all results, units, detection limits, methods used, name of the laboratory, and any field notes will be entered into the database. Additional information, such as compositing of multiple samples, or the use of grab will also be included. When reporting the laboratory results for each stormwater sample the following information will be provided:  Sample site.  Sample date and time.  Sample number (or identification).  Sampling technician(s).  Detection limit and reliability limit of analytical procedure(s).  Sample results with clearly specified units. The results of all samples collected under this plan will be submitted to Regional Board in a monitoring report. Monitoring report will include:  Introduction and background information  Documentation and summary of each sampling event, including photos  Electronic copies of field conditions data sheets  Summary discussion of results  Tabular results of all samples, including quality assurance quality control samples, in electronic format, (Excel)  Evaluation data quality based on QAPP requirements. APPENDIX A Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S1 223rd St. Plaza Del Alamo Western AveSanta Fe Ave. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S2 Crenshaw BlvdTextAmsler St. Skypark Dr. &M &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S4 Western Ave235th St. 263th St Schilling Ct.Walnut St.238th St. &M &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S5 251st St. Tor-S5 Tor-S2 Crenshaw Blvd.250th St. 248th St. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S6 Rolling Hills RdC renshaw Bl vd. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S7 Hawthorne Blvd.Rolling Hills Rd. &3 Legend &3 Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S8 &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S9 Paseo De Las Tortugas Vista Montana Vista Largo B Sampling Field Data City of Torrance, California 16 GENERAL CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORM EVIDENCE/PROPERTY CUSTODY Tracking Number Investigation ID Number NAME OF RECIPIENT FACILITY LOCATION NAME, TITLE AND CONTACT NUMBER OF PERSON FROM WHOM RECEIVED ADDRESS LOCATION FROM WHERE OBTAINED REASON OBTAINED DATE/TIME OBTAINED ITEM NO QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES (Include model, serial number, condition and unusual marks or scratches) CHAIN OF CUSTODY ITEM NO. DATE RELEASES BY RECEIVED BY PURPOSE OF CHANGE OF CUSTODY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 17 Chain-of-Custody (continued) ITEM NO. DATE RELEASES BY RECEIVED BY PURPOSE OF CHANGE OF CUSTODY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE FINAL DISPOSAL ACTION RELEASE TO OWNER OR OTHER (NAME/ORGANIZATION) DESTROY OTHER (Specify) FINAL DISPOSAL AUTHORITY ON THIS DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION INVOLVING; ITEM(S) (IS)(ARE) NO LONGER REQUIRED AS EVIDENCE AND MAY BE DOSPOSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. If articles must be retained do not sign, but explain in separate correspondence. (Typed or Printed Name & Organization) (Signature) (Date) WITNESS TO DESTRUCTION EVIDENCE THE ARTICLES LISTED AT ITEM NUMBERS (WAS)(WERE) DESTROYED BY THE EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN IN MY PRESENCE, ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE (Typed or Printed Name & Organization) (Signature) (pole) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix D | Machado Lake Implementation Plan D-1 | Page 2015 Appendix D Machado Lake Implementation Plan 149 City of Torrance, California Redondo Beach, California MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT AND TOXICS TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD BMP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN October 2014 199 S. Los Robles Avenue • Suite 530 • Pasadena, California 91101 • Phone: 626.535.0180 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiienUCA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Dral! Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 150 151 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA MACHADO LAKE-NUTRIENT AND TOXICS TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Machado Lake Watershed ................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 Geographic Setting ............................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Machado Lake Responsible Agencies ............................................... 3 1.1.3 TMDL Implementation Area ............................................................... 3 1.2 Water Quality Impairments ................................................................................ 3 1.2.1 Designated Beneficial Uses ............................................................... 3 1.2.2 2010 Section 303(d) List.. .................................................................. 5 1.3 Objectives of the BMP Implementation Plan and Approach .............................. 6 1.3.1 Focus of the Plan ............................................................................... 7 1.3.2 TMDL Target. ..................................................................................... 7 1.3.3 Scheduled Total Maximum Daily Load ............................................ 10 2.0 MACHADO LAKE WATERSHED .............................................................................. 11 2.1 City of Torrance TMDL Implementation Area .................................................. 11 2.2 Geologic Setting and Soil ................................................................................ 14 2.3 Watershed Hydrology ...................................................................................... 14 2.4 Watershed Hydraulics ..................................................................................... 16 3.0 POLLUTANT SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION AND PRIORITIZATION ................. 17 3.1 Special Study ................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Dry Weather Loading ....................................................................................... 22 3.3 Wet Weather Loading ...................................................................................... 22 3.3.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) ................................... 23 3.3.2 Average Annual Wet Weather Load ................................................ 34 3.4 Summary of Sources ....................................................................................... 34 3.5 Pollutant Source Characterization ................................................................... 35 3.5.1 Sanitary Sewer and SSOs ............................................................... 35 3.5.2 Agricultural Operations .................................................................... 36 3.5.3 Atmospheric Deposition ................................................................... 36 3.6 Pollutant Source Prioritization ......................................................................... 36 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NONSTRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS ........................................... 39 4.1 Nonstructural Solutions ................................................................................... 39 4.1.1 Existing Nonstructural BMPs ........................................................... 40 4.1.2 Potential Nonstructural BMPs .......................................................... 41 4.2 Public Information and Participation Program ................................................ .46 4.3 Nonstructural Solutions Recommendations ................................................... .46 5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS .................................................. .49 5.1 Summary of Structural Solutions ..................................................................... 50 5.2 Assessment of Opportunities for Distributed Structural BMPs ........................ 50 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNf orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 152 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.2.1 Catch Basin Distributed BMPs ......................................................... 51 5.2.2 Low Impact Development.. ............................................................... 54 5.3 Assessment of Opportunities for Centralized Structural BMPs ....................... 55 5.3.1 Site-Screening Methodology ............................................................ 55 5.3.2 Utility Search .................................................................................... 59 5.3.3 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................... 60 5.3.4 Torrance Airport Basin ..................................................................... 60 5.3.5 Walnut Sump Basin .......................................................................... 71 5.3.6 Baseball Field Basin ......................................................................... 83 5.4 Additional Structural Options for TMDL Implementation ................................. 86 5.5 Regulatory Requirements and Environmental Permits ................................... 87 5.5.1 Environmental Assessment .............................................................. 87 5.5.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................... 87 5.5.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................... 87 5.5.4 California Department of Fish and Game ......................................... 88 5.5.5 State Water Resources Control Board ............................................. 88 5.5.6 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ........... 89 5.5.7 South Coast Air Quality Management District .................................. 89 6.0 EVALUATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL AND STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS ............. 91 6.1 Evaluation of Structural Solutions ................................................................... 91 6.1.1 Watershed Modeling and Optimized BMP Selection Approach ....... 91 6.2 Non structural Quantification Analysis ............................................................. 93 6.2.2 Results of Watershed Treatment Model ........................................... 96 6.3 Structural Quantification Analysis ................................................................... 96 6.3.1 Retrofit through Redevelopment ...................................................... 97 6.4 Quantification Analysis Results ....................................................................... 98 6.5 Quantification Analysis Conclusions ............................................................... 98 6.6 Reasonable Assurance ................................................................................... 99 7.0 MULTI-BENEFITS ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 103 7.1 WaterSupply ................................................................................................. 103 7 .1.1 Irrigation Reduction ........................................................................ 1 03 7.2 Community Enhancement Benefits ............................................................... 103 7.3 Taxies TMDL and Reduced Sediment to Machado Lake .............................. 103 7.4 Multi-Benefit Summary .................................................................................. 104 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES ......................................................................... 107 8.1 TMDL Schedule ............................................................................................ 107 8.2 Load Reduction Schedule ............................................................................. 1 08 8.3 Non structural Schedules ............................................................................... 108 8.4 Structural Schedules ..................................................................................... 1 08 9.0 COST EST I MATES ................................................................................................. 115 9.1 Best Management Practices Cost Estimates ................................................ 115 9.2 Cost Schedule ............................................................................................... 116 APPENDIX A-References APPENDIX B-Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations APPENDIX C-Satellite Image of City of Torrance APPENDIX D-Utility Search Information APPENDIX E-Geotechnical Study Report (Converse Consultants, 2013) APPENDIX F-Detailed BMP Cost Estimates ii October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrancei9193AOO/Deliverables1Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 153 Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.3 Table9.1 Table 9.2 LIST OF TABLES CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Summary of TMDLs for City of Torrance ......................................................... 1 Water Impairments of Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain ........................... 6 City ofT orrance Nutrient TMDL Mass-based Waste Load Allocations ............ 8 MS4 Permittees Toxics TMDL Waste Load Allocations ................................... 9 Land Use in TMDL Implementation Area ....................................................... 11 Soil Types Distribution ................................................................................... 14 Monitoring Sites for the Special Study ........................................................... 18 Monitoring Site Drainage Areas and Majority Land Use ................................ 20 Total Flow (gallons) and Total Mass (kg) of Nitrogen and Phosphorous ....... 20 Horton Infiltration Parameters ........................................................................ 32 PLAT Annual Average Loads by Sub Area .................................................... 34 Calculated Annual Loading Rates to Machado Lake ..................................... 35 Wet Weather Load Ranking by TMDL Implementation Area (Area Loads) ... 37 Ongoing Nonstructural Solutions Conducted by City of Torrance .................. 40 Potential Nonstructural Solutions by Pollutant Source ................................... 42 Proposed New and Enhanced Non-Structural BMP Descriptions .................. 43 Summary of Recommended Nonstructural Solutions .................................... 47 Pollutant removal mechanisms and capabilities of structural BMPs .............. 50 Summary of Catch Basins by Subwatershed ................................................. 52 Summary of BMP Requirements-Torrance Airport ....................................... 62 Torrance Airport Subcatchment Pollutant Load Summary ............................. 64 Torrance Airport Basin-Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs for Subcatchment AS1 ....................................................... 65 Torrance Airport Basin-Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs for Subcatchments AS2 and AS3 ....................................... 66 Summary of BMP Requirements-Walnut Sump .......................................... 74 Walnut Sump -Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs ............. 82 Summary of BMP Requirements -Baseball Field ......................................... 83 Walnut Sump-Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs ............. 86 Estimated Reductions in Nutrients and TSS from Non-Structural BMPs ....... 96 Optimized Sizing of Centralized BMPs from PLAT1 ....................................... 97 Summary of Expected Phosphorus Removal .............................................. 101 Estimated Reductions in Stormwater TSS Loads ........................................ 1 04 Summary of Multi-Benefits of the Implementation Plan BMP Strategies ..... 105 Schedule or Work Plan Elements for Nutrients ............................................ 107 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Nonstructural Solutions ................. 110 Implementation Schedule for Structural Projects ......................................... 113 Implementation Schedule for Structural Projects ......................................... 114 Nonstructural Best Management Practice Cost Estimates .......................... 115 Program Cost Estimates of Structural Best Management Practices ............ 116 October 2014 iii pw://Carollo1Documents/Ciien!ICA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repori/BMP-Implementation Plan 154 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6A Figure 5.68 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10 Figure 5.11 Figure 5.12 Figure 5.13 Figure 5.14 Figure 5.15 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 iv LIST OF FIGURES Machado Lake Watershed and Jurisdictions within the Watershed ................ .4 Overview of TMDL Implementation Area ........................................................ 12 Land Uses within TMDL Implementation Area ............................................... 13 Soil Map for TMDL Implementation Area (LACDPW) ..................................... 15 Special Study Sampling Locations ................................................................. 19 Cumulative Nutrient Load Leaving City Boundary .......................................... 21 General Concept of PLAT Analysis ................................................................ 24 Percent Impervious Cover Map Derived from Satellite Imagery ..................... 27 Average Percent Subbasin Imperviousness Derived from Satellite Imagery. 28 Percent Imperviousness Comparison -Aerial Photo vs Satellite lmagery ..... 29 SWMM, P8 and SUSTAIN Model Development and calibration Process ...... 31 Example of Catch Basin Filter Inserts ............................................................ 51 Publicly Owned Parcels in the TMDL Implementation Area ........................... 53 Potential BMP Sites Within the TMDL Implementation Areas ........................ 57 Torrance Airport Drainage Area Map ............................................................. 61 Conceptual Plan ofT orrance Airport Underground Storage/1 nfiltration BMP . 63 Plan and Profile of Airport Treatment System -Option 1 ............................... 67 Details of Airport Storage/Infiltration BMP Plan and Profile-Option 2 .......... 69 Recommended BMP at Torrance Airport ....................................................... 72 Drainage Map of Walnut Treatment Area -Option 1 ..................................... 73 Drainage Map of Walnut Treatment Area -Option 2 ..................................... 75 Conceptual Layout of Walnut Sump aboveground Storage/Infiltration BMP .. 76 Plan and Profile of Walnut Sump Treatment System ..................................... 77 Details of Walnut Sump Storage/Infiltration BMP ........................................... 79 Drainage map of Baseball Field Treatment Area ........................................... 81 Conceptual Layout of Baseball Field Underground Storage/Infiltration BMP. 84 Detail Design Concept of Baseball Field BMP Treatment System ................. 85 Cost per TP Load Removed By Each BMP .................................................... 99 Expected TP Removal throughout the Implementation Period ..................... 100 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/ClientJCA/Torrance!9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·lmplementation Plan 155 BMP CDFW CEQA cfs CGP City County CWA DEM EMC ET GPS HDSF HSG ISA kg/yr KMHRP LA LACFCD LID MFR LARWQCB mg/L MRP MS4 MWDSC NPDES oc O&M PCBs PIPP PLAT PRD RARE REC 1 REC2 SCAQMD SWRCB TMDL TN TP USAGE US EPA USFWS WLA WMMS WTM October 2014 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Best Management Practice California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Environmental Quality Act cubic feet per second Construction General Permit City of Torrance Los Angeles County Clean Water Act Digital Elevation Model Event Mean Concentration Evapotranspiration Global Positioning System high-density single family Hydrologic Soil Group Impervious Surface Area kilogram per year Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Los Angeles LA County Flood Control District Low Impact Development multi-family residential Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board milligram per liter Monitoring and Reporting Plan Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Metropolitan Water District Southern California National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System organochlorine Operation and Maintenance polychlorinated biphenyls Public Information and Participation Program Pollutant Load and Analysis Tool Permit Registration Documents A Basin Plan designation for the aquatic life support category A Basin Plan designation for water contact recreational A Basin Plan designation for water non-contact recreational South Coast Air Quality Management District State Water Resources Control Board Total Maximum Daily Load Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waste Load Allocation Watershed Management Model System Watershed Treatment Model v pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 156 157 City of Torrance, California BMP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of an effort to address impairments in the Machado Lake watershed with a comprehensive, phased approach of best management practice (BMP) implementation for the City of Torrance (City). To develop this plan, BMPs to treat stormwater and dry weather flows to reduce nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants such as metals, bacteria, and toxics were identified and selected. As part of that process, benefits of management activities were estimated, in terms of pollutant load reductions or improvement in water quality, to meet waste load allocations (WLAs) defined by approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) established for waters within the Machado Lake watershed. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the various existing and pending TMDLs associated with each body of water the City discharges into. Table 1.1 Summary of TMDLs for City of Torrance Body of TMDL Resolution Water Name Pollutant<1l Number Effective Date Machado Nutrient Nitrogen, Phosphorus R08-006 11 March 2009 Lake Trash Trash 2007-006 6 March 2008 Toxics Pesticides, PCBs R10-008 2 September 2010 Dominguez Toxics<2> Copper, Lead, Zinc, R11-008 Not Yet Effective Channei<1J DDT, PAHs, PCBs, (Approved by Chlordane, Dieldrin, RWQCBon Cadmium, Chromium, 5 May 2011) Mercury Santa Monica Debris Trash, Plastic Pellets R10-010 Not Yet Effective Bay (Approved by SWQCB 6 December 2011) Bacteria Bacteria 2002-004 15 July 2003 2002-022 15 July 2003 2006-008 6 April2006 Notes: (1) Interim, final, and phased Waste Load Allocations (WLA) are listed in Chapter 3 where applicable. (2) The Resolution Name for what is referred to here as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is "Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDLs." Dominguez Channel discharges into the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. October 2014 1 pw://CarolloiDoCIJments/CiientiCA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 158 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The Machado Lake trash TMDL is being addressed this year with the Machado Lake TMDL Project. The process of BMP selection considered cost-effectiveness to promote a practical and implementable plan. This report also includes integrated approaches that consider BMPs that can address multiple pollutants cost-effectively, while considering parallel water resources planning strategies for the watershed. The report is organized into nine sections that in summary provide the following information: • Section 1 provides background information on the Machado Lake watershed and its impairments and associated TMDLs. • Section 2 provides more detailed descriptions of the TMDL implementation area, including the geologic setting, land uses, hydrology, and hydraulics. • Section 3 characterizes, evaluates, and prioritizes pollutants and their sources within the City's TMDL implementation area. • Section 4 details an evaluation of existing programs, mainly nonstructural in nature, to address the pollutants of concern. • Section 5 presents candidate sites for structural BMP implementation and describes the regulatory and permit requirements that might apply to the proposed BMPs and that might affect the timing, feasibility, and cost of management alternatives. • Section 6 presents a alternatives evaluation of different structural and nonstructural BMP management options. • Section 7 includes a discussion of the integrated nature of the plan and its relation to other water resources efforts in the region. • Section 8 documents schedules for implementing BMPs to meet phased WLA schedule. • Section 9 presents cost estimates for the BMP alternatives. 1.1 Machado Lake Watershed 1.1.1 Geographic Setting Machado Lake has a total drainage area of approximately 23 square miles and is located within the Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area, although it is not tributary to the Dominguez Channel. Machado Lake overflows into Wilmington Drain during peak storm events. The lake itself is under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles, while the drainage area is within the jurisdiction of several cities and unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County (County). The lake is located in the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP), which is a 231-acre Los Angeles City Park serving the Wilmington and Harbor City areas. 2 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciieni/CA!T orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Repori/BMP-Implementation Plan 159 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The lake was originally created for inclusion into Harbor Regional Park in 1971, and intended for boating and fishing. A map of the Machado Lake watershed and the different jurisdictions located within the drainage area is shown on Figure 1.1. The figure includes the boundary of the Machado Lake watershed and major storm drains. 1.1.2 Machado Lake Responsible Agencies The responsible parties located within the Machado Lake Watershed include the cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Carson, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, and Palos Verdes Estates, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. 1.1.3 TMDL Implementation Area The area of Torrance located in the watershed accounts for 30 percent of the total drainage area. The portion of City Redondo Beach is about 0.2 percent of the entire watershed and flows to a City of Torrance catch basin; therefore, this plan also addresses Machado Lake TMDL compliance for the City of Redondo Beach. For the purposes of this report, this area of Torrance and Redondo Beach located within the watershed is called the TMDL Implementation Area. The Madrona Marsh and Sump watershed discharges stormwater into Walteria Lake watershed. Madrona Marsh Restoration and Enhancement Project installed passive wetland treatment system to treat water in the sump for nutrients. Mad rona Sump Dredging Project will remove nutrient and toxic rich sediments, therefore not part of this plan. 1.2 Water Quality Impairments 1.2.1 Designated Beneficial Uses The existing beneficial uses of Machado Lake, as defined by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) in the Basin Plan, include recreation (REC 1 and REC 2) and aquatic life support (WARM, WILD, RARE, and WET). The Basin Plan applies the municipal supply (MUN) beneficial use designation to Machado Lake, qualified by an asterisk, as a potential future use. Conditional designations are not recognized under federal law and are not water quality standards requiring TMDL development at this time. October 2014 3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CAfTorrance/9193AOOIDeliverables!Drafl Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 160 Legend --Storm Drain 0Project Area .Lakes / / Machado Watershed O<all other values> -Freeway --Major Roads Parcels 0 1 -c:::J--Miles 0.5 .parson Figure 1.1 Machado Lake Watershed BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance 161 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 1.2.2 2010 Section 303(d) List Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that "Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters." The CWA also requires states to establish a priority ranking for 303(d) listed impaired waters and establish TMDLs for such waters. A TMDL is defined as the "sum of the individual waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background" (40 CFR 130.2) such that the capacity of the water body to assimilate pollutant loadings (the Loading Capacity) is not exceeded. TMDLs are required to account for seasonal variations and include a margin of safety to address uncertainty in the analysis. Nutrient enrichment to Machado Lake has resulted in high algal productivity; algal blooms have been observed in the lake during summer months. High nutrient concentrations also contribute to excessive and nuisance macrophyte growth. Algae respiration and decay remove oxygen from the water column, leaving insufficient oxygen for fish and other organisms to breathe. The decay of algal blooms and other eutrophic related impairments can also create offensive odors. This nutrient enrichment, or eutrification of the ecosystem, causes impaired Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Water Contact Recreation (REC 1 ), and Non-contact Water Recreation (REC 2) beneficial uses in Machado Lake. Because of the high nutrient concentrations, algal blooms, odors and eutrophic conditions, Machado Lake was placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies in 1998, 2002, and 2006. A schedule for developing TMDLs in the Los Angeles Region was established in a consent decree (Heal the Bay Inc., et al. v. Browner C 98-4825 SBA) approved on March 22, 1999. The consent decree combined waterbody-pollutant combinations in the Los Angeles Region into ninety-two (92) TMDL analytical units. In accordance with the consent decree, the Nutrient TMDL addresses nitrogen and phosphorus compounds and related effects for Machado Lake (analytical unit #76). Machado Lake is listed in the 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2008 Clean Water Act 303(d) lists of impaired water bodies as impaired due to chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Chern A, and PCBs in tissue. In addition to these approved 303(d) listings, there are sufficient data to document chlordane, DDT, and PCB impairments in sediment. The impairments were addressed in the Toxics TMDL. Chern A chemicals are bioaccumulative pesticides, which include chlordane and Dieldrin, and were addressed specifically through chlordane and Dieldrin. Clean Water Act 303(d) listing for Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain are presented in Table 1.2. TMDLs have been completed for nutrients, toxics, and trash. October 2014 pw://CarolloiDocuments/Ciieni/CNTorrance/9193AOO/DeliverablesiDrafl ReportJBMP·Implementation Plan 5 162 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 1.2 Water Impairments of Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain Water Body Impairment Machado Lake Ammonia Algae Eutrophication Odor ChemA Chlordane DDT Dieldrin PCBs Trash Wilmington Drain Coliform Bacteria Copper Lead The Machado Lake Trash TMDL states that agencies can comply with the WLAs by installing full capture trash screens on catch basins that discharge to Machado Lake through a progressive eight-year implementation schedule. Full capture trash screen must be installed on 20% of a city's catch basins by March 6, 2012 with 20 percent more each year unti1100% of catch basins have trash screens by March 6, 2016. The City is complying with the TMDL requirements through a joint project with the Cities of Lomita, Carson, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes to install Automatic Retractable Screens and/or Connector Pipe Screens onto catch basins that are tributary to the Machado Lake. Work within the City of Torrance also includes the installation of No Parking signs for Street Sweeping within the portion of Torrance tributary to Machado Lake. 1.3 Objectives of the BMP Implementation Plan and Approach This BMP Implementation Plan outlines the management actions that may be necessary to ultimately attain compliance with the Machado Lake Nutrient and Toxics TMDLs (LARWQCB, 2009), within the Torrance TMDL Implementation Area of the Machado Lake watershed. The BMP Implementation Plan calls for an integrated, adaptive management approach to utilize available resources effectively and efficiently. As new information becomes accessible through monitoring, the continued study of drainage patterns, diagnosis of problem sources, and new technologies for dry and wet weather treatment, the plan may be modified as necessary. Implementation of the management actions described by the plan depends on feasibility, available funding, site-specific conditions, and various other factors. 6 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 163 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 1.3.1 Focus of the Plan The Machado Lake BMP Implementation Plan must include implementation methods, a schedule, and proposed milestones to achieve compliance of the TMDL WLAs. The Plan development requires identifying and selecting BMPs to treat stormwater or reduce pollutant loads, as well as developing estimates of benefits in terms of load reductions to meet WLAs. However, the BMP selection process must consider the cost-effectiveness to provide assurance that plans are practical and implementable. The goal of the implementation plan is to address current TMDLs except trash, with consideration of future potential TMDLs. The nutrients TMDL is considered the primary focus of this implementation plan. A secondary focus is placed on toxics through removal of suspended sediments that toxics are associated with. The third focus is placed on trash because reporting on progress toward the trash TMDL implementation occurs annually and through a separate process. However, proposed BMPs that address trash have the potential to provide added benefit in addressing other pollutants, which is assessed in this implementation plan. Total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) source characterizations are provided in the plan. This implementation plan includes integrated approaches that consider BMPs that can address multiple pollutants cost-effectively. Additional benefits of BMPs, such as water storage/recharge and reuse, providing recreation space, improved natural habitat, source control and public education, are considered in this implementation plan. This implementation plan describes management options that are limited to area of the City of Torrance located within the Machado Lake watershed. This area is termed the TMDL Implementation Area in this report and is represented in red on Figure 1.1. Some of the proposed nonstructural or programmatic BMPs, such as staff training or education programs, could apply citywide. Rolling Hills Estates watershed is a tributary of Torrance TMDL Implementation Area, and flows directly to Walteria Lake, therefore not addressed in this plan. 1.3.2 TMDL Target Key factors influencing the level of BMP implementation are the stormwater management targets expected to be achieved. For this project, multiple TMDLs and associated WLAs for stormwater runoff have been established for Machado Lake, which must be considered as a priority for developing the BMP implementation plan. The following provides a summary of applicable wet weather TMDL WLAs and implementation requirements, and methods for translating the requirements into management targets to address wet weather pollution. October 2014 7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTommce/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 164 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 1.3.2.1 Nutrients The Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL was developed by the LARWQCB in 2009. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) approved the Nutrient TMDL on March 11, 2009, and the approval letter was posted on April 8, 2009. The Nutrient TMDL was developed to address nutrient-related beneficial use impairments including the following Section 303(d) listings: eutrophication, algae, ammonia, and odor. The City is subject to the requirements of the Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL per the LARWQCB's Resolution R08-006. Under the Regional Board's resolution, the City shall submit to the Regional Board's Executive Officer a Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP) within 1 year of the effective date of the resolution or propose a Special Study Work Plan following the requirements of one of three optional studies. The Special Study Work Plan details the approach proposed by the City to perform Optional Study No.3, to assess compliance with the WLA on a mass basis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus originating from the City's TMDL Implementation Area. The Special Study Work Plan is complete and turned in to the Regional Board. Resource agencies, local governments, project implementers, the scientific community, environmental groups, decision-makers at the city, county, state, and federal levels, and many others have continued to take meaningful steps towards the restoration of Machado Lake and its basin. Among these efforts, restoration activities are expanding through continued implementation of erosion control, stormwater management, and riparian restoration projects, development of the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL that is providing a quantitative, science-based approach for pollutant reduction, and a strong research/monitoring effort to evaluate key ecological processes and response to water quality improvement projects. The Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL allows for the establishment of annual mass-based WLAs for Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) equivalent to monthly average concentrations of 0.1 milligram per liter (mg/L) TP and 1.0 mg/L TN, based on approved flow conditions. When the concentration based WLAs are met under the approved flow condition of 8.45 hm3, the annual mass of the TP discharged to the lake will be 845 kg and the annual mass of TN discharged to the lake will be 8,450 kg. The City of Torrance accounts for 35.6 percent of the Machado Lake Watershed. Table 1.3 lists the interim and final WLAs based on this area. Table 1.3 City of Torrance Nutrient TMDL Mass-based Waste Load Allocations Years after Total Total Responsible TMDL Effective TMDL Attainment Phosphorus Nitrogen Party Date Date1 (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 5 March 11, 2014 3,760 7,370 City of Torrance 9.5 (final WLAs) September 11, 2018 301 3,008 Note: (1) Effective date of the nutrient TMDL is March 11, 2009. 8 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 165 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 1.3.2.2 Toxics Machado Lake is listed as impaired for chlordane, Chem-A, DDT, Dieldrin and PCBs. The LAWQCB adopted the Machado Lake Toxics Total TMDL on September 2, 2010 (LARWQCB, 201 0) and was approved by the State Water Quality Control Board and the USEPA. The pollutants listed within the Toxics TMDL include organochlorine (OC) pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These pollutants are associated with suspended sediments; therefore, the WLAs were calculated based on the fraction of suspended solids loading produced by each stormwater discharger, and assigned for both dry and wet weather. Compliance is measured either at the storm drain outfall of the permittee's drainage area, at representative storm drain outfalls representing the combined discharge of cooperating parties (if a coordinated compliance option is chosen by multiple permittees), or at an alternative compliance point approved by the Regional Board Executive Officer. The WLAs assigned to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permittees in the Toxicity TMDL BPA are concentration-based allocations (equal to the sediment numeric targets), and are listed in Table 1.4. The Toxics TMDL requires compliance with these WLAs by September 30, 2019. Table 1.4 MS4 Permittees Toxics TMDL Waste Load Allocations Numeric Target for Waste Load Allocation for Suspended Sediment Sediment-Associated Contaminants 1 Concentration Parameter of Concentration (IJg/kg dry weight) Compliance Concern (IJg/kg dry weight) Period Averaging Period Total PCBs 59.8 59.8 3-year average DDT (all congeners) 4.16 4.16 3-year average DDE (all congeners) 3.16 3.16 3-year average DOD (all congeners) 4.88 4.88 3-year average Total DDT 5.28 5.28 3-year average Chlordane 3.24 3.24 3-year average Dieldrin 1.9 1.9 3-year average Note: (1) The WLA applies to all MS4 Permittees including the County, Caltrans, General Construction and, industrial Stormwater Permittees, and other non-stormwater NPDES Permittees. October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiienUCA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repor!IBMP·Implementation Plan 9 166 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Suspended solids serve as carriers of toxics such as pesticides, dioxins and PCBs. Removal of suspended solids therefore, will also lead to toxics removal. This Plan addresses toxics through the removal of sediments. Removal of toxics is calculated as a fraction of suspended sediments removed by proposed stormwater treatment devices. This Plan relied on toxics data developed from the Domingues Channel Flow Monitoring Program. Estimated baseline load for toxics is presented in Section 3 of this Plan. 1.3.2.3 Trash The Machado Lake Trash TMDL became effective in March 2008. The trash monitoring and reporting plan (TMRP) was submitted to the LARWQCB in September 2008, and conditionally approved in December 2008. This BM P Implementation Plan does not specifically address the Trash TMDL because projects to address trash have already been completed or funded. 1.3.3 Scheduled Total Maximum Daily Load Wilmington Drain, to which all of the County areas drain shown on Figure 1.1, is listed in the 303(d) list as impaired for metals (copper and lead) and bacteria. The additional pollutants of concern listed in Machado Lake are scheduled for TMDL development in 2014 or 2019. This Implementation Plan does not directly address metals or bacteria impairments in Wilmington Drain. 10 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 167 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 2.0 MACHADO LAKE WATERSHED The Machado Lake watershed is situated within the Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area. Machado Lake is separate from Dominguez Channel and discharges, under storm conditions, to the Los Angeles Harbor. 2.1 City of Torrance TMDL Implementation Area The City is located about 15 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles (LA), in southern LA County, just north of the Palos Verdes Hills. The City was incorporated on May 12, 1921, and is just over 20.5 square miles in area. The City is bounded by Redondo Beach on the west and north, Lawndale and Gardena on the north, LA on the east, Lomita to the southeast, and Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates on the south. The City is also bounded by approximately 4,000 feet of Santa Monica Bay coastline. The City's storm conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. Neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estate and Palos Verde Estate discharge stormwater into the City's and/or LA County's storm conveyance systems located within the City's boundaries. Figure 2.1 shows an aerial view of the watershed and Figure 2.2 gives an overview of land uses in TMDL Implementation Area. The TMDL Implementation Area is about 4,239 acres (6.6 square miles), which equals approximately 32 percent of the City of Torrance. The TMDL Implementation Area also includes a very small area of Redondo Beach that drains directly to a Torrance catch basin. The land use category with the largest faction within the TMDL implementation area is residential (43 percent), while open space accounts for about 18 percent. Residential land uses include high-density single family (HDSF), multi-family residential (MFR), and mobile homes. The land uses in the Implementation Area are listed in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Land Use in TMDL Implementation Area Land Use Acreage % TMDL Implementation Area Residential 1,810 43 Commercial 419 10 Industrial 256 6 Transportation 996 23 Open Space 758 18 Total 4,239 100 October 2014 11 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repori/BMP-Implementation Plan 168 Legend E3 Project Area City Boundary -Freeway --Major Roads 0 1 --=::::::.--Miles 0.5 Figure 2.1 Overview of TMDL Implementation Area BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance c: c;ar-"'fl'fl ~fM'i, ~V•'"'P"J'I\'t,r,;U•)ryW,i'\'lfW' 169 De.Arboles Palos Verdes Estates. Legend Storm Drain .Lakes Dproject subareas Machado Lake Watershed Deity Boundary -Freeway -Major Roads Parcels Land Use Commercial Industrial Los Angeles County (Unincorperated) Public/Open Space/Airport Residential 0 0.5 1 Figure2.2 Land Use within TMDL Implementation Area BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance c c;ar-"""' fi'~. ~\t""-"~J<\;-<•.'1/-, ... \(>!\'/•!!<'' --===----Miles 170 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 2.2 Geologic Setting and Soil The soils found within the Machado Lake watershed are predominantly loam and clay. The most common soil type is Ramona Loam, which is observed in the TMDL Implementation Area. Ramona Loam is a compact soil with a large runoff coefficient at high rates of precipitation. Areas such as the Rolling Hills Estates and the lands along Highway 1 are composed of several different classifications of clay and loam. Diablo Clay Loam and Montezuma Clay. The predominant soil types found in the TMDL Implementation Area are listed by their percentage in Table 2.2. The soil types found across the TMDL Implementation Area are displayed in Figure 2.3. Table 2.2 Soil Types Distribution Soil Classification 1 Percentage of Soil within TMDL Implementation Area Ramona Loam 21.4% Yolo Sandy Loam 8.0% Dublin Clay Adobe 35.3% Oakley Fine Sand 35.4% Total 100.0% Note: (1) LACDPW 2006 Hydrology Manual 2.3 Watershed Hydrology As shown on Figure 1.1, the Machado Lake watershed is located in the southwestern area of the Dominguez Channel watershed and includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Carson, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, and the communities of unincorporated Los Angeles County, including Wilmington and Harbor City. As shown, a large portion of the Machado Lake watershed consists of the hilly regions of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. This portion of the watershed is unique, as it consists of relatively steep hills with drainage into the canyons. Machado Lake is about 40 acres in area, while the Machado Lake wetlands cover an anear of approximately 64 acres. The lake and wetlands are located within the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park in the southeastern corner of the Machado Lake Watershed. Both Machado Lake and the Machado Lake wetlands serve as flood retention basins for the Machado Lake Watershed. 14 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA!Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 171 De Arboles Palos Verdes Estate~ Legend • Lakes Soil Type Walterlal Lake Deity Boundary Dublin Clay Adobe -Freeway Oakley Fine Sand Los Angeles County {U nincorperated) --Major Roads Ramona Fine Sandy Loam Parcels Ramona Sandy Loam Yolo Clay Loam ·· 'Yolo Loam Yolo Sandy Loam Lomita Pacific Coast Figure2.3 Soil Map for TMDL Implementation Area BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance 172 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The Machado Lake watershed can be divided into six primary subdrainage areas. These subdrainages are: • The Walteria Lake • Project 77/510 • Wilmington Drain • Project 643 (72-inch Storm Drain) • Project 643 (Figueroa Drain) • Private Drain 553 . 2.4 Watershed Hydraulics As the TMLD implementation area is highly urbanized, stormwater drainage is primarily conducted through an extensive network of underground storm drain facilities. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works maintains the system of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The primary use of the Dominguez Channel and all other open channels in the Dominguez Channel watershed (including Wilmington Drain, Machado Lake, and Madrona Marsh) is flood protection. Machado Lake receives urban and storm water runoff from a complex network of storm drain systems. The first of three primary storm drain channels that flow into Machado Lake is the Wilmington Drain. Approximately 65 percent of the runoff from the Machado Lake Watershed flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. The other two primary storm drain channels are the Project No. 77 Drain and the Harbor City Relief Drain. Several smaller storm drains also discharges into Machado Lake, including Project No. 643's Figueroa Street Outlet and a 72-inch diameter storm drain outlet. Machado Lake discharges at the southern end by overflowing a concrete dam into the Machado Lake wetland. Water discharges from the wetland through the Harbor Outflow structure and into the West Basin of the Los Angeles Harbor. The Walteria Lake, located within the City's boundaries, is owned and operated by LA County Flood Control District. It is approximately 1 ,005 acre-feet in capacity and receives raw stormwater mainly from Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, and the City of Torrance. Effluent from the lake is pumped at a maximum rate of 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) through a force main system into a 54-inch diameter drain line that lies under Skypark Drive. The discharge eventually leaves the City near the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Amsler Street. 16 October 2014 pw://CarolloiDocuments/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 173 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 3.0 POLLUTANT SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION AND PRIORITIZATION This section identifies the potential sources of the pollutants of concern derived from both point and nonpoint sources. The discussion is provided in several parts: modeling results, specific pollutant sources, and a source prioritization. Watershed monitoring results are summarized for reference in Appendix B. The focus of this characterization and prioritization is primarily within the City TMDL Implementation Area. Both wet and dry conditions are discussed. The City's Pollutant Load and Analysis Tool (PLAT) was used to quantify the average annual pollutant loading of nutrients and other pollutants from the TMDL Implementation Area. 3.1 Special Study To meet the Nutrient TMDL's Optional Study #3 requirements and the aforementioned objectives, the Work Plan outlined an approach that utilized previously existing information to develop mass-based WLAs, and used a combination of water quality sampling and hydrologic modeling to characterize current wet and dry weather loading from the TMDL Implementation Area. Water quality samples were collected monthly at each monitoring location. During the wet season, dry weather sampling events were scheduled seven days after measurable precipitation, or after flow rates had returned to base levels typical of the season, whichever period was shorter. A total of eight monitoring sites were selected for the Special Study. The characteristics of the monitoring sites are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Figure 3.1 shows the monitoring sites and associated drainage areas. Drainage areas were determined using GIS layers, provided by the City, of storm drains and the flow paths of Wilmington Drain. Land use calculations were determined using a GIS layer obtained from the City. Monitoring for nitrogen and phosphorus constituents was performed during the Special Study. The monitoring results for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and flow rate are displayed on Figure 3.2 and summarized in Table 3.3. The amount of pollutants entering the City from neighboring cities are represented by monitoring locations Tor-S6, Tor-S7 and Tor-S9. Monitoring sites Tor-S1, Tor-S2, Tor-S4 and Tor-S5 measure pollutants and flow leaving the city boundary. The locations of monitoring sites Tor-S1 through Tor-S9 are indicated on Figure 3.1 as S1 through S9. October 2014 17 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/DeliverablesJDrafl Report/BMP·Implemenlation Plan 174 ~ i g: D § 3 I ~ l I ill <:r co ~ ~ ;u -8 ..... (X) io }'g_ 3 0 i-C" 3 CD !!l .., i.l\.) §lo "lJ ..... ~..j::>. Table 3.1 Sampling Location Name Tor-S1 Tor-S2 Tor-S3 Tor-S4 Tor-S5 Tor-S6 Tor-S7 Tor-S8 Tor-S9 Monitoring Sites for the Special Study Map ID Description S1 Located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. Basin name. S2 Approximately 50ft west of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. S3 Effluent of Walteria Lake, approximately 300 ft west of Hospital Drive and Skypark Drive intersection. S4 Approximately 210ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. S5 About 25ft west of intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). S6 Approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. S7 About 730ft south of Rolling Hills Road and Madison Street intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. sa About 1,000 ft south of 244th Street and Ocean Avenue intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. S9 About 830ft east and 120ft south of Paseo de las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. Upstrea Primary Lat-/ m Storm Land Long-Drain Use itude Name RES 33.82/ City 118.31 RES 33.80/ City 118.33 RES 33.81/ Walteria 118.35 Lake RES 33.81/ City 118.31 RES 33.80/ City 118.33 RES 33.79/ Rolling 118.34 Hills RES 33.79/ Rolling 118.35 Hills E. RES 33.80/ Rolling 118.36 Hills E. RES 33.80/ Palos 118.36 Verdes Estates Diameter (in) and Material 36 RCP 33 RCP 54 9'-2"Wx11 'H RCB 8'-9"Wx9'-7"H RCB 36 RCP 1 O'x1 0' RCB 24 RCP 42 RCP tbQ ~~ -~ 3c;t l~ i ~ ::s..t'i S'Q ::tl:; g ~ ~~ ::s 175 Storm Drain BProject Area City Boundary -Freeway --Major Roads 0 1 --.::::::==----• Miles 0.5 Figure 3.1 Special Study Sampling Locations BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance 176 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 3.2 Monitoring Site Drainage Areas and Majority Land Use Monitoring Site MapiD Drainage Predominant Land Use (on Figure 4) Area (ac) Tor-81 81 154 Residential Tor-82 82 248 Residential Tor-83 83 2,115 Residential Tor-84 84 852 Residential Tor-85 85 797 Residential Tor-86, Tor-S? and Tor-89 drainage basin outside City of Torrance Table 3.3 Total Flow (gallons) and Total Mass (kg) of Nitrogen and Phosphorous Monitoring Total Annual Flow Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous Site (Gallons) 1 (kg) (kg) Walteria Lake Pumping Event (May 29 through June 5, 2012) Tor-833 5,557,715 30.5 4 Total Flow Leaving the City Tor-S1 114,947 0.6 0.1 Tor-S2 1,530,700 8.3 1.8 Tor-S4 2,079,514 13 1.5 Tor-SS 79,603,481 3,610 553 TOTAL 83,328,643 3,632 557 Total Flow Entering the City Tor-S6 134,162 0.7 0.1 Tor-S? 7,480,023 57 4.8 Tor-S9 1,337,848 6.5 1.6 TOTAL 8,952,033 63.99 6.5 Flow Generated from 68,818,895 3,533 546 TMDLArea Note: (1) Discharge from Walteria Lake During Pumping (March 7 and December 31, 2012). 20 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documenls/Ciieni/CAIT orrancei9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 177 4,000 3,500 3,000 j 2,500 -~ ctl :it cu 1!:,0 2,000 ctl .c :;: Q iii 0 1,500 1-1,000 500 -e-Total Nitrogen -Total Phosphorous 0 February-12 April-12 May-12 July-12 August-12 October-12 December-12 Date (Month-Year) Figure 3.2-Cumulative Nutrient Load Leaving City Boundary 178 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The water quality sampling data were reviewed to identify whether site location or the timing of events affected the concentrations observed. The data set was reviewed in this way by constituent group, constituent, and, as necessary, constituent fraction (e.g., total and dissolved phosphorus). An analysis of sample variance showed that neither the site location nor event timing had any significant affect on the concentrations of the constituents measured during the study. 3.2 Dry Weather Loading Dry weather can also be a significant source of pollutant loading. However, results of the stormwater sampling indicate that dry weather flows are insignificant and therefore no further modeling was performed. 3.3 Wet Weather Loading The City developed a Stormwater Quality Master Plan (SQMP) in 2011 to address increasingly stringent regulatory requirements and stormwater related issues caused by continued development pressure. As part of the SQMP, the portion of the Machado Lake Watershed within the City was modeled utilizing a tool referred to as the Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT), a module linking a number of publicly available models including: USEPA's PLOAD, the Program for Predicting Pollution Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, & Ponds (PB),USEPA's SWMM 5.0, and USEPA's SUSTAIN. WMMS and N-SPECT model (Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool) were used to validate PLAT model results. The PLAT was initially calibrated to WM MS model output obtained from the Los Angeles County. PLAT is based mainly on spatially distributed inputs derived from high-resolution satellite imagery. There are many models that might be suitable for use in conducting the evaluation for Implementation Area. Because Torrance has previously used PLAT as a watershed modeling and basin planning tool, the modeling efforts in the Implementation Area utilized PLAT methodology. In addition, the PLAT modules were selected based on the following model capabilities: • Dynamic continuous long-term simulation for modeling runoff and pollutant loadings and concentrations in discharges and receiving waters from lands in a watershed system • Can represent rainfall, runoff, and groundwater processes of urban and natural watershed systems • Can represent variability in pollutant loadings, based on land use, soil hydrologic group, and slope among other parameters • Employs a BMP process based approach or empirically based BMP approach 22 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/DeliverablesiDraft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 179 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan • Includes decision support to evaluate cumulative BMP performance on a watershed scale 3.3.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) Even though PLAT was developed before the guidelines (RWQCB, 2014) for developing a Reasonale Assurance Analysis (RAA) was published, only few enhancements were made to meet RAA modeling requirements. The enhancements include converting the original XP-SWMM model (a proprietry software) to EPA SWMM 5.0 model. The general concept of PLAT methodology is presented on Figure 3.3. PLAT methodology is comprised of three main evaluations: 1. Model Calibration/verification In the absence of field data specific to Torrance, LA County WMMS and N-SPECT models were used to calibrate/validate some modules of PLAT. 2. Annual load estimation and initial BMP Screening. -impervious cover information derived from satellite imagery, event mean concentration (EMC) and PLOAD model were used to compute annual pollutant load, characterize pollutant hotspots, and perform initial BMP screening analysis to select BMPs for detailed aevaluation. 3. Detailed Load and BMP Evaluation Uses EPA SWMM 5, P8 and SUSTAIN models for comprehensive water quality modeling to identify priority subbasins based on BMP need, BMP sizing and optimization, and evaluation of management alternatives. The following paragraphs summarize the modules used in PLAT. 3.3.1.1 Annual Load Estimation and Initial BMP Screening Analysis Satellite remote sensing imagery is the primary source of data used in this analysis. PLOAD, a spreadsheet model, is among one of the models that is most commonly used to estimate pollutant loadings on an annual average basis for any user-specified pollutant. Impervious cover and land cover information extracted from satellite imagery is used in conjunction with PLOAD to compute annual pollutant load for the TMDL Implementation Area. 3.3.1.1.1 PLOAD The PLOAD model was originally developed to calculate pollutant loads for urban and suburban watersheds, which was subsequently adopted by the USEPA for watershed management planning and was integrated into the BASINS model (US EPA 2001 ). PLOAD determines pollutant load from a watershed based on watershed land-use data, percent imperviousness, and pollutant export coefficients or event mean concentrations (EMC) values based on either observed data or available literature. It is commonly used to estimate pollutant loadings on an annual average basis for any user-specified pollutant. October 2014 23 pwJ/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 180 Calibrate* SWMM Runoff Calibrate* P8 Hydrology Calibrate* P8 Water Quality P8 Daily/Hour Output Validate P8 Annual Load Output * In the absence of field data WMMS output was used to adjust PlAT model inputs SUSTAIN • BMP Modeling • BMP Optimization • TMDL Compliance Figure 3.3 General Concept of PLAT Analysis 181 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan However, PLOAD does not have the ability to estimate conveyance, e.g., it cannot evaluate changes in peak flow or water quality due to transport. The model also cannot accurately be applied to assess loading for short time intervals. Unlike other models such as P8, it also cannot be used to locate and size BMPs. 3.3.1.1.2 Satellite Remote Sensing Satellite remote sensing information provides an effective way for monitoring land use/land cover changes in urban areas through mapping variations in anthropogenic impervious surfaces. Impervious surface area (ISA) is considered a key indicator of environmental quality and is also used to identify extent of urban land use because it is highly related to urban land use categories and development density (Xian and Crane, 2005). In addition, ISA can be measured fast and economically by using multi-temporal satellite remotely sensed information. The longtime records available from land remote sensing data makes it possible to quantitatively estimate spatial and temporal variations of land use/cover conditions. Ground surveys are expensive and generally not practical for mapping impervious surfaces of large areas such as the City's service area. While Global Positioning System (GPS} is useful for assisting in collecting field data, it is not easily implemented for mapping large areas either. Remote sensing, in the form of aerial photography, has been an important source of land use-land cover information for many years and impervious surface area can be readily interpreted from aerial photographs (Draper and Rao, 1986). However, the cost of aerial photography acquisition and interpretation of cover types is prohibitively expensive for large geographic areas. An alternative is to acquire the needed information from digital satellite imagery such as the Landsat Thematic Mapper or Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus, WorldView, IKONOS, and QuickBird. This approach has several advantages: 1. The synoptic view of the sensor provides large area coverage, 2. The digital form of the data lends itself to efficient analysis, 3. The classified data are compatible with geographic information systems (GIS), eliminating the need to digitize interpreted information, and 4. Land cover maps can be generated at considerable less cost than by other methods. A number of studies have demonstrated the feasibility of using multispectral satellite data to classify impervious surface area in urban environments. In this study, a high-resolution WorldView satellite imagery acquired on July 10, 2010 was used for ISA mapping. DigitaiGiobe's WorldView-2, the world's newest high-resolution commercial color imaging satellite, was launched on October 8, 2009 from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. WorldView-2 is the first high-resolution satellite with a-multispectral imaging bands. It can simultaneously collect panchromatic imagery (black and white) at 0.46 m grid resolution October 2014 25 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/T orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report!BMP·Implementation Plan 182 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan and multispectral imagery at 1.84 m grid resolution. The satellite provides full-color images for enhanced spectral analysis, mapping and monitoring applications, land-use planning, disaster relief, exploration, defense and intelligence, and visualization and simulation environments. The combination of WorldView-2's increased agility and high altitude enables it to typically revisit any place on earth in 1.1 days. 3.3.1.1.3 Impervious Surface Area Mapping Impervious area was determined based on satellite imagery. As part of this project, the City purchased high-resolution satellite data from WorldView captured on July 10, 2010. The imagery was selected to minimize the impact of cloud cover and atmospheric effects. The imagery was geometrically and radiometrically corrected using standard methods. Terrain correction using the USGS 1-arc second National Elevation Dataset was performed to improve geolocation accuracy. The gee-rectified satellite imagery is shown in Appendix C. An image processing model was developed whereby impervious surfaces were extracted from the imagery based on user-defined variables. Within the study area, five image samples, distributed throughout the watershed and encompassing all general land uses were input to the model. Each of the sample images were classified as either pervious or impervious cover. The output was put into GIS for further analysis. A ground-truth dataset was created by generating a stratified random sample of points across the study area and classifying the points as either pervious or impervious. This step was accomplished via photo interpretation of current high-resolution vertical and oblique color aerial photography. The completed impervious cover map after image classification and statistical analysis is shown on Figure 3.4. The percentage of impervious surface area is depicted as a continuous variable, ranging from 0 to 100 percent imperviousness based on redness. Areas shaded in deep red have the highest percentage of imperviousness, while areas shaded in light pink have the lowest percentage of imperviousness. Figure 3.5 shows the average percent subbasin imperviousness derived from Figure 3.4. To confirm that satellite imagery can be used to accurately classify the percent impervious surface area, the satellite estimates were compared to measurements made from aerial photographs provided by the City. The location where the comparison was made is shown on Figure 3.4. Figure 3.6 shows the correlation between the percent imperviousness between these two sources. The results indicate that there is a strong relationship between aerial photograph measurements and satellite-derived estimates. Based on the comparison, an impervious cover map was created using satellite imagery for the entire study area. 26 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNrorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 183 Imperviousness (%) High: 100 -Low: 0 c=J % Impervious Comparison Area Figure 7 Percent Impervious Cover Map Derived from World View 2 Satellite Imagery BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance .s .. c;.,_, .... 184 Legend 0Project Area Imperviousness (%) Parcels ·1-25 .Lakes .25-35 Deity Boundary-35-45 -Freeway B45-55 -Major Roads 055-65 065-75 075-85 085+ Los Angeles County (Unincorperated) 0 1 --==::::11---• Miles 0.5 Lomita Figure3.5 Subbasin Imperviousness from Worldview 2 Satellite Imagery BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance c:: cpr-''*" f?~ W:..t''-'''~ W~.t';$ :.t'>"'Wmw- 185 c:-Q) C) m E Q) ~ Q) -m en (J) tn > :::s .9 0 0 ·~ .c. (I) a.. Q. m E ·;:: ·-Q) ~ 0 <C "'C c e 0 :::s (J) ·;:: tn m ctl c.. (I) E ::2 0 0 -() 0 (J) .s::. (J) 0.. Q) c -(J) ctl :::1 ·c: 0 (I) ·~ <( Q) _tn c.. ~ E 0 -c Q) (.) .... Q) a.. a:> ('I') ~ :::1 C) u:: 186 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 3.3.1.2 PLAT Detailed Load and BMP Evaluation Modules The main objective of the Detailed BMP Evaluation is to overcome the limitations of PLOAD. The Detailed BMP Evaluation modules use the results of the initial BMP Screening by PLOAD to limit computational time by avoiding modeling BMPs that may not work. Under the current PLAT structure, subcatchment hydrology must be simulated externally. For this project, an external surface water management model (SWMM 5.0) was developed to simulate hydrographs for the study basins, and these hydrographs were subsequently imported into the P8 and SUSTAIN models. The City's original XP-SWMM model was exported to SWMM 5.0 for use in this analysis to meet RAA modeling requirement. This section describes the linkages between the SWMM, P8 and SUSTAIN models, and provides a step-by-step process of the modeling methodology. The general steps for model development and calibration are listed below and illustrated on Figure 3.7. 1. Converted XP-SWMM model EPA SWMM 5.0 model to simulate runoff and routing for study basins. 2. Calibrated SWMM model runoff volume and timing to flow data extracted LA County WMMS model. 3. Using the calibrated SWMM model, developed unit-area surface water hydrographs (not including stream baseflow) to characterize runoff from each subcatchment by land use (commercial, residential, or forest) and land cover (pervious or impervious) for the 1-year calibration period. 4. Developed unit-area pollutographs for the calibration period by applying event mean concentrations (EMCs) from each land use to the unit-area hydrographs (not including stream baseflow). 5. Built P8 and SUSTAIN land and conveyance module using unit-area hydrographs, pollutographs, and calibrated routing parameters from the SWMM model for the 1-year calibration period. 6. Confirmed flow calibration was maintained by comparing runoff files from calibrated SWMM model to those from P8 and SUSTAIN. 30 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrancei9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 187 r L INPUTS -I Precipitation and I Evaporation Data {long-Term) I I I I I Event Mean I Concentrations (EMCs} I ----_j SWMM MODEL r----~ I Calibrated I SWMMModel I I I ~ I I Unit Area Hydrographs I I {surface water only) I I ,, I I Unit Area I ,. Pollutographs {surface water only) I L ----_j P8 MODEL r --., r--I I Calibrated I P8 Model I I I ,, I I BMP I I Geometry Info I L -----..J SUSTAIN MODEL r -- - -I I Calibrated .. SUSTAIN I land Module I L SUSTAIN I BMP Module I I SUSTAIN Optimization I Module I I I Optimized I SUSTAIN Model .____ L _____ ..J Figure 3.7 SWMM, P8 and SUSTAIN Model Development and CalibrationNerification 188 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 3.3.1.2.1 EPA SWMM 5.0 The original XP-SWMM model runoff volume and timing was calibrated to one year flow data extracted from WMMS. XP-SWMM is not a public domain software and therefore the model will be converted to EPA SWMM 5.0. The conversion will not result in any significant loss of accuracy since they computationally use similar engines. EPA SWMM 5.0 (SWMM) is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model used for single event or long-term (continuous) simulation of runoff quantity and quality from user-prescribed land uses. SWMM has been widely used, since its initial development in 1971. GIS is used for the spatial component of the analysis in addition to visualization. Infiltration was simulated in the SWMM 5.0 model using the Horton Infiltration equation. This equation is used to represent the exponential decay of infiltration capacity of the soil that occurs during rainfall or snowmelt events. The soil infiltration capacity is a function of the following variables: Fo (maximum or initial value of infiltration capacity), Fe (minimum or ultimate value of infiltration capacity), k (decay coefficient), and time. These infiltration parameters are used for the generation of runoff from the individual sub-drainage basins. The actual values of Fo, Fe, and k are dependent upon soil, vegetation, and initial moisture conditions prior to a rainfall or snowmelt event Because it was not feasible to obtain this detailed information for each sub-drainage basin through field samples, infiltration assumptions were made based on the soil types throughout the study area. Composite infiltration parameters (Fo and Fe) were calculated for each sub-drainage basin based on the fraction of each soil type within each individual sub drainage basin. Global databases containing the infiltration parameters for each sub-drainage basin were developed and imported into the SWMM 5.0 model. The values of Fo, Fe, and k applied for each Hydrologic Soil Group are summarized in Table 3.4. The values shown in the table are based on suggested values in the Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: User's Manual, U.S. EPA, 1988. The Fo and Fe values were determined for each sub-drainage basin by calculating a weighted average based on the given soil groups within each basin. Table 3.4 Horton Infiltration Parameters Hydrologic Soil Group Fo (in/hr) Fe (in/hr) k (1/sec) A 5.0 0.38 0.00115 B 3.0 0.23 0.00115 c 2.0 0.10 0.00115 D 1.0 0.03 0.00115 32 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 189 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 3.3. 1.2.2 PB -Urban Catchment Model The P8 model is designed to predict the generation and transport of runoff pollutants in urban watersheds. It consists mainly of methods derived from other tested urban runoff models, including SWMM, HSPF, D3RM, and TR-20. The P8 model was developed to design and evaluate development runoff treatment control combinations for pollutant removal efficiency. Although, due to its simplicity, the P8 model has inherent limitations, this model is highly suitable for planning level studies and scenario testing. Model components include stormwater runoff assessment, surface water quality analysis, and routing through structural controls. The model applications include development and comparison of stormwater management plans, watershed-scale land-use planning, site planning, and evaluation for compliance, effectiveness of BMPs, and selection and sizing of management practices. In P8, continuous water balance and mass balance calculations are performed on a user- defined system consisting of watersheds, devices (runoff storage/treatment areas, BMPs), particle classes, and water quality components. Simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall and daily air temperature time series data. The model simulates pollutant transport and removal in a variety of BMPs, including swales, buffer strips, detention ponds (dry, wet, and extended), flow splitters, and infiltration basins (offline and online), pipes, and aquifers. 3.3.1.2.3 SUSTAIN To overcome the limitations of P8, the SUSTAIN model is employed to comprehensively size and place BMPs, perform optimization analysis, and assess TMDL compliance. Input for SUSTAIN is derived by P8 and SWMM. The SUSTAIN model is public domain software developed by USEPA. SUSTAIN includes algorithms for simulating urban hydrology, pollutant loading, and treatment processes packaged from multiple models that individually address such processes. Users have the option to import time series data from external watershed models (e.g., Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) or SWMM instead of performing new land simulations in SUSTAIN. 3.3.1.3 Model CalibrationNerification In the absence of field data specific to Torrance, LA County WMMS and N-SPECT models were first used to calibrate and validate some modules of PLAT. Annual load computed by PLOAD and P8 modules were compared to WMMS and N-SPECT output. The Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) is a complex yet user-friendly geographic information system (GIS) extension that helps coastal managers and local decision makers predict potential water-quality impacts from non point source October 2014 33 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiienUCAITorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables1Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 190 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan pollution and erosion. Input data includes land cover, elevation, precipitation, and soil characteristics to create the baseline information. 3.3.2 Average Annual Wet Weather Load The annual average loadings generated by PLAT for each sub area in the TMDL Implementation Area are presented in Table 3.5. The data used in the model represent general observations in the Los Angeles Harbor/Dominguez Channel Watershed, which includes the Machado Lake subwatershed, and specific monitoring data from the TMDL Implementation Areas. Monitoring conducted as per the TMDL requirements was used to refine the PLAT modeling results in the Machado Lake watershed, as appropriate. Table 3.5 PLAT Annual Average Loads by Sub Area Area<1) TSS TN TP Toxics Sub Area (ac) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (g/yr) Baseball Field 155 15,650 28 4 1.19 Walnut Sump 923 71,451 127 22 5.44 Walteria Lake<2l 2,118 2,989 38 7 0.23 Airport 975 72,305 4,168 619 5.51 Airport Southeast 70 2,897 4 0.9 0.22 Total 4,241 165,292 4,365 653 12.59 Notes: ( 1 ) Area from PLAT (2) Load entering Airport Sub Area 3.4 Summary of Sources The information about pollutant loading from the TMDL Implementation Area in the Machado Lake watershed can be compared with the TMDL allocations. A summary of the pollutant loading from the TMDL Implementation Area, the Final TMDL allocations and ultimate required reductions are presented in Table 3.6. The annual loading from the TMDL Implementation Area currently complies with the interim limit of total nitrogen, 7,370 kg/yr and total phosphorus of 3,760 kg/yr as listed in Table 3.6 of this report. Final nutrient WLAs are supposed to be attained by September 11, 2018. According to Table 3.6, 54 percent of total phosphorus load and 31 percent of total nitrogen load must be removed by the City to meet the final nutrient WLAs. 34 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Docurnents/Ciient/CA/Torrancei9193AOO/Deliverables!Draft ReporVBMP·Implernentation Plan 191 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 3.6 Calculated Annual Loading Rates to Machado Lake Annual Final Required Required Loading11l Allocation Reduction Reduction12l Constituent (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (%) Total Nitrogen 4,365 3,008 1,357 31 Total Phosphorus 653 301 352 54 Annual Final Required Required Toxics Loading(1) Allocation Reduction Reduction(2) Constituent (g/yr) (g/yr) (g/yr) (%) Total PCBs 10.74 9.88 0.00 8 Total DDT 0.83 0.87 0.00 0.0 Dieldrin 0.66 0.54 0.12 18 Chlordane 0.36 0.31 0.05 14 Notes: (1) The annual loading from the TMDL Implementation Area complies with the interim limit of total nitrogen, 7,370 kg/yr and total phosphorus of 3,760 kg/yr as listed in Table 3. (2) Percent of pollutant amount that is required to be removed. 3.5 Pollutant Source Characterization The locations and density of pollutant sources in the TMDL Implementation Area are keys to understanding where BMPs and other implementation components should be focused. Typical sources for the pollutants of concern (nutrients) are fertilizers (residential and agricultural), atmospheric deposition, wastewater, leaking sewers, septic systems, animal operations, pets, native geology. The following sections provide a description of these sources. 3.5.1 Sanitary Sewer and SSOs When sanitary sewers overflow or leak, they can release raw sewage into the environment. Many sanitary sewer networks in the United States were installed decades ago and are in need of replacement. Aging systems are a major source of sanitary sewer leakage. Severe weather, improper system operation and maintenance (O&M), clogs, and root growth can contribute to sanitary sewer leaks and overflows. Overflows can affect nearby waters and also back up into streets and basements (USEPA 2009). Raw sewage contains high concentrations of bacteria and nutrients from human and kitchen waste, as well as organic chemicals and metals. Chemicals are present in sewage water from household use of cleaners, disinfectants, personal care products, treated swimming pools, and pharmaceuticals. Personal care products and pharmaceuticals have recently been scrutinized for their potential to be October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 35 192 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan harmful endocrine disrupting chemicals (Boyd et al. 2004). Chemicals from laboratory sinks are also present in raw sewage (USEPA 2009). 3.5.2 Agricultural Operations Agricultural land use is limited in the TMDL Implementation Area and therefore are not a significant source of nutrients. 3.5.3 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition of pollutants-either directly to a waterbody surface or indirectly to the watershed land surface-can be a large source of contamination to surface waters near urban centers. While this atmospheric source ultimately becomes a part of stormwater, it is important to understand the pathways from initial source (e.g., industrial facility emitting metals into the air) and transport (from air to land to water) processes. Direct dry deposition to waterbodies in the TMDL Implementation Area is not a significant factor because of the small water surface on which to receive direct deposition. Pollutants also exist in wet deposition, which occurs during rain and snowfall. In California, wet deposition is not a significant source of pollutants in comparison to dry depositions because there are so few rain events (Lu et al. 2003). 3.6 Pollutant Source Prioritization To help develop implementation strategies, a prioritization of pollutant loading by sub area and potential sources was developed. The effort is concentrated on wet weather loading, with the assumption that BMPs targeted for the watershed would be designed to treat both wet and dry weather flows that drain to the BMP. Wet weather loads generated from the TMDL Implementation Area were converted to area loads (e.g., pounds per acre per year [lb/ac/yr]) for use in the pollutant source prioritization. This provides a normalized view for targeting management in that it shows where the rates are highest. Area loads for each constituent were then ranked with a score 1 through 4 by sub area. Values were assigned quartiles as follows: • A score of 1 for the lowest 25th quartile 1, • A score of 2 for values between the 25th and 50th quartile, • A score of 3 for values between the 50th and 75th quartile, and • A score of 4 for the highest quartile. The final rankings for wet weather area-based loads in Table 3.7. 1 A quartile is one of the 4 subdivisions that have been grouped into four equal sized sets based on their statistical rank. 36 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Oocuments/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 193 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 3.7 Wet Weather Load Ranking by TMDL Implementation Area (Area Loads) TMDL Parameter Score Implementation Total Priority Area TSS TN TP Score Rank Airport 4 4 4 12 1 Walnut Sump 4 2 3 9 2 Baseball Field 3 3 3 9 2 Airport Southeast 1 2 2 5 3 Walteria Lake 2 1 1 4 4 Rank: 1 -Highest Priority 4-Lowest Priority October 2014 37 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/CiieniiCA/Torrance/9193AOO/DeliverablesJDraft ReporiiBMP-Implementation Plan 194 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 38 October 2014 pw:IICarollo/Documenls/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 195 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NONSTRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS The Implementation Plan uses an integrated approach to address multiple pollutants, using both structural and nonstructural solutions. The following are the proposed nonstructural BMP opportunities to control the contribution of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. A comprehensive program has been developed and ready to be implemented to reduce or eliminate the amount of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff. This program meets a variety of regulatory requirements, including those of the LARWQCB adopted Order R4- 2007-0042 for municipal stormwater and urban runoff discharges within the County (LARWQCB 2007b ). An evaluation was conducted to identify opportunities for improvements to existing programs and new programs that would help meet TMDL WLAs and to determine the level of success in implementing these programs. Existing nonstructural BMPs are described in Section 4.1.1 and new nonstructural BMPs are proposed in Section 4.1.2. Considered holistically, these existing, improved, and new programs are expected to contribute to the reduction of TMDL pollutant loads and contribute to meeting WLAs. 4.1 Nonstructural Solutions In general, nonstructural solutions include pollution prevention actions and source control activities that prevent or minimize the amount of pollution entering urban runoff. Pollution prevention actions seek to control constituents of concern before their release to the environment. Typical pollution prevention actions include conservation and reuse activities. Source control activities target pollutants from specific sources to reduce or eliminate the concentrations of those pollutants entering the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4 ). Typical source control activities include, but are not limited to: • Issuance of local ordinances • Street sweeping • Product bans by either the State or Federal government For pollution prevention and source control measures to be effective, the parties involved need to be educated about the measures, incentives should be provided to use the measures, and enforcement should be available to ensure the measures are implemented. Both pollution prevention and source control measures are proposed as complementary components of nonstructural solutions, which may provide more effective treatment at a lower cost than many structural solutions. October 2014 39 pwJ/Carollo/Documents/CiienUCA/Tommce/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 196 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 4.1.1 Existing Nonstructural BMPs The following provides a summary of existing nonstructural BMPs that were evaluated to determine if enhancements could be made to specifically support TMDL implementation. A summary of the City's existing nonstructural BMPs relevant to nutrients and sediment reduction and flow reductions are presented in Table 4.1. The description provides an overview of relevant programs that could directly support stormwater pollution control. Table 4.1 Ongoing Nonstructural Solutions Conducted by City of Torrance Non-structural Solution BMP Type Description Public Information Education Encompasses several outreach campaigns. Those that most and Participation directly address nutrients are the Smart Gardening Program, Program pet waste outreach, and fats, oils and grease outreach. Industrial/ Enforcement Tracks, inspects, and ensures compliance with permits for Commercial Facilities industrial and commercial facilities. Controls pollutant Control Program transport. Development Source Control Focuses on mitigating the long-term hydrologic and pollutant Planning effects of the built environment and changes in land use. Includes establishing requirements for post-construction BMPs, reviewing plans to ensure that proposed drainage plans meet water quality and hydrologic performance standards, and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of post-construction BMPs. Development Enforcement Addresses runoff from public and private construction Construction Program projects through the use of stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), training of staff engaged in construction activities, and compliance inspections. Through runoff prevention, controls the transport of nutrients and taxies. Public Agency Source Control Applies BMPs to infrastructure and facility operation and Activities Program maintenance activities of Public Agencies to reduce pollutant sources. This includes sewer system maintenance, corporation yard, and recreational facility management. Illicit Enforcement IC/ID removal prevents the discharge of a variety of Connections/Illicit pollutants including nutrients and taxies from entering the Discharge Program storm drain system. Catch Basin Clean Source control Catch basins are cleaned at least annually, with higher Out priority catch basins cleaned semi-annually or quarterly. For industrial catch basins, the optimal cleaning frequency appears to be between quarterly and semiannual; for residential catch basins, the optimal frequency appears to be annual. For commercial catch basins, the optimal frequency is semiannual. Catch Basin Inserts 1 Source Control In an effort to reduce trash as part of the Machado Lake Trash TMDL, catch basin inserts could be installed in portions of watershed. Catch Basin Inserts proposed with Machado Lake Trash TMDL Project. 40 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implemenlation Plan 197 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 4.1 Ongoing Nonstructural Solutions Conducted by City of Torrance Non-structural Solution Street Sweeping Impervious Cover Disconnection County Ordinance No. 2008-000S2U Restaurant Training County Ordinance Title 1 0 Animals, Chapter 10.40.060, B. Notes: BMPType Source Control Source Control Enforcement Education Enforcement Description Curbed streets are swept weekly with vacuum sweepers in the city. Much of Torrance is not signed for street sweeping. This will be corrected with Machado Lake Trash TMDL Project. Employ rooftop disconnection techniques. Prohibits wash down of paved surfaces, irrigation runoff, and requires car washing BMPs. An education program that includes restaurant BMP guidelines, a watershed model showing the potential for oil and grease to affect the watershed, a PowerPoint presentation, and collateral material for restaurant owners, including posters, buckets with BMPs printed on them, and brochures. Torrance does this as part of Clean Bay Certification Program. Requires pet owners to pick up and properly dispose of their pet's waste. (1) Although normally considered structural BMPs, for the purposes of the model, catch basin inserts were accounted for as a nonstructural BMP (2) Torrance has ban on smoking in Public Parks and Torrance Beach. Enhancements to the existing nonstructural BMPs and additional nonstructural BMPs can be considered and are discussed in the following section. 4.1.2 Potential Nonstructural BMPs Potential nonstructural BMPs may include new nonstructural solutions and enhancements of existing nonstructural solutions. Specific sources of nutrients and toxics and their associated nonstructural solutions are listed in Table 4.2. The nonstructural solutions listed in Table 4.2 are detailed in Table 4.3. Sanitary sewer maintenance is covered in other areas of the Implementation Plan. Note that the costs presented in Table 4.3 are per year, and total implementation costs include an estimated rate of inflation of 3 percent over the life of the program. October 2014 41 pw://Caroilo/Oocuments/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 198 CJrr OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 4.2 Potential Nonstructural Solutions by Pollutant Source Pollutant Source Irrigation overflow Landscape fertilizer Catch basins1 Streets and parking lots IC/ID Sewage Horse manure Pet waste Green waste Sediment Note: • • • • • • • • • • • • Associated Potential Nonstructural Solution(s) Smart Gardening Program, with evapotranspiration controller irrigation enhancement Public Agency Activities Program -landscape and recreational facilities management focus Smart Gardening Program Public Agency Activities Program -landscape and recreational facilities management focus Development Planning -post construction BMPs Development Planning -post construction BMPs Catch basins 1 Catch basin clean outs -increased frequency Catch basin inserts-install inserts where other structural BMP retrofits options are infeasible due to ownership/space constraints. Inserts should be selected that are capable of removing nutrients. Street and parking lot sweeping-more efficient sweepers and increased frequency More aggressive identification and removal of illicit connections • Add stencils and re-stencil storm drains, as needed • Public Agency Activities Program -sewer systems maintenance, overflow, and spill prevention focus • Public Information and Participation Program fats, oils, and grease outreach • Recreation Vehicle Sewage Disposal Sites -Public Information • Public outreach • Public outreach, providing bags and receptacles at parks, etc. • Public outreach • Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program • Development Planning • Public Agency Activities Program -materials storage facilities/corporation yards management focus (1) Although normally considered structural BMPs, for the purposes of the model, catch basin inserts were accounted for as a nonstructural BMP 42 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Oocuments/Ciient/CAfT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BM P-lmplementation Plan 199 !0 no ~g: ~~ 31\:) ~0 !1[-" Q~ ~ g l tS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ii\ '!!:: -p 3 "2. I ~ ~ w Table 4.3 Proposed New and Enhanced Non-Structural BMP Descriptions Non structural Description New/Enhanced Solution Program Add stencils and re-Audit storm drains to determine where stencils are Enhanced: Public stencil storm drains, not present or are faded. Efforts should initially be Agency Activities as needed focused in Island 1 where field investigations noted faded or missing storm drain labels Program Modify program to use more aggressive techniques Enhanced: Public Catch basin clean and increase frequency to clean 60% of catch Agency Activities outs basins monthly and 40% of catch basins semi-annually. Program Expand installation of trash catch basin inserts to cover more areas in the city; catch basin inserts should be capable of removing trash, nutrients, and toxics. As an example, Kristar's FloGard Perk Filter Catch basin inserts1 has been approved by Washington Dept of Enhanced: TMDL Ecology's TAPE program 5 as "basic treatment" Implementation meaning that third party monitoring data has validated its ability to remove at least 80% TSS and 50% TP. Regular maintenance is necessary to retain pollutant removal performance Establish a downspout disconnection program to Downspout incentivize the disconnection of residential rooftop disconnection downspouts. See Section on Integrated Water New program Resource Considerations for additional information, page 36 Target restaurants and residents in the TMDL Fats, oils, and grease Implementation Area for additional FOG outreach to Enhanced: PIPP outreach educate them about the potential of sewage overflows caused by FOG blockages Green waste Target residents and institutional land uses in TMDL outreach Implementation Area for additional proper New management of green waste. Targeted Pollutant Annual Cost Nutrients and toxics $5K per year Nutrients and toxics $1 OOK per year Nutrients and toxics $20K (includes yearly O&M) Nutrients and toxics $50KI year Nutrients $5KI year Nutrients $5KI year lXI ~~ §"~ -a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --t'i Qj t!'Q g· i :!!;Ilia ~ ~ 200 ~ ~ Q_ ~ 3 ~ u; ~ I ~ I iii' Ol ~ ~ gj, t lo :Eg. 30 ¥c-al CD ~.., g~ ., ..... !!f.j:.. Table 4.3 Proposed New and Enhanced Non-Structural BMP Descriptions Non structural Description New/Enhanced Solution Pro ram Horse manure Target residents for outreach about horse manure New outreach management. Illicit connection Enhance program so that 40% of the system is Enhanced: ID/IC removal surveyed and 20% of identified IC is removed Program Industrial/ Enhancement may include more in-depth training for Commercial Facilities inspectors and staff that addresses nutrient and Enhanced: Industrial Control toxics specific BMPs. Strengthening partnerships Commercial Program with enforcing agencies may also improve Facilities Program enforcement escalation procedures Enhancements are similar to the Smart Gardening Program, with application to landscape and recreational facilities managed by the City. The Landscape and enhancements include switching to non-phosphorus Enhanced: Public recreational facilities organic fertilizers or using no fertilizer, adding soil Agency Activities amendments to lawns, converting a goal of 25% of management lawn to native vegetation and using ET controllers. Program Outreach may include trainings for City staff that manage or maintain landscape and recreational facilities Materials storage Training for City staff in charge of materials storage Enhanced: Public facilities/ corporation facilities and corporation yards with focus on Agency Activities yards management activities and materials that may contribute to Program nutrient and toxic pollution to storm drain Oil pump ESC Work with oil pump parcels located throughout the New outreach TMDL Implementation Area to ensure that sediment does not leave the site during the wet season. Target residents, pet stores, and animal shelters in Pet waste outreach TMDL Implementation Area for additional pet waste Enhanced: PIPP outreach Targeted Pollutant Annual Cost Nutrients $5K/ year $75K Nutrients and toxics $2,500/illicit connection removal2 Nutrients and toxics $5K/year Nutrients and toxics $10K/ year Nutrients and toxics $5KI year Nutrients and toxics $10K/ year Nutrients $50K/year ~~ -~ ~at (i)~ i ~ :::s-t"i Dtt\ ~ .... Q ~ :::s ~ !~ ~ ~ :::s 201 lO &50 aS' 1§'0" C;CI) g .., 31\.) g:O 11!:-" Q.j:l.. ~· I §0 ~~ =>"11 ~-; ~ I c:r i[ ~ "" I ~ ~ 1i) ~ ~ => ~ ~ 01 Table 4.3 Proposed New and Enhanced Non-structural BMP Descriptions Non structural Solution Post construction requirements for new development and redevelopment Sewer system maintenance, overflow, and spill prevention Smart Gardening Program Street and parking lot sweeping Notes: Description This program may be enhanced with additional training for Development Planning Staff. The focus would be education in planning for and maintaining post-construction BMPs that are effective in reducing nutrients taxies, and runoff Enhance sewer system maintenance and target staff working in the TMDL Implementation Area for SSO response and spill prevention training. This program includes outreach to reduce inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, water, etc.) to landscape, controlling nutrient sources and irrigation runoff. Field investigations showed evidence of lawn irrigation runoff in the majority of residential neighborhoods in all three Islands. This program should aggressively target the population within the TMDL Implementation areas. This program may be additionally enhanced to include evapotranspiration (ET) controllers to further reduce irrigation runoff. It may also encourage residents to change to non-phosphorus organic fertilizers or use no fertilizer, add soil amendments to lawns, and convert lawn to natural vegetation. Increase frequency of sweeping to 2x/weekly New/Enhanced Program Existing: Development Planning Program Enhanced: Public Agency Activities Program Enhanced: Public Agency Activities Program Enhanced: Public Agency Activities Program Targeted Pollutant Nutrients and taxies Nutrients Nutrients and taxies Nutrients and taxies Annual Cost $25K $20K • $1 ,700/mi to clean sewer pipe $60KI year $80KI year4 (1) Although normally considered structural BMPs, for the purposes of the model, catch basin inserts were accounted for as a nonstructural BMP. (2) Source: Marcoux, 2004 and Brown et al., 2004 (3) Source: WERF, 1997 (4) Source: Modified from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, 2005. (5) Source: Washington State Department of Ecology's Technology Assessment Protocol-Ecology (TAPE) program reviews performance evaluation reports on new stormwater treatment technologies and determines whether or not the technologies meet Ecology's performance standards. http://www. ecy. wa. gov/progr1:ull~~/stormwater/newtech/ llJ ~~ §"~ 't:J~ (i)~ 3 ~ CD !!!: :::s ~ i»"' g.t' :::s ~ ,~ Qi';t :::s £! 202 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 4.2 Public Information and Participation Program The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works' Countywide Stormwater/Urban Runoff Public Education, Used Motor Oil and Used Oil Filter Recycling, Household Hazardous Waste/Electronic Waste Collection, and Smart Gardening programs help achieve the Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) public outreach mandates and address nutrients and taxies pollution. Public community events, paid media campaigns, media relations efforts, and distribution of collateral materials are part of the standard public outreach practices for the above-mentioned environmental education programs. Visit www.CieanLA.com for information about these programs. The Smart Gardening Program consists of learning centers and workshops that educate homeowners about conservation (of fertilizers, pesticides, water, etc.) when gardening and landscaping, which reduces the amount nutrients and taxies in the environment. The Smart Gardening Program could be enhanced to help facilitate TMDL implementation by identifying learning centers and/or holding workshops in TMDL Implementation Area. Tip cards with Smart Gardening Program information could be tailored to address specific concerns (discontinuing irrigation overspray as a pollutant transport mechanism, controlling excess nutrients from fertilizer, pesticide alternatives, etc.) and sent to residences within TMDL Implementation Area. 4.3 Nonstructural Solutions Recommendations As a result of the review of the existing programs that address the TMDL pollutants, the following are recommended enhancements and additional BMPs that would offer additional water quality benefits and contribute to TMDL implementation: • Enhancing the Smart Gardening Program so it would extend the reach of the water conservation and pollution-prevention messages to the Machado Lake watershed. • Conducting TMDL-specific stormwater training that emphasizes activities and BMPs that can cause or mitigate the TMDL pollutants of concern. • Enhancing commercial and industrial facility inspections to avoid that activities associated with these businesses become new sources of pollutants. • Improving enforcement escalation procedures to more effectively address known sources of pollution. • Improving street sweeping technology to more effectively reduce sediment-bound pollutants from road surfaces. • Reducing irrigation return flow through a variety of water conservation initiatives. 46 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CA!T orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables1Draft Report!BMP-Implementation Plan 203 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The remainder of the discussion and analysis pertaining to nonstructural solutions focuses on those seven recommended BMPs, which are expected to contribute substantially to reductions in pollutant loads. Table 4.4 shows the extent to which each BMP enhancement or new BMP addresses the TMDLs. All the proposed BMPs address nutrients and toxics; TMDL-Specific Stormwater Training addresses trash. Table4.4 Summary of Recommended Nonstructural Solutions Condition TMDL Pollutant Addressed Wet Dry Nonstructural BMP Weather Weather Nutrient Trash Toxics Enhancements to Existing BMPs Smart Gardening Program ...) ...) • 0 • Enhancements TMDL-Specific ...) ...) • • • Stormwater Training Enhancement of Commercial and Industrial ...) ...) • 0 • Facility Inspections Enforcement Escalation ...) ...) Procedures • 0 • Improved Street Sweeping ...) ...) • 0 • Technology NewBMP Reduction of Irrigation ...) ...) • 0 • Return Flow "'-applicable; t-about half as effective, o -effective October 2014 47 pw~/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNT ommce/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft ReportiBMP-Implemenflition Plan 204 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 48 October 2014 pw://Carollo!Documenls/Ciient/CA/T orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 205 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS Meeting WLAs for the TMDL Implementation Area will take advantage of the nonstructural BMPs, but structural solutions will provide the majority of the necessary load reductions required. However, structural BMPs are also the most costly, so careful consideration was made in identifying opportunities for structural BMPs and collecting appropriate information to make cost-effective decisions regarding implementation. Identification and assessment of opportunities for structural BMPs were focused on publicly owned land in the TMDL Implementation Area. Both distributed and centralized structural BMPs were considered. Distributed structural BMPs refer to those practices that provide the control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff at the site level. Typical BMPs in this category include, but are not limited to the following: • Porous pavement • Grassed swales • Bioretention • Water-harvesting systems • Catch basin filters • Practices that can be implemented on individual parcels or in the parkway to store, infiltrate, and treat runoff from that parcel. Centralized BMPs refer to stormwater treatment, storage, or infiltration facilities that provide bene'fits on a larger scale (e.g., regional). Such projects can include neighborhood-scale or larger-scale facilities such as: • Spreading grounds • Flood control facilities • Park space that provides treatment/infiltration of runoff from nearby areas. The BMPs presented above are all not equally suitable to all site conditions and performance goals across watersheds. Consequently, several important site specific factors were considered when identifying those BMPs to include in the project analysis. The following sections describe the process used to assess opportunities for implementing structural BMPs; both distributed and centralized. Section 6 describes the evaluation of BMP alternatives using an optimization process. October 2014 49 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/CiientiCAITorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementalion Plan 206 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.1 Summary of Structural Solutions A phased approach is necessary for implementing structural solutions. The first priority was given to approaches that do not require obtaining land tenure, which may be projects within publicly owned right-of-ways or programs that encourage private owners to implement structural BMPs within their own properties. The next phase will involve public acquisition of property on which structural solutions can be implemented. The creation of public-private partnerships to implement structural solutions will also be considered. A summary of the pollutant removal mechanisms and capabilities of structural BMPs is provided in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Pollutant removal mechanisms and capabilities of structural BMPs Pollutant Removal Total Total Structural BMP Mechanism Nitrogen Phosphorus Toxics1 Infiltration Basin Infiltration H H H Detention Basin Settling M M M Constructed Biological Uptake, Settling M H H Wetland Catch Basin Settling, Filtration L M M Inserts Bioretention Adsorption, Settling, Biological Uptake, M H H Infiltration Porous Pavement Infiltration M H H Notes: H: high; M: medium; L: low Scoring modified from International BMP Database, 201 0. (1) Performance data is not widely available for this pollutant class; assumed that removal efficiency would be similar to sediments since these pollutants are largely associated particulates (2) Phosphorus index of fill soils in bioretention areas will cause a high total phosphorus outflow; high TP removal efficiency is dependent on the fill soils having a low P-index (3) Nitrogen removal by bioretention areas can be increased using a design variation that creates an anaerobic zone below the drainpipe. 5.2 Assessment of Opportunities for Distributed Structural BMPs It was not feasible within the TMDL Implementation Plan to identify and size each distributed structural BMP in the TMDL Implementation Area. Rather, within specific classifications of land characteristics (e.g., impervious roads, land use, soil type), general assumptions were established that provide insight regarding the types and benefits of distributed BMPs that can be implemented at a larger scale. That resulted in identifying key distributed structural BMP projects that could be considered for TMDL implementation planning. 50 October 2014 pw://Carollo/DocumentsiCiienUCNT orrancei9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 207 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Two major categories of distributed structural BMPs were identified, which were based on site characteristics and the types of BMPs determined feasible: 1) catch basin distributed BMPs and 2) other distributed BMPs on public land. The following provides detailed discussions for these categories and the proposed projects for TMDL implementation. 5.2.1 Catch Basin Distributed BMPs Storm drain systems in developed areas typically begin with inlets at the street level. Stormwater inlets have a variety of names, and there are regional differences in terminology. In California, storm drain inlets are routinely called catch basins. As discussed in Section 3, roads represent a major source of TMDL pollutant loads, and therefore treating road runoff is considered a key strategy for multi-pollutant TMDL implementation. Because of the number and spatial distribution of catch basins in the TMDL Implementation Area, they represent an excellent opportunity for treating pollutants in addition to trash. Oiverter Plate Pre-Settling Sedlmtmt Chamber Bottom Drain lor Treatment Flow Non-Corrosive 1/16" Stainless Steel Framing 5.2.1.1 Catch Basin Filter Inserts Catch basin filter inserts, as illustrated on Figure 5.1 , are devices designed specifically to capture trash, oil/grease, other floatables, sediment, organics, and other pollutants-can offer additional pollutant removal benefits. On the basis of a synthesis of available studies, catch basin filter inserts are expected to treat and remove a significant fraction of sediment (and associated metals and taxies) with treatment focused on runoff from the transportation network. The treatment efficiency of catch basin filter inserts for bacteria is poorly studied and unknown but is likely to be very low Figure 5.1 Example of Catch Basin Filter Inserts unless the insert has a design element targeting bacteria. Such devices tend to have a 1-to 3-year warranty and would need maintenance or replacement after that. Catch basin inserts can replace full capture devices upon installation depending on whether the space they occupy is compatible with the full capture device. Some devices (such as the Abtech Smart Sponge ™) can be installed in tandem with existing full capture devices. Implementing catch basin filter inserts throughout the TMDL Implementation Area is highly applicable because of the high density of catch basins. The TMDL Implementation Area October 2014 51 pw;I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrence/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implemenlation Plan 208 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan includes almost 811 catch basins, which equates to approximately 1 catch basin every 200-300 lineal feet of stormdrain. The distribution of catch basins within the TMDL implementation area is summarized in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Summary of Catch Basins by Subwatershed Storm Drain Number of Catch Basin Density Subwatershed Length (mi) Catch Basins (CB/mi) Walteria Lake 25 373 15 Airport 14 173 12 Walnut Sump 9 242 27 Baseball Field 1.4 23 17 I Total 50 811 16 Notes: (1) Based on count from City's storm drainage atlas maps The City is currently in the process of installation of full capture devices for compliance with the trash TMDL. Implementing catch basin filter inserts would require retrofitting or replacing the full capture devices that have been installed. For the TMDL Implementation Plan, implementing catch basin inserts is assumed to focus on replacing existing full capture devices with catch basin filter inserts, which is a more resource intensive, conservative approach. During actual implementation, other more cost-effective approaches for full capture device retrofit could be employed. The schedule for implementing catch basin inserts in the TMDL Implementation Area considers maximizing the operational period of installed full capture devices, thus improving the return on the investment. Implementing catch basin inserts would involve internal planning, conducting a pilot study to gain approval from the LARWQCB for attaining the trash TMDL requirements (for cases where full capture devices are being retrofitted or replaced), installing the devices, and maintaining the sediment-removal insert as part of the existing catch basin maintenance activities. 5.2.1.2 Other Distributed BMPs on Public Land Before stormwater enters the storm drain systems, opportunities are available for the storage, infiltration, and treatment of runoff within publicly owned right-of-ways or parcels. Such areas include road right-of-ways or other properties owned by public agencies for various purposes (e.g., parks, schools, storage, and utilities). Figure 5.2 shows the publicly owned parcels within the TMDL Implementation Area. In combination with road right-of- ways, this area represents a significant opportunity for on-site stormwater treatment. 52 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repori/BMP-Implementation Plan 209 Legend Ill! Publicly Owned Parcels BProject Area City Boundary -Freeway --Major Roads Parcels Los Angeles County (Unincorperated) 0 0.5 1 --t:=:::::J ____ Miles TORRANG~HOOLVIST Lomita Pacific Coast Hwy Figure 5.2 Publicly Owned Parcels in TMDL Implementation Area BMP Implementation Plan City ofTorrance 210 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.2.2 Low Impact Development The County of Los Angeles adopted a low impact development (LID) ordinance on January 1, 2009, which directly influences the selection and use of structural BMPs. New development and future redevelopment within the City are subject to LID requirements. The requirements are intended to result in runoff quantities and quality that mimic the runoff from undeveloped areas, up to and including runoff from a 50-year design storm event. Development projects with four or fewer residential units are required to implement two LID BMP alternatives as specified in the County LID Standards Manual. LID BMP alternatives include, but are not limited to the following measures: • Disconnecting impervious areas • Installing porous pavement • Dry wells • Conforming to landscaping and irrigation requirements • Installing green roofs Developments with five or more units or nonresidential developments are required to provide infiltration for excess runoff volume. Runoff from these developments that mimics the natural hydrograph must meet treatment requirements. Redevelopment projects where at least 50 percent of the impervious surfaces are altered must mitigate the entire project area. Redevelopment projects that alter less than 50 percent of the impervious area only need to mitigate the alteration. Implementation of LID BMPs within the TMDL Implementation Area provides an opportunity to reduce the loading of pollutants by reducing concentrations of pollutants in runoff and reducing the volume of runoff. Both development and redevelopment are largely driven by the strength of the economy. Currently, the rate of development is near a historic low and as a result, estimates for gains from LID and the schedule for those gains are difficult to quantify. As part of the adaptive management implementation, the effects of implementing LID BMPs through development and redevelopment will be tracked though the monitoring and reporting program. Increased levels of development or redevelopment should result in decreases in pollutant loading from the TMDL Implementation Area, reducing the need for additional structural controls. Stagnation of development in the TMDL Implementation Area may lead to an extended schedule or require additional structural controls to attain TMDL WLA levels. 54 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiientiCNTorrance/9193AOO/DeliverablesiDralt Report!BMP-Implementation Plan 211 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.3 Assessment of Opportunities for Centralized Structural BMPs To identify, evaluate, and ultimately select the optimal combination of centralized structural BMPs to address pollutant load reductions for the TMDL Implementation Area, key information was required. Investigations were performed to identify and assess potential sites for placing centralized structural BMPs on public land. Priority locations of centralized structural BMPs were publicly owned properties to reduce the need for land acquisition. Additional consideration was made regarding the necessity for implementing centralized structural BMPs on private land. Results of this assessment provided information necessary to support TMDL implementation planning. 5.3.1 Site-Screening Methodology An initial analysis was conducted to identify all publicly owned parcels in the TMDL Implementation Area. That initial screening resulted in approximately 24 parcel groups as shown on Figure 5.2. The 24 parcel groups included any publicly owned land with no analysis of the suitability for a centralized BMP. Most of the sites provide adequate space for a centralized BMP. They are not too steep, or are within a feasible distance of a stormwater drainage system. Additional screening was performed to further narrow potential sites for additional investigation. Additional field investigations were performed for identified locations to assess site and drainage area characteristics and identify the ideal BMP that could be constructed at the site. Subsequently, GIS analysis was performed of land ownership parcels and site characteristics to identify potential sites for centralized BMP placement on publicly owned parcels. Considerations in the analysis included the following: • Land cost-Land costs were minimized by identifying publicly owned parcels. • Percent impervious-Areas with higher percent imperviousness would produce more runoff during typical rain events. Higher impervious areas were targeted for greater potential volume reduction and water quality improvements. • Space requirements-Sites were evaluated to determine if space is available to implement an appropriately sized BMP. • Watershed treatment area-The size of the TMDL Implementation Area drainage area for each site was evaluated on the basis of available storm drain or Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data. Sites were identified that provide sufficient space for BMPs to adequately treat/store/infiltrate runoff from their respective drainage areas. October 2014 55 pw:I/CarolloiDocuments/CiientiCAIT ormnce/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft ReportiBMP·Implementation Plan 212 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan • Soil type-Soil type was evaluated as an initial estimate of the infiltration rate and capacity of the soils. Sites with infiltration rates suitable for infiltration BMPs were further investigated. • Slope-Slopes of sites were considered on the basis of DEM or other available topography data sets. Sites with moderate slopes (less than 10 percent for GIS purposes) were considered for centralized BMPs. Slope was verified in the field investigation, and sites where the slope is inappropriate for a centralized BMP were eliminated. • Multi-benefit use-Sites were identified that could serve multiple purposes. For instance, some stormwater practices, such as infiltration basins or grassed swales, could serve a dual purpose of stormwater management and community park space. Several parks could be altered to provided stormwater treatment and storage. Those criteria were evaluated to identify sites where centralized BMPs would be feasible. Sites that could provide enough space to effectively treat the drainage area associated with the site, that have soils suitable for infiltration, and that are publicly owned (to reduce land acquisition costs) were preferred. Sites that could provide a multi-benefit use, such as parks or parking lots where belowground storage could be used, were considered ideal. From the GIS screening analysis, a list of potential locations for centralized BMPs was developed to address stormwater runoff from the TMDL Implementation Area. This GIS screening and additional field investigations narrowed the potential sites to the following five sites (which are also depicted on Figure 5.3): • Airport 1 - A 1 • Airport 2 -A2 • Airport 3 -A3 • Walnut Sump • Baseball Field Details regarding the proposed structural BMP improvements are presented in subsequent subsections, while general observations and strategies used to develop these BMP concepts are described below. 56 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents1Ciieni/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repori/BMP·Implementation Plan 213 Legend • Potential BMP Site §Project Area project subareas City Boundary -Freeway --Major Roads Parcels Waite ria Lake Airport 1 " Los Angeles County (Unincorperated) Airport3 • 0 0.5 1 --==:::::::1---• Miles Lomita Pacific Coast Hwy Figure 5.3 Potential BMP Sites within TMDL Implementation Area BMP Implementation Plan City of Torrance c c~--··,. f~ W•w·:~ w.-.. ._0( ·~ ;\ ,., .~.1!,, 214 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Because existing site layouts and features can have an effect on where and what type of BMPs can be installed on a site, site layouts and on-site structures were photographed and documented to support evaluation of the site for centralized BMPs. The considerations included the following: • Effects on surrounding areas-Any nearby structures, including storm drains and utilities, were documented. Any effects that could occur to surrounding structures because of settlement issues were noted. • Maintenance/accessibility-Every BMP must be maintained at some level for the BMP to continue to function as it was designed. BMPs were considered that maximize access for maintenance purposes. • Research potential-Research of stormwater BMPs is ongoing and necessary to fill existing data gaps and to continue to support the City in developing BMP standards. Monitoring protocol would be considered and incorporated into the design of each BMP that is implemented. The individual site characteristics and summary of field investigations and BMP recommendations are described below. The description includes results of field tests to evaluate infiltration rate, water table depth and soil quality; more detailed maps of potential BMP sites; and photographs of the watershed treatment area and available BMP area for each site. Centralized structural BMP options for the sites were narrowed down to specific BMP types and sizes during the process of evaluating nonstructural and structural solutions. The watershed treatment areas for each of the five identified sites, unless otherwise noted, are residential with concentrated or dispersed density configurations. Residential areas are known to generate high levels of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, typically from over fertilization and excess irrigation. Detergents used to wash cars in residential areas can contain high levels of phosphorus. Residential areas are also a source for metals and bacteria. While the largest portion of the watershed treatment areas are residential, there are also institutional and commercial areas in many of the watersheds. Institutional and commercial areas are typically a source of metals, nutrients, and PAHs. Additional pollutant source discussion is included in each site discussion where additional detail is required. On the basis of observed conditions at all the potential BMP sites, two types of centralized BMPs could be implemented in the open space at the five sites: underground storage/infiltration basins and extended dry detention/infiltration basin. Three of the potential BMP sites, A1, A2 and A3 are located at the Torrance Airport, one at Walnut Sump and the last site is located under the road near Torrance Baseball Field. The sites were also selected to eliminate or minimize the need for pump stations. Each centralized BMP is suitable for treating nutrients, toxics, metals, and other pollutants typically delivered with suspended sediment (e.g., organic pesticides, PAHs) in stormwater. Infiltration basins 58 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 215 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan require high infiltration rates and are not designed to store water for extended periods. Underground storage/infiltration systems are suitable in areas with hydrologic soil group (HSG) C soils and soils in the lower range of HSG B where infiltration is possible but could take longer. The five potential sites investigated do not have hard surface areas such as tennis courts, basketball courts, playgrounds, skateboard parks, and parking areas. These potential sites do not require a structural foundation and therefore could be used for belowground storage and treatment. Storm chambers installed below these surfaces would provide additional treatment while still allowing the areas to be used for recreation and parking. The type and size of the BMP were determined through further optimization analysis and reported in Section 6. The BMPs are planned to infiltrate water within a few days, reducing possible public health risks from stagnant water such as mosquitoes and drowning. An infiltration basin could still be used for recreation and open space activities between storm events and during the dry season. Belowground BMPs could have overlying space available for recreation or parking regardless of the weather. Each of the investigated potential centralized BMP sites has ample open space to provide access for maintenance. Observed maintenance at each potential site includes regular mowing similar to the required maintenance for an aboveground-centralized BMP. To maintain infiltration functionality, sediment would need to be removed when infiltration rates are reduced twenty-five to fifty percent from the design infiltration rate. Infiltration rates can be restored by removing accumulated sediment and disking or aerating the surface. Sediment from belowground BMPs would have to be removed annually or as needed. Considering current usage, ample space would be available for construction activities at each investigated site. While the focus of each of the potential centralized BMPs is TMDL compliance, implementing such BMPs also aligns with several integrated water resources planning objectives. In addition to the intended BMP objective of water quality improvement, a centralized BMP at each of the proposed sites would contribute to flood protection, water conservation, groundwater replenishment, and improved aesthetics. 5.3.2 Utility Search Prior to recommending a potential BMP site, a utility search was conducted. Known utilities companies contacted for utility information regarding the project area include: • Sempra -Gas utility • Southern California Edison-Electric utility • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) October 2014 59 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CAIT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 216 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Utility information obtained from the companies were included in the database created for this project. Analysis of the utility information indicates that there appears to no potential conflict with the proposed projects. The utility information is included in Appendix D. 5.3.3 Geotechnicallnvestigation Accurately identifying the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) of the existing soils is also an important first design step in computing BMP design treatment volume and appropriate runoff reduction credit. The initial screening of the on-site soils was conducted to identify basic soil characteristics related to stormwater management, such as the HSG and other features relevant to construction activities (e.g., erosion and sediment control). Also, through the initial screening areas where more detailed soil investigation and field determinations may be needed to refine the limits of the different HSGs as defined in the soil survey were identified. The initial screening also included the identification of locations deemed suitable for infiltration BMPs and therefore further detailed geotechnical investigations. Due to concern regarding infiltration rates at the Torrance Airport, a geotechnical investigation of this site was conducted using three soil borings. Details of this subsurface investigations are summarized in Appendix E. In summary, it can be concluded that the boring logs indicate that the top layer below surface at the Airport consists of a thin layer of silty sand followed by sandy clay, alluvium, and clay deposits. At depths ranging from 25 to 45 feet below surface, a sand layer is present. This layer would be most suitable for infiltration of stormwater. Hence, substantial excavation would be required to install the underground infiltration galleries at this site, which results in higher cost and difficult access for maintenance. More details regarding this BMP site is provided in the next section. 5.3.4 Torrance Airport Basin The Torrance Airport Basin is about 60 percent impervious with a concentrated impervious configuration and moderate road density. There are three proposed BMP sites all located at Torrance Airport (A 1, A2, and A3). These are open areas and are well maintained, suggesting the use of fertilizers that have high levels of nutrients and some metals, such as copper, adding another source of nutrients and metals to the stormwater runoff from the area. For the purposes of BMP implementation in this area, the drainage basin is subdivided into four treatment subcatchments, AS 1, AS2, AS3, and Walteria Lake, shown on Figure 5.4. Stormwater runoff from these four subcatchments could be diverted to the three potential sites; A 1, A2 and A3 for treatment. The subcatchments were delineated based on drainage characteristics and storm drain layout. Stormwater runoff from AS3 could be treated at A3, AS2 stormwater would be diverted to A2 and Walteria Lake discharge diverted to A 1 for treatment. 60 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/CiientiCA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables1Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 217 Legend • Diversions Walteria Lake -Infiltration/Recharge --Storm Drains Parcels Subcatchments AS1 AS2 c:=JAS3 c:=J Walteria Lake 0 0.5 --==---Miles 0.25 Figure 5.4 Torrance Airport Drainage Area Map BMP Implementation Plan City ofTorrance c c:~~~r_ .. .,. ~" l{;,.,.,,,:i".'lt--"..'V~'•~\''<\~'itll\• 218 C17Y OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Based on the storm drain layout, it is not costeffective to divert stormwater from AS1 to any of the three BMP sites. Therefore, non-structural BMPs will be considered for this su bcatchment. The Walteria Lake subcatchment is served by Walteria Lake, which acts as an extended wet detention basin. Stormwater is pumped from the lake through a 54-inch diameter force main. During big storms and/or pumping conditions, there is a high potential for sediment resuspension. This may lead to high pollutant discharge into Machado Lake. To prevent pollutant discharge into Machado Lake and thereby meet WLAs, discharge from Walteria Lake could be diverted at two locations into potential BMP sites A 1 and A2 as shown on Figure 5.5. However, A1 and A2 are designed based on Torrance watershed only. Additional capacity to treat flow volume pumped from Walteria Lake is not part of this report. A 1 could be expanded with financial participation from the LA County Flood Control District (LCFCD). 5.3.4.1 Subcatchment Volume Associated with 85th Percentile, 24 Hour Storm Wherever feasible, the City wants to capture and retain all non-stormwater runoff and all stormwater runoff from the 85th percentile, 24 hour storm event for the drainage area tributary to the BMP site. The applicability of the three BMP sites to capture and treat the 85th percentile runoff volume for each subcatchment was investigated. The total surface area and volume requirements for each potential BMP site is summarized in Table 5.3. As shown in the table, the potential BMP sites A 1, A2 and A3 have adequate surface area to implement underground storage/infiltration system to treat stormwater generated from their respective subcatchments. The total depth of the proposed underground storage/infiltration system would range between 4 and 8 feet. Table 5.3 Summary of BMP Requirements-Torrance Airport Water Water Drainage Quality Quality BMP BMP Area Percent Volume Flow Capacity Site Treated (ac) Imperviousness Treatability 1 (ac-ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) A1 NA2 NA NA NA 57 22.4 A2 86 45 6.7% 1.5 10.8 12.0 A3 640 59 66.1% 28.3 97.6 32.8 Notes: (1) Treatability: Fraction of impervious surface in subcatchment treated by BMP (2) Only effluent discharged from Walteria Lake subcatchment. 62 October 2014 rm:I/CarolloiDocumentsiCiieni/CA/Tommcei9193AOOIDeliverables/Draft Report!BMP·Implementalion Plan 219 Legend • Diversions New Conveyance .. lnflitration/Recharge Storm Drains 0 2,000 --===:::::11---Feet 1,000 Figure 5.5 Conceptual Layout of Torrance Airport Underground Storage/Infiltration BMP Stormwater Recharge Project City of Torrance c c;ar_ .. ,.. l:'l1f1ttl'(litfl'i.. ~''''·'·".t<\r''·'""'J<'r·~'>>VJhlc- 220 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The three sites were also evaluated to determine if the soils at the sites meet infiltration requirements. Based on geotechnical evaluation, BMP site A3 is the least feasible site to implement underground storage/infiltration due to the presence of a thick clay layer. Infiltration system at the site will have to very deep and will be costly. Therefore, underground storage/infiltration system would be implemented at site A3 only when additional treatment is required after installation of BMPs at sites A 1 and A2. Sites A 1 and A2 have enough capacity to capture and infiltrate the 851h percentile runoff from subcatchments AS2 and AS3. The total capacity of sites A 1 and A2 is approximately 34.4 ac-ft. Therefore, AS2 and AS3 can be designated as 851h Percentile Basins. 5.3.4.2 Torrance Airport Basin Treatment Scenarios Table 5.4 shows a summary of the pollutant load generated from subcatchments AS1, AS2 and AS3. These three subcatchments represent approximately 23 percent of the lmplemetation Area. However, they generate about 95 percent of the total phosphorus load generated from the entire Implementation Area. Therefore, for the City to meet the TMDL requirements, stormwater generated from these subcatchments must be managed using watershed-based strategies that combine structural and institutional or non-structural BMPs. Table 5.4 Torrance Airport Subcatchment Pollutant Load Summary Pollutant Load (kg/yr) Subcatchment TSS TP TN Toxics AS1 19,627 168 1 '131 1.50 AS2 4,694 41 273 0.36 AS3 47,984 411 2,765 3.66 Subcatchment AS1 Stormwater generated from subcatchment AS1 will be treated soley with non structural BMPs. Non-structural BMPs recommended for implementation in AS1 include: • Street sweeping -toxics and other pollutants released to the urban environment during dry weather conditions are likely to adsorb on street sediments, which provide mechanism for metals to reach downstream waterbodies. Street sweeping removes sediment, debris, and other pollutants from road and parking lots surfaces. Street sweeping is also proposed in subcatchments AS2 and AS3. • Catch Basin Filter lnserts/Cieanouts -continuation of catch basin cleaning programs will contribute to removal of sediments prior to entering the storm drains. The 64 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/T orrancei9193AOO/Deliverables/Oraft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 221 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan pollutant removal mechanisms of catch basin inserts are: screening, sedimentation, flotation, and absorption. Debris and large particles are removed by screening; smaller particles and sediment along with associated hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients, toxics and pathogens are removed by settling; and hydrocarbons that are not associated with sediment are removed by absorption. This Implementation Plan through modeling which is discussed in Section 6 proposes combined efficiencies of non-structural BMPs 30% for sediment, 10% for phosphorus and 23% for nitrogen. Toxics removal is assumed to be directly related to sediment removal efficiency. The assumptions underlying the modeling efforts are discussed in Section 6. Subcatchment AS1 has a total drainage area of about 249 acres with average imperviousness of about 60 percent. Stormwater runoff from AS1 will be captured by a total of 57 catch basin filter inserts. All the 57 catch basins will be retrofitted to allow the installation of full capture filters. Table 5.5 presents the expected outcome after implementation of non-structural BMPs in subcatchment AS1. Table 5.5 Torrance Airport Basin -Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs for Subcatchment AS1 Load (lb/yr) BMP Scenario TSS TP TN Toxics Before BMP 19,627 167.8 1 '131 1.50 After BMP1 13,739 151 871 1.05 (Load reduction) % Load Reduction 30 10 23 30 Note: (1) Load reduction by combined non-structural BMPs Subcatchments AS2 and AS3 Both non structural and structural BMPs are recommended for subcatchements AS2 and AS3. Street sweeping and storage/infiltration system will be implemented in these two subcatchments. The storage/infiltration system will be implemented in phases at BMP sites A 1 and A2. In phase 1 an 8 feet deep underground storage/infiltration system will be implemented at Site A2. The implementation of underground storage/infiltration system in Phase 2 will depend on the effectiveness of the Phase 1 BMP. The Implementation Plan calls for an integrated, adaptive management approach to utilize available resources effectively and efficiently. If through continued study of drainage patterns, diagnosis of problem sources, and new technologies for dry and wet weather treatment, it is realized that more treatment is needed in the Airport treatment area, BMP site A 1 will be considered for implementation of additional storage/infiltration system in Phase 2. October 2014 65 pwJ/Carollo/Documents/Ciien!ICNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repor!IBMP-Implemantation Plan 222 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan In Phase 1, runoff generated from subcatchments AS2 and AS3 will be treated at Site A2. Under this phase, two options have been identified and illustrated on Figures 5.6A and 5.6B. In Option 1, stormwater runoff will be diverted from Crenshaw Blvd and Amsler Street, and pump through a 14-inch forcemain to another diversion system at Crenshaw Blvd and 2501h Street. From here, the stormwater will flow by gravity to the infiltration system at Site A2. To improve infiltration in this area, the infiltration system should be located at a depth not less than 40 feet from the ground surface. Option 2, which is the preferred option, stormwater diverted from storm drains at Crenshaw Blvd. and Amsler St. and Crenshaw and 2501h Street will flow by gravity into the infiltration system at Site A2. Stormwater from Crenshaw Blvd. and Amsler Street will be conveyed through a 21-inch diameter to Crenshaw and 2501h Street. From here, the stormwater will be conveyed through a 24-inch diameter pipe to the infiltration system for treatment. Table 5.6 presents the the expected outcome after implementation of non-structural and structural BMPs to treat stromwater runoff from subcatchments AS2 and AS3. Table 5.6 Torrance Airport Basin-Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs for Subcatchments AS2 and AS3. Load (lb/yr) BMP Scenario TSS TP TN Toxics Before BMP 52,677.8 451.3 3,037.5 4.02 After BMP1 48,779.6 321.3 2,308.5 3.72 (Load reduction) % Load Reduction 92.6 71.2 76.0 92.6 Note: (1) Load reduction by combined non-structural and structural BMPs The storage requirements summarized in Table 5.3 were incorporated into the water quality model to simulate the effectiveness of the BMPs. All assumptions used in the pre-BMP model scenario were retained. The simulations do not include non-structural BMPs such as street sweeping and catch basin inserts. The nonstructural BMPs were evaluated separately. 66 October 2014 pw:IICarolloiDocuments/CiientiCA/Torrance/9193AOOIDeliverables!Drafl ReportiBMP·Implementation Plan 223 DIVERSION 2 ______, OIVERSION3 .. ., .. " " " "' " ~ .. IHFI! iRA'nON U~T NO. t 224 225.. ~ .. .. ,. ,. INFIL1'RATIOHUNITN0.1 "' 226 227 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.3.4.3 Recommended BMP Implementation in Torrance Airport Basin The Torrance Airport subcatchments, AS1, AS2 and AS3 represent approximately 23 percent of the lmplemetation Area. However, they generate about 95 percent of the total phosphorus and 44 percent of sediment load generated from the entire Implementation Area. The City has to implement BMPs to treat stormwater generated in this area in order to comply with the established TMDLs in the Machado Lake Watershed. In addition to street sweeping, catch basin filter inserts and other non-structural BMPs discussed earlier, two potential sites, A 1 and A2 are recommended for implementation of underground storage/infiltration system as part of Option 2 shown on Figure 5. 7. The sites were selected based on space availability, soil conditions, and cost effectiveness. These non-structural and structural BMPs can be implemented in three phases. In Phase 1, an eight feet deep underground storage/infiltration system will be installed at Site A2 to receive stormwater runoff through 21-and 24-inch diameter gravity pipes. Since this Plan calls for an adaptive management approach to utilize available resources effectively and efficiently, if through continued study of drainage patterns, diagnosis of problem sources, and new technologies for dry and wet weather treatment, it is realized that more treatment is needed in the Airport treatment area, BMP site A1 will be considered for implementation of additional storage/infiltration system in Phase 2. Phase 3 will consist of installing 57 catch basin inserts in subcatchment AS 1. In addition to contributing to meeting the TMDL reduction requirement of improving water quality, a centralized BMP at Torrance Airport would provide additional water supply resources benefits. A centralized BMP at Torrance Airport would be designed to increase infiltration providing additional groundwater replenishment to the groundwater basin. Storage provided by the BMP would reduce potential flooding in the watershed treatment area. Further benefits could be determined during implementation. 5.3.5 Walnut Sump Basin The watershed treatment area that could be treated by the Walnut Sump is about 62 percent impervious with a concentrated impervious configuration and moderate road density. For treatment purposes, this area is divided into three subcatments, WS-1 and WS-2 and WS-3 as shown on Figure 5.8. WS-3 includes drains into SD 1040 shown on Figure 5.8. Two treatment options have been identified for this treatment area. Both options include street sweeping. Option No. 1 will use the existing Walnut Sump to treat about 1 00 percent of the stormwater generated from subcatchments WS-2 and WS-3 shown on Figure 5.8. If more treatment is needed in this area in order to achieve TMDL compliance Option No.1 could be expanded to include 50 catch basin inserts in WS-1. The catch basins will be retrofitted to allow the installation of full capture filter to capture fine sediments and other pollutants. Walnut Sump, which will receive stormwater from this treatment basin, has adequate capacity to store and infiltrate the 851h percentile 24-hour runoff as shown in Table 5.6. October 2014 71 pw://Garolla/Oocuments/Ciieni/CAITorrance/9193AOOIDeliverablesJDraft Report!BMP-Implementation Plan 228 Legend e Diversions New Conveyance -Gravity Lines .. lnflitration/Recharge 0 1,000 2,000 Storm Drains ••-==::::1••••• Feet Figure 5.7 Recommended BMP at Torrance Airport Stormwater Recharge Project City ofTorrance c · c;~,_,...,. f!~ W:l,.:>~J"'¥~:.>'./.r>/"o'<'lhr- 229 Legend e Diversions ® Catch Basins New Conveyance Storm Drains .. Walnut Sump c::=::J WS-1 c::=::J WS-2 WS-3 0 1,000 Figure 5.8 Drainage Map of Walnut Sump Treatment Area -Option No. 1 Stormwater Recharge Project City ofTorrance c c;~r-••,. f"''l'~ ·~("'~'7 w·,~mon 101m •'~'·1!•' 230 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan In Option No. 1, stormwater runoff from subarea WS-3 will be diverted to Walnut Sump in Phase 1. Phase 2 will consist of installing 50 catch basin filters in WS-1. In Phase 3, stormwater from WS-2 will be diverted from the existing 9.2' x 11' RCB" storm drainpipe at 2351h St. and Walnut St. through a new 60-inch diameter gravity pipe to a stormwater lift station to be located at Sur La Brea Park at Walnut Street. From the lift station, stormwater will be pumped through a 24-inch diameter forcemain to Walnut Sump pre-treatment area for further removal of heavy sediments, oil, grease, and floatable wastes. Hydrodynamic Separator unit will be used for the pre-treatment. The pretreated stormwater runoff will then be conveyed to the Walnut Sump main storage area for storage and infiltration Option No. 2 consists of catch basin inserts only in WS-1 and WS-2 to capture fine sediments and other pollutants as shown on Figure 5.9. Under this option, stormwater from WS-1, WS-2 and WS-3 will be treated by a total of 150 catch basins retrofitted to allow the installation of full capture screens. Figure 5.10 shows the conceptual layout of both options, while Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12 show design concept details of both options. Figure 5.13 shows the details of the proposed Walnut Sump storage/infiltration system. Table 5.6 summarizes the storage requirements for this treatment basin. Table 5.6 Summary of BMP Requirements -Walnut Sump Drainage Water Water Walnut No. of Area Percent Quality Quality Sump Catch Treated lmper-Treat-Volume Flow Capacit Basin Option (a c) viousness ability (ac-ft) (cfs) y (ac-ft) Inserts Option 742 61 79% 39.5 111 50 50-No.1 Option 922 62 100% ---150 No.2 The storage requirements summarized in Table 5.6 were incorporated into the water quality model P8 to simulate the effectiveness of the BMPs. All assumptions used in the pre-BMP model scenario were retained. The simulations do not include non-structural BMPs such as street sweeping and catch basin inserts. The results of the simulation runs are summarized in Table 5.7. 74 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiienUCNTorrance/9193AOOIDeliverables/Draft ReporUBMP·Implementation Plan 231 Legend Q) Catch Basins Subcatchments -·--Storm Drains [=:J WS-1 .. Walnut Sump WS-2 0 2,000 --===---Feet 1,000 Figure 5.9 Drainage Map of Walnut Sump Treatment Area • Option No. 2 Stormwater Recharge Project City of Torrance c c::a,_.,.._ E~ o'lrn~.,.,~\·cp"Wf'l;;n•<'!ii\'F" 232 Legend • Diversions • Pump Station Conveyance Walnut Sump -·· ··· Storm Drains 0 400 --====---• Feet 200 Figure 5.10 Conceptual Layout of Walnut Sump Aboveground Storage/Infiltration BMP Stormwater Recharge Project City ofTorrance 233"" PLAN AND PROFILE OF WALNUT SUMP TREATMENT SYSTEM .. " 234 235 2 3 A B c ,., E, " "' " 1IFI ~ DATE APfiUL2Ct3 PI..OTT1ME: $TIME$ 5 ~ ,..,. I I I ~ II """' 6 1 -CR""""''*"""f"'1 ~-'----~''----I a 10 ...... 11 12 G) RIF'R IIPAPRON @EARTH BERMACROSSSfr'IREWIOTHOF INFILTRATION BASH @)8'GRAVI'IYWIIN @JM..ETP1P! @ I.!Nl'Rl'!AM PIQTREA11.1ENT(m$TAllMS UMi} @ ~TOI.ERANTVEGETAl'Di CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA DETAILS OF WALNUT SUMP STORAGE/INFILTRATION BMP PLAN AND PROFILE 10 11 12 13 A B c " 236 237 Legend e Diversions SUBCATCH .. Infiltration/Recharge BB-S1 Storm Drains fr l BB-S2 C:J BB-S3 BB-S4 Figure 5.13 Drainage Map of Baseball Field Treatment Area Stormwater Recharge Project City of Torrance 0 1,000 ••=:::::~•••• Feet c CFI,_.,..,. 500 f:rtg.!'I!!Joi'W'li >'i,'">c>:<•;~""~"'/''c#>'"'•\'!!lh'" 238 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 5.7 Walnut Sump -Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs Load (lb/yr) BMP Scenario TSS TP TN Toxics Before BMP 71,451 22 127 5.44 After BMP1 66,164 15.9 97.7 5.04 %Load Reduction 92.6 72.1 76.9 92.6 Note: (1) Load reduction by combined non-structural and structural BMPs 5.3.5.1 Recommended BMP Implementation at Walnut Sump The overall objective of the Implementation Plan is compliance with the Machado Lake nutrients and toxics TMDLs. The primary objective for this project location, therefore, is to remove toxics and nutrients from the existing storm drain in subcatchment WS-2. These objectives may in general be met by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) or a combination thereof. In addition to street sweeping and other non-structural BMPs, the structural BMP proposed for the Walnut Sump drainage area includes the following elements: • Stormwater lift station. • 60-inch diameter gravity main • 24-inch diameter force main • Flow diversion facility. • Hydrodynamic separator. • Above ground storage/infiltration area -Walnut Sump • Overflow piping. The implementation will carried out in phases as listed below: 1. Phase I -Divert flow from storm drain 1 040 2. Phase 11-lnstall catch basin filters in WS-1 3. Phase Ill-Diversion and pump station for WS-2 In addition to contributing to meeting the TMDL reduction requirement of improving water quality, a centralized BMP at walnut Sump would provide other water resources benefits. A centralized BMP at this location would be designed to increase infiltration providing additional groundwater replenishment to the groundwater basin. Storage provided by the BMP would reduce potential flooding in the watershed treatment area. Further benefits could be determined during implementation. For example, the actual BMP design could 82 October 2014 pw:IICarolloiDocuments!Ciient/CAITorrancei9193AOOIDeliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 239 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan include additional vegetation that would enhance habitat area in the area and Public Education. 5.3.6 Baseball Field Basin The watershed treatment area that could be treated by the Baseball Field underground storage/infiltration system is about 60 percent impervious with a concentrated impervious configuration and moderate road density. This treatment area has adequate surface area, about 0.73 acres to treat all the water quality volume generated from this drainage basin. Two treatment options have been identified for this basin. Option No. 1 will treat about 31 percent of the stormwater generated from this area with underground storage/infiltration system. Thus, under this option, only stormwater runoff from sub area BB-83 shown on Figure 5.13 will be treated with the storage/infiltration system. Stormwater generated from the remaining Sub areas; BB-81, BB-82, and BB-84 will be captured by 19 catch basins retrofitted to allow full capture filters. Option No.2 will treat the water quality volume generated from the entire treatment area, BB-81, BB-82, BB-83, and BB-84. Figure 5.13 shows the drainage map of this treatment area and Figure 5.14 is the conceptual layout of this treatment system. In Option No. 1, stormwater will be diverted from the existing 36-inch diameter pipe at Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue through a short diversion pipe into the BMP system. Option No. 2 will be considered for implementation when through monitoring and modeling it is found out that more treatment is needed in this subarea. Option No. 2 will capture stormwater runoff generated from BB-81, BB-82, BB-83, and BB-84. Stormwater runoff will be diverted from existing drain at Plaza Del Amo and Western Ave. into Unit 82. This option also includes the installation of 23 full capture filter screens. Figure 5.14 shows conceptual layout and detail design concept of both options. Table 5.8 summarizes the storage requirements for this treatment basin. Table 5.9 shows the load reduction associated with each option. Figure 5.15 shows the plan and profile of these two options. Table 5.8 Summary of BMP Requirements -Baseball Field Water Water Area Quality Quality BMP Treated Percent Volume Flow Capacity Option (a c) Imperviousness Treatability (ac-ft) (cfsl (ac-ft) Option 39 63 26.3 0.67 6.0 2.9 No.1 Option 148 65 100 2.54 22.8 6.0 No.2 October 2014 83 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 240 Legend e Diversions --Storm Drains -Infiltration/Recharge New Conveyance 0 300 --r::::==----Feet 150 Figure5.14 Conceptual Layout of Baseball Field Underground Storange/lnfiltration BMP Stormwater Recharge Project City of Torrance c car-'141t ~rig\~ ,>'r...,·it<\;1 li':C"'':tn llmTW;II'o/" 241 N0.2 OP'OONN0.1 .. ., ,. ., ., 1S"PIPEQ1.fR DETAIL DESIGN CONCEPT OF BASEBALL FIELD BMP TREATMENT SYSTEM 242 243 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 5.9 Walnut Sump -Summary of Load Reduction from Quantified BMPs Load (lb/yr) BMP Scenario TSS TP TN Toxics Option 1 Before BMP 71,451 7 38 1.19 After BMP1 63,091 4.97 27.36 1.05 % Load Reduction 88.3 71 72 88.3 Option 2 Before BMP 71,451 7 38 1.9 After BMP1 65,806 5.04 28.12 1.1 %Load Reduction 92.1 72 74 92.1 Note: (1) Load reduction by combined non-structural and structural BMPs In addition to contributing to meeting the TMDL reduction requirement of improving water quality, a centralized BMP at Baseball Field would provide other water resources benefits. A centralized BMP at this location would be designed to increase infiltration providing additional groundwater replenishment to the groundwater basin. Storage provided by the BMP would reduce potential flooding in the watershed treatment area. Further benefits could be determined during implementation. This BMP could be constructed without interfering with baseball field. 5.4 Additional Structural Options for TMDL Implementation Through additional monitoring, pollutant source characterizations, and site investigations throughout the duration of the TMDL implementation schedule, additional options for structural BMPs could be identified that can enhance or replace those BMPs identified in this plan. This is especially true for dry weather, when flows are highly variable throughout the storm drain system, and specific areas could require special methods treating storm drain flows before they discharge to receiving waters. For storm drains with particularly high dry weather flows and associated pollutant loads where other nonstructural or structural BMPs are not providing a remedy, specific mechanical BMPs can be implemented. Such BMPs could include diversions to wastewater treatment plants or on-site treatment facilities that provide ultraviolet disinfection or other forms of treatment. Likewise, for wet weather, certain mechanical BMPs can be installed in problem storm drains where other nonstructural and structural BMPs are not providing a solution. Several October 2014 87 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CJlJTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report!BMP·Implementation Plan 244 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan stormwater BMPs are available for this purpose, which are based on a range of technologies that continue to evolve through continued research and development. This TMDL Implementation Plan is intended to be iterative and adaptive to allow for modifications as additional studies of the drainage system and diagnoses of problem sources are achieved and as new technologies for dry and wet weather treatment continue to emerge. 5.5 Regulatory Requirements and Environmental Permits Consultation with regulatory agencies and the acquisition of permits is required before project components can be constructed. The following sections summarize regulatory permits and approvals relevant to the implementation of the Water Quality Enhancement Projects in the Machado Lake watershed. 5.5.1 Environmental Assessment In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies are required to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Every development project that requires discretionary governmental approval will require at least some environmental review pursuant to CEQA, unless an exemption applies. The Water Quality Enhancement Projects discussed in the previous section will likely require the preparation of a Negative Declaration. 5.5.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill material in wetlands, streams, rivers, and other waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the federal agency authorized to enforce Section 404 and issue permits for certain authorized activities conducted in these waters. Based on the proposed area for the projects, it is unlikely that a Section 404 permit will be required. If required and jurisdictional, Section 404 permitting could potentially be completed under the nationwide permit program. Coverage under the nationwide program can be authorized within three to four months from the time the permit application is deemed complete. 5.5.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of the Interior, is responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act, which prohibits activities affecting threatened and endangered species unless authorized by a permit from the USFWS. The Endangered Species Program is charged with issuing permits for activities that could potentially affect native endangered or threatened species, including Incidental Take Permits associated with Habitat Conservation plans. The USAGE will consult with USFWS regarding endangered species issues as part of the Section 404 process. A biological resources report for the project site may be required as part of the permit application package to the USAGE. 88 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documenls/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 245 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 5.5.4 California Department of Fish and Game The regulatory functions of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) include the review of CEQA documents as a responsible agency. In addition, CDFW issues streambed or lakebed alteration agreements for projects with impacts to waters of the State, issues permits for take of threatened and endangered species for authorized activities, approves and permits the take of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, non- game fish, and plants for scientific or educational purposes, and the take of threatened, endangered, or candidate species for management purposes. The Water Quality Enhancement Projects may require a CDFW Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. 5.5.5 State Water Resources Control Board Construction activities disturbing one or more acres must obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ (Construction General Permit, or CGP). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. To obtain coverage under the CGP, the City will designate a Legally Responsible Person to electronically file Permit Registration Documents (PROs) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). PROs include a Notice of Intent, Risk Assessment, Site Map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and certification. A project-specific SWPPP will need to be developed and implemented to reduce polluted discharges from entering the storm drain system and local receiving waters during construction activities. The CGP requires all permitted dischargers to develop and implement a SWPPP that: • Identifies all pollutant sources including sources of sediment that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges associated with construction activity from the construction site. • Identifies and eliminates non-stormwater discharges. • Specifies BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater and authorized nonstormwater discharges from the site during construction. • Incorporates BMP inspection and maintenance routines. • Identifies a sampling and analysis strategy and sampling schedule for discharges that have been discovered through visual monitoring to be potentially contaminated by pollutants not visually detectable in runoff. October 2014 89 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 246 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The City or construction contractor will need a Qualified SWPPP Developerto prepare the SWPPP, and then a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner will need to implement the plan during construction. The SWPPP must address the use of appropriately selected, correctly installed, and properly maintained pollution control BMPs. 5.5.6 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, applicants for Section 404 Permits must first obtain a Water Quality Certification documenting that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards. If the project is determined to be under USAGE jurisdiction, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for the project. If the project is not under USAGE jurisdiction, the LARWQCB may require coverage under Waste Discharge Requirements instead. Protection of beneficial uses during construction and operation are key issues. Construction dewatering may be necessary because of high groundwater. Dewatering activities will require coverage under the General NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements of Discharges from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. To obtain permit coverage, a Report of Waste Discharge and application must be filed with LARWCQB at least 30 days prior to discharge. Even though the installation of Water Quality Enhancement Projects is generally encouraged by the LARWQCB, concems may be raised with the potential of projects using on-site infiltration of stormwater to affect the water quality of the underlying groundwater. Prior to implementing projects such as infiltration basins/trenches, flow through planters, porous pavement, etc., the City would need to conduct a technical analysis evaluating the possibility of groundwater impacts. The analysis will determine the depth to groundwater, its designated beneficial uses, and the historical uses of the site. There are cases where projects may be infeasible -if the depth to groundwater is less than 5 feet from the surface, if drinking water wells are present within 100 feet of the proposed infiltration site, or if the site is a brown field with potential pollutant mobilization through the soil, etc. Consultation with LARWQCB staff is recommended. 5.5. 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Construction activities in the South Coast Air Basin are subject to South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 403. Rule 403 sets requirements to reasonably regulate operations that periodically may cause fugitive dust emissions into the atmosphere by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. The construction contractor will need to implement dust control measures during project construction. 90 October 2014 pw://Garollo/Documents/Ciient/CNT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 247 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 6.0 EVALUATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL AND STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS As shown in the previous sections, a number of nonstructural and structural BMP options were identified that can support TMDL implementation. An evaluation of those practices was performed, including optimizing the most cost-effective combination of BMPs to support meeting WLAs for the TMDL Implementation Area. The evaluation analysis for the Nutrient and Taxies TMDLs uses an integrated approach, considering reductions for both classes of pollutants. The evaluation analysis uses the identified suite of structural and nonstructural projects discussed in Sections 4 and 5 to determine the set of actions that will most likely be implemented in an effort to achieve the TMDL requirements. The analysis is a demonstration of how the identified projects may achieve compliance. As the implementation is an adaptive management process, the precise suite of actions and the timing may be changed to use resources more cost effectively. The adaptive management approach will allow changes in the type and quantity of structural and nonstructural BMPs to ensure cost effective measures are being implemented. Flexibility in the schedule and makeup of the Implementation Plan are key to adaptive management. The quantification analysis is based on the reductions from both nonstructural and structural BMPs that work together to reduce the concentration and load of constituents. Generally nonstructural BMPs consist of pollution prevention activities and source control activities that reduce the amount of the constituent entering the MS4 system, ultimately reducing the concentration in stormwater. Nonstructural activities also encourage the effective use of water, aiming to reduce dry-weather flows. In this way, nonstructural activities reduce the constituent load entering structural BMPs located downstream of the sources. Removal of suspended sediments by the proposed BMPs will be used a surrogate to assess compliance of Toxics. Taxies removal will be estimated as a fraction of suspended solids removed by the BMPs. 6.1 Evaluation of Structural Solutions 6.1.1 Watershed Modeling and Optimized BMP Selection Approach Watershed modeling tools linked to a BMP simulation system were used to evaluate and optimize quantitative load reduction scenarios to address TMDL implementation efforts in the TMDL Implementation Area of the Machado Lake watershed. The watershed model is based on existing commonly used to simulate and evaluate BMPs Brief descriptions of the watershed model and BMP simulation model is provided below. October 2014 91 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOOIDeliverables/Drafl Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 248 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 6.1.1.1 PB ·Hydrologic Modeling Using a Continuous Simulation Model The P8 watershed modeling system utilizes a modeling approach that has been used to support numerous TMDL developments throughout the country. The P8 model is a continuous simulation model and generates runoff characteristics based on rainfall, soil characteristics and infiltration rates, evapo-transpiration, antecedent conditions, and land use specific pollutant loading characteristics. Meteorological data from 2005 to 2013 were used to calibrate the model. Existing meteorological data, hydraulic data, land use information, and monitoring data were used to calibrate each sub-watershed to most accurately simulate the runoff and pollutant load. The P8 model simulates hydrology, sediment, and general water quality were combined with a stream fate and transport model. Wet-weather loading estimates are developed using the modeled constituents including TN, TP, TSS, and Toxics. Based on the model results from 2005 to 2013, a daily or average annual load was calculated for TSS, TN, TP, and Toxics. Annual load results were compared with the WLAs to calculate the load reduction needed to meet those WLAs and presented in Table 3.5. 6.1.1.2 Optimization BMP Design Approach The optimization BMP design approach uses GIS information and time-series data for watershed runoff flows and pollutant concentrations (generated by the watershed model), integrates a process-based BMP simulation, and applies optimization techniques for the most cost-effective BMP planning and selection. Based on comprehensive site evaluation and financial analysis, the City selected five sites for centralized BMP Implementation. Optimization of BMP design approach was therefore not comprehensively performed. 6. 1.1.3 BMP Simulation Process The BMP simulation system uses process-based simulation for BMP function and removal efficiency and accepts flow and water quality time-series data generated internally by P8 as input data. Process-based simulation of BMPs provides a technique that is sensitive to local climate and rainfall patterns. BMP effectiveness can be evaluated and estimated over a wide range of storm conditions, site designs, and flow routing configurations. The storage/infiltration BMPs used in the study included underground and aboveground storage/infiltration systems. The primary benefits of these BMPs are storage and infiltration, which enable runoff volume and rate reduction. These type BMPs also provide water quality benefits via filtration, settling of sediment, and pollutant decay. The PLAT was used to estimate the average annual load of TN, TP, and TSS from the TMDL Implementation Area. The model-calculated annual loadings for these constituents are presented in Table 3.5. Additionally, the final WLA and the resulting required reduction 92 October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repcrt/BMP-Implementation Plan 249 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan for nutrients are included in Table 3.5. The model's estimate for current annual loading of nitrogen is less than the interim WLA, but would require a 30 percent reduction to meet the final WLA. The current loading of phosphorus estimated by the PLAT is also less the interim WLA, but would require a 54 percent reduction in average phosphorus loading by 2018. Load reductions of TSS are are used to estimate taxies removal. 6.2 Nonstructural Quantification Analysis The Watershed Treatment Model (WTM) is used to assess the effectiveness of non structural BMPs on the dry weather and annual loading of nutrients and suspended solids from the TMDL Implementation Area. The WTM was developed by the Center for Watershed Protection with funding by the USEPA in June 2010. The WTM is a spreadsheet-based model that calculates annual pollutant loads and runoff volumes and accounts for the benefits of a full suite of stormwater treatment practices to determine reductions in pollutant loads. The WTM is used for the TMDL Implementation Area in the Machado Lake watershed to determine the accumulated effectiveness of implementing dry weather BMPs for the control of nutrients and suspended solids. The WTM uses both environmental inputs (e.g., area of land use types, soil types, etc.) and inputs about BMPs. Environmental inputs are used to determine current loads and inputs about BMPs determine the percent reduction in loads. 6.2.1.1 Illicit Connection Removal Illicit connections to storm drains are sources of a variety of pollutants including nutrients. This source control is applicable to residential and commercial areas in the TMDL Implementation Area. However, the load reduction impact of such program is dependent on the presence and extend of illicit connections in the TMDL Implementation Area. The costs of a field investigation, water sample analysis, and illicit connections trace or to confirm reconnedion to the sewer system (via dye, video, or smoke testing) can be highly variable and depend on the extent and nature of the problem. Literature review indicates that the cost of removal of one illicit connection and its reconnection to the sewer system is roughly $2,500 (Marcoux, 2004 and Brown et al., 2004), which makes this is an expensive option. However, the City's NPDES Permit already requires inspection of the storm drain system for illicit connections and removal of the connections, and increased effort to identify illicit connections would enhance the City's illicit connection program. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that: • 0 percent of residents have illicit connections. Previous audits conducted by the City did not found any illicit connections. • 10 percent of businesses have illicit connections, • 40 percent of the sanitary sewer is surveyed for illicit connections, • 20 percent of illicit connections are corrected. Odober2014 93 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 250 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Assumptions were based on best professional judgment because the number of illicit connections varies depending on local habits, municipal outreach, and enforcement. The number of illicit connections identified and corrected would be dependent on the resources the City can allocate to this program. 6.2.1.2 Catch Basin Cleanout Regular catch basin cleanout prevents pollutants from flowing through and into the storm drain system. Sediment, debris, and gross particulate matter are the targeted pollutants with the cleanout of catch basins, but removal of particulate-bound pollutants, including nutrients and taxies, occurs through the physical removal of sediments. Catch basin cleanouts can be prioritized as follows: • Priority A: These catch basins are cleaned quarterly. • Priority B: These catch basins are cleaned semi-annually. • Priority C: These catch basins are cleaned annually. Review of the City's program showed that most catch basins were Priority C. However, the model only allows input of semi-annual or monthly cleanouts. Therefore, semi-annual cleanouts were selected. Other inputs were based on best professional judgment. The assumption of semiannual cleanouts may overestimate current load removal and therefore underestimate the percent reduction in loads that could be achieved from increased cleanout frequency. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that: • The impervious area drains to the catch basins; • Catch basins are currently cleaned semi-annually; • In the future, 60 percent of catch basins will be cleaned quarterly; and • In the future, 40 percent of catch basins will be cleaned semi-annually. 6.2.1.3 Street Sweeping Street sweeping uses mechanical pavement cleaning practices to minimize pollutant transport to receiving water bodies. Sediment, debris, and gross particulate matter are the targeted pollutants, but removal of other particulate-bound pollutants, such as nutrients and taxies, can be accomplished simultaneously. 94 October 2014 pw:JICarollo/Documents/Ciient/CAITorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 251 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The City's Permit requires that the City prioritize street sweeping as follows: • Priority A: These streets and/or street segments shall be swept at least two times per month. • Priority B: Each street and/or street segments is swept at least once per month. • Priority C: These streets and/or street segments shall be swept as necessary but in no case less than once per year. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that: • Publicly owned roads and parking lots are currently swept weekly. • All roads in TMDL Implementation Area are currently swept with vacuum sweepers. • The future program will use vacuum sweepers. City roads are currently being swept weekly. However, the majority of streets lack proper no-parking signage to allow street sweeping trucks to effectively sweep along the curbs. The City is implementing a signage program to allow enforcement on non-parking days and increase the effectiveness of the current street sweeping program. The City uses both mechanical and the more effective vacuum sweepers. The street sweeping cost (including O&M) of vacuum street sweepers is $360/curb mile based on a monthly sweeping frequency (in 2005 dollars) (Shilling, 2005). 6.2. 1.4 Residential Irrigation and Fertilizer Reduction Over irrigation leads to runoff, increasing flows within the stormwater system. Additionally, urban irrigation runoff can be high in TSS and nutrients. The nutrients in urban irrigation runoff are typically from fertilizers, which are often overused. Effective outreach can teach residents not to overwater and to test the soil to determine the appropriate amount of fertilizer to apply. In addition, evapotranspiration (ET) controllers have been successfully used to reduce irrigation runoff. The cost of this outreach is highly dependent on the approach, which could vary from internet outreach sites to homeowner incentives to educational displays at retail stores. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that: • Half of runoff from the TMDL Implementation Area is dry weather flow. • An irrigation reduction program would reduce irrigation flows by 20 percent. • Enhanced outreach of television and radio spots would be necessary to reach and convey the message of controlling irrigation and using proper amounts of fertilizer. October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft: Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 95 252 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 6.2.2 Results of Watershed Treatment Model The results of the above combined inputs to the WTM are listed in Table 6.1. The reductions are based on percent of dry weather load and the percent of annual runoff load (e.g., street sweeping has benefits in both wet and dry weather). These reductions are considered approximate estimates due to the environmental characterization assumptions made for the model and the assumptions listed in the previous sections. Table 6.1 Estimated Reductions in Nutrients and TSS from Non-Structural BMPs Percent ReductionC1l Total Total Total Suspended Toxics Flow Condition Nitrogen Phosphorus Solids Dry Weather Runoff 21% 15% 33% 33% Annual Runoff 23% 10% 26% 26% Note: (1) Load reductions as predicted by the Watershed Treatment Model with inputs discussed in Section 6.2. WTM requires a number of inputs to assess current conditions and the effectiveness of specific source controls. The WTM is the best available tool for modeling and estimating reductions because there is very little reliable literature about load reduction in stormwater through implementation of nonstructural BMPs. WTM results will need to be compared with and used in conjunction with stormwater quality and quantity data to evaluate the effectiveness of the nonstructural BMPs. As shown in Table 6.1, the use of nonstructural BMPs is estimated to reduce TP loading by 10 percent on an annual basis. Therefore, the remaining 44 percent of the required 54 percent reduction (see Table 11) will need to be through the use of structural BMPs. Similarly, structural BMPs need to remove the remaining 8 percent of the required 31 percent of TN removal as calculated with the models and assumptions stated in this report. 6.3 Structural Quantification Analysis The PLAT calculates the distribution of structural BMPs to provide the required load reductions at the optimal cost. In setting the load reductions levels for structural BMPs in the PLAT, the anticipated reductions through implementation of non-structural BMPs are subtracted from the total load reductions necessary to achieve the TMDL WLAs. Structural BMPs considered in the PLAT include rainwater capture and reuse, bioretention, porous pavement, and centralized treatment. The initial recommendations for structural BMPs optimized by the PLAT are presented in Table 6.2. 96 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 253 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 6.2 Optimized Sizing of Centralized BMPs from PLAT1 Centralized BMP Needed Total BMP Total Impervious {ac-ft} Treatment Area Area Capacity SubArea (ac)1 {%) Aboveground Underground (a e-ft) Airport -AS2 86 45 n/a 1.5 12.0 Airport -AS3 640 59 n/a 28 38.0 Airport-Walteria 391 60 n/a 20.5 22.4 Walnut Sump --39.5 nla 50 Baseball Field --n/a 1.0 2.9 Note: (1) Overall removal load reduction percentages: TSS=90%; TP=68%, TN=70%; Toxics=90%. The final mix of BMPs will depend on funding available for installation and the measured gains in nutrients and toxics reductions as projects are implemented. Refinements to the model based on Machado Lake watershed water quality and quantity monitoring may also change the amounts and relative distributions of BMPs in future reconsideration of the Nutrients TMDL. 6.3.1 Retrofit through Redevelopment Additionally, the City will adopt an ordinance requiring LID components when greater than 50 percent of the impervious area is modified. Residential areas within the TMDL Implementation Area are generally established with low levels of redevelopment. The commercial and industrial areas may experience a moderate rate of redevelopment and would be subject to the City's LID ordinance. For purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that 15 percent of the 675 acres commercial, industrial, and institutional area in the area will experience redevelopment over the course of the Implementation Plan. In addition, the rate of redevelopment is assumed to be 2.5 percent per year between 2013 and 2018. This rate is based on the levels experienced in the TMDL Implementation Area of LA County over the past 20 years and is expected to be similar in the TMDL Implementation Area over the life of the Implementation Plan. Future rate of redevelopment are largely a function of the economic health of the region as a whole and is outside the control of the City. In the future, if the levels of LID through redevelopment becomes more significant that assumed for this study, it could be possible, that less structural BMPs are required in the TMDL Implementation Area to meet the WLAs. October 2014 97 pw://Carollo/Documenls/CiienUCAIT orrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 254 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 6.4 Quantification Analysis Results A summary of the required BMP capacity volumes and identified volumes though City projects, redevelopment, and identified opportunities is presented in Table 6.2. The remaining BMP capacity (i.e., the BMP capacity not identified through retrofit of City lands, conceptual opportunities, or redevelopment) may be provided through private installation of BMPs or the installation of structural BMPs within leased properties or acquisition of land within the TMDL Implementation Area. Leasing land area will require negotiation with lessees on properties where leases will expire during the implementation period. Private installation of BMPs may occur through incentive programs, or ordinances. Stormwater fees may be developed to provide a funding mechanism for future BMPs and fund (not oversee) the programs discussed in the BMP Implementation Plan. To attain the WLAs, it may not be necessary for the City to acquire land outside the Implementation Area to implement BMPs. Successful implementation of the programs to attain WLAs will require the multi- departmental detailed planning which is beyond the scope of the BMP Implementation Plan. The BMP Implementation Plan is rooted in an adaptive management approach, allowing the City to assess the true effectiveness of non-structural BMPs, and monitoring to better refine the annual average load of the pollutants of concern. To attain WLA, City may need to work with LACFCD and Rolling Estates to expand Project A1 at the Torrance Airport. 6.5 Quantification Analysis Conclusions Due to the reasonable amount of existing publicly owned land within the TMDL Implementation Area in the Machado Lake watershed, centralized structural BMPs can be implemented in areas currently owned by the City. This avoids lengthy negotiations between landowners and the City, incentive programs, City ordinances, and stormwater fees may need to be developed and instituted, and land acquisition may be necessary. The monitoring program will provide stormwater sampling data to assess the site-specific level of nutrients associated with the sediment leaving TMDL Implementation Area. The measured pollutant levels from the monitoring program may provide more site-specific pollutant loading scenarios from the watershed, which would help reevaluate reductions required to meet the WLAs. Currently, TP is the limiting constituent driving the number of BMPs. Additionally, the Nutrients TMDL is due to be reevaluated by 2016, and the reevaluation will include the information from special studies and the results of monitoring programs. The Nutrients TMDL reevaluation may be used to refine the loading capacity of Machado Lake, ultimately changing the WLAs. If, through monitoring, the loadings from the TMDL Implementation Area reveal that nonstructural BMPs are more effective than assumed by the WTM, or the levels of constituents in the runoff from TMDL Implementation Area are lower than currently thought to exist, BMP implementation will need to be adjusted accordingly. 98 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiienUCNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draf! ReporUBMP·Implementation Plan 255 6.6 Reasonable Assurance CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The main objective of this implementation plan is capture 851h percentile runoff and infiltrate it, wherever possible. This is in addition to non-structural BMPs including enhanced street sweeping, public education and catch basin filter inserts. The City is already performing street sweeping and public education. The proposed BMPs have sufficient capacity to capture and infiltrate the 851h percentile runoff. The expected phosphorus removal is summarized in Table 6.3. The cost per phosphorus load removed by each of the proposed BMPs is shown on Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 shows the expected phosphorus removal throughout the implementation period. Unit Project Cost in $/kg Phosphorus removed $16,000 $14,000 ..-.. $12.000 "C <» > 0 e ~ $10,000 a. ! 'Iii $8,000 ~~·-··---~~ 0 (.) '16 -'ii-$6,000 (.) -'2 ::J $4,000 -+------·~~~ $- 6 • Project Cost and Priority (1-7) I Airport BMP at Walnut Sump Baseball Field Street Catch basin Catchbasin Catchbasin A2 BMP BMP Sweeping Inserts-Airport Inserts-Inserts- Walnut Sump Baseball Field Figure 6.1 Cost per TP Load Removed By Each BMP October 2014 99 pw:IICarollo/DocumentsiCiient/CNTorrancei9193AOO/Deliverables!Draft ReportiBMP-Implementation Plan 256 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 600 ~500 . ........ ~ ::.. "C IV .9 400 Ill ::1 .... 0 .s::. 0. g 300' .s::. Q. n; ::1 c c 200 <C 100 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Exbting Load = 653 kg P /yr TMOL Allocation = 301 kg P/yr Remaining load to be removed • Baseball field I:IMP Project Walnut Sump I:IMP Project ll!lCatchbasin Inserts -1:\a~eball Field •Catchbasin Inserts -Walnut Sump <;•Airport liMP project 111 Catchbasln Inserts -Airport ii!l Street Sweeping a Remaining load (TMOLAIIocation) Figure 6.2 Expected TP Removal throughout the Implementation Period 100 October 2014 pw-J/Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CA/Tommce/9193AOO/Deliverables/Dralt Report!BMP-Implementation Plan 257 Table 6.3 Summary of Expected Phosphorus Removal CITY OF TORRAJVCe, CALIFoRNIA BMP Implementation Plan October 2014 101 pw:flGarob'OocumentsiCllent/CNTorrance/9193AOOt'Oe!Nemb1esJDrnft Repor!IBMP-hnplementatKln Plan 258 259 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan 7.0 MULTI-BENEFITS ANALYSIS This BMP Implementation Plan outlines the management actions that may be needed to ultimately attain the WLAs of the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL (LARWQCB, 2009) in the City's TMDL Implementation Area of the Machado Lake watershed. Although the primary intention of the proposed structural and nonstructural BMPs is to reduce nutrients load to Machado Lake, the ancillary benefits include water supply improvement, community enhancement, and sediment reductions. This section describes the additional benefits that may be achieved as the management actions are implemented. It should be noted that they do not necessarily benefit the City directly. 7.1 Water Supply 7 .1.1 Irrigation Reduction Irrigation reduction is a proposed nonstructural BMP. Irrigation reduction has the direct water supply benefit of reducing the amount of potable water used for irrigation. Irrigation reductions could be achieved through outreach to residents and implementation of evapotranspiration controllers. Irrigation reductions will be aided by Ordinance No. 2008- 0052U, which prohibits runoff from lawns and landscaping on to hardscape (streets, sidewalks). This ordinance also limits fertilizer running onto the street, thus reducing nutrient loads to stormwater. Field monitoring data show that irrigation runoff is insignificant and therefore the City may continue to monitor this in the future. 7.2 Community Enhancement Benefits Water quality improvements benefit the community at large. These benefits include aesthetics, increases in property value, enhanced recreation opportunities, enhanced water supply, and lower costs for landscape maintenance. Ecosystem benefits are also realized from the improvements. Runoff reduction contributes to water conservation, provides habitat benefits through the reduction of the artificial dry weather flows, and reduces the cost of landscape maintenance. Improvements in Machado Lake water quality will provide the community with enhanced recreational opportunities. Water quality improvements are likely to improve wildlife viewing and fishing opportunities at the lake. Enhancements in habitat directly benefit the wildlife and provide habitat refuge in a highly urbanized area. 7.3 Toxics TMDL and Reduced Sediment to Machado Lake Best management practices proposed to reduce nutrients in the Machado Lake BMP Implementation Plan include practices that will reduce sediment loads, especially as the WLAs for Toxics were assigned as a fraction of the suspended sediment loading to Machado Lake. Current sediment loading to the lake is estimated at 38,400 kg/yr. October 2014 pw:I/Carollo/Documents!CiienliCNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Repori/BMP-Implemenlation Plan 103 260 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Reduction of sediment loading will provide for improved water quality in the lake, and will reduce future needs to dredge the lake. Structural and nonstructural BMPs capture and remove sediment (TSS) from the watershed. Street sweeping and catch basin cleanouts are nonstructural practices that directly remove sediment loads from the watershed and manage them for proper disposal. Nonstructural practices also address the sources of sediment in the watershed, the public outreach, development construction, new development, and public works elements of the City's stormwater management program play a role in encouraging erosion control and reducing sediment inputs to the storm drainage system. Underground storage/infiltration systems are structural BMPs that prevent conversion of pervious areas to impervious cover during development. These practices reduce the quantity and rate of runoff from developed areas, thereby reducing the demand on the storm drain system. The expected reductions in sediment loading for dry and annual weather flows are listed in Table 7.1. Estimated Reductions in Stormwater TSS Loads dition Percent Reduction in Tss<1> Dry Weather Flow 31% Wet Weather Flow 92.1% Note: (1) Reductions based on nonstructural and Structural BMPs removal within the TMDL lm lamentation Area. 7.4 Multi-Benefit Summary Precise benefit quantification is difficult given the absence of site-specific information and uncertainty about BMP performance and efficiencies. A summary of the ancillary benefits to the proposed structural and nonstructural BMPs within the Machado Lake Watershed are listed in Table 7.2. 104 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA!Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 261 CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Table 7.2 Summary of Multi-Benefits of the Implementation Plan BMP Strategies 1: 0 CD 1: ;:; ... :::1 1: 0 , CD J!l ~ 0 .. II) 1: '5 1'11 CD :; (.) (.) "' :::1 i CD ... ~CI ~ ~ , 0.. , ... -~ .c '-CD , 1: "' "' CD ... (II .all) :::J.C -(II II) -0 :c Q. U) II) Q.:::J e g e -1: BMP ~ ~~ 0 "' ~8 ~ u: (!)0:: :J: 0.. Under Storage/Infiltration ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Aboveground Storage/Infiltration ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Irrigation Reduction ./ Street Sweeping ./ Pet Waste Management ./ ./ Illicit Connection Removal ./ ./ Catch Basin Clean Out ./ Catch Basin Inserts ./ October 2014 105 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables!Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan I 262 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 106 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 263 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES CITY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The estimated implementation schedules for the nonstructural and structural projects proposed as possible solutions to comply with WLAs from the TMDLs are discussed below. The schedules presented herein are sufficient for long-term planning. Through adaptive management and based on the future monitoring results and response of Lake Machado, the implementation schedules may be modified to reflect the increased knowledge of the watershed. Actual schedule for Implementation of BMPs will occur as funding becomes available. 8.1 TMDL Schedule The nutrient TMDL implementation schedule consists of a phased approach, with interim WLAs to be met by March 11, 2014 and full compliance by September 11, 2018. The schedules for required actions for both the Nutrient TMDL is outlined in Table 8.1. Table 8.1 Schedule or Work Plan Elements for Nutrients ID Work Plan Element Schedule 1 Effective Date March 11, 2009 2 Submit Monitoring Plan September 12, 2011 3 Begin Monitoring and 60-days from approval Implementation 4 Information Item to LARWQCB March 11, 2013 on Implementation Progress 5 Interim Limits Apply (TP: 3,760 kg/yr and March 11, 2014 TN: 7,370 kg/yr) 6 LARWQCB to Reconsider TMDL September 11 , 2016 7 Final WLA applicable (TP: 301 kg/yr and September 11,2018 TN: 3,008 kg/yr) October 2014 107 pw:I/Carollo/Documents/Ciient/CA/Tooance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 264 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The Toxics TMDL defines milestones for achieving compliance as follows: • By March 22, 2011, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) and stormwater NPDES permittees shall provide a written draft report to the LARWQCB outlining how they will achieve the WLA for sediment in the Marina del Rey Harbor. • By September 22, 2011, MS4 and stormwater NPDES permittees shall provide a written final report to the Regional Board outlining how they will achieve the WLA for sediment in the Machado Lake. • By March 22, 2012, the Regional Board shall reconsider this TMDL to re-evaluate the waste load allocations and the implementation schedule. • By March 22, 2013, demonstrate that 25 % of the total drainage area is effectively meeting the waste load allocation for sediment. • By March 22, 2015, demonstrate that 50% of the total drainage area is effectively meeting the waste load allocation for sediment. • By March 22, 2017, demonstrate that 75% of the total drainage area is effectively meeting the waste load allocation for sediment. • By March 22, 2021, demonstrate that 100 % of the total drainage area is effectively meeting the waste load allocation for sediment. 8.2 Load Reduction Schedule The Nutrient TMDL contains a phased compliance schedule, with interim limits effective in the first quarter of 2014 and final allocations effective the third quarter of 2018. 8.3 Nonstructural Schedules An estimated schedule for the nonstructural BMPs described in Section 4 Nonstructural Solutions is summarized in Table 8.2. The schedule accounts for the planning and design of the nonstructural BMP programs and the long-term implementation of the programs. 8.4 Structural Schedules An estimated schedule for completing the structural BMPs described in Section 5 is presented in Table 8.3. The schedule includes meeting planning and permitting requirements, preparing engineering design documents, bidding and constructing the BMPs and ongoing operations. The timeframe for funding has not been included in this schedule. In addition to the projects noted in the Table, the schedule accounts for the ongoing redevelopment activities that are expected to occur in the TMDL Implementation Area. The schedule also accounts for the ongoing opportunities to retrofit BMPs whether they are on public right-of-ways or private properties. 108 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/CiientJCNTorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 265 CrrY OF TORRANCE, CAUFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan As discussed in Section 5.3.3, a geotechnical investigation was conducted at the Torrance Airport due to concern regarding infiltration rates at this BMP site. Details of this subsurface investigation are summarized in Appendix E. In summary, it can be concluded that the boring logs indicate that the top layer below surface is not suitable for infiltration and that substantial excavation (25-24 feet below surface) will be required to reach a sand layer that would typically yield higher percolation rates. To verify if the proposed underground infiltration would work properly at this location, it is recommended that the City take a phased approach. First, it is recommended that the City conduct some percolation testing at the depth of the sand layer. If results are acceptable, it is then recommended that the City implement the project at Site A 1 first, where the sandy layer is closest to ground surface (25 below ground surface) and then monitor the performance over multiple years. If the project meets expectations or if design alternations can overcome any identified issues, it is recommended that the City implement projects A2 and A3, where the sandy layer starts at 40 and 45 feet below surface, respectively. October 2014 109 pw://Carollo!Documents/Ciient/CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report/BMP-Implementation Plan 266 1! "-(") ., i l5' g ill :::1 ~ ~ :::1 (1j ~ 0 @ ~ iO ~ Q ~ ~ iil tT .. ~ "" ili' "8 0! ..... ..... 0 ~0 E~ -60 mC" li!CD 3...., ~~ go -c ..... !J"..j::o. Table 8.2 lrnnl•rn•nhation Schedule for Nonstructural Solutions Duration Structural Project I {months} I 2014 Catch Basin Cleanouts Purchase Advanced cleaning Technology (steam as needed Focus on Problem Areas 3-6 Increase Frequency of Cleanouts Ongoing Catch Basin Inserts Install Catch Basin Inserts in Implementation Area 1 Ongoing Downspout Disconnection Program Planning & Assessment Is -12 Implementation 124 Fats, Oils and Grease Outreach Focus on Residents in TMDL Implementation Area s-12 Continuation of Existing FOG Outreach Ongoing Green Waste Outreach Planning & Assessment IS -12 Implementation 124 Illicit Connection Removal Survey System in TMDL Implementation Area 124 Implementation I 24-36 Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 ~~ -~ .gi5' CD'~ ~ ~ :::s~ iitn =t~ g ~ ,I a;~ :::s 267 !0 ~a a o gC" w~ §N ~0 ~~ ~· ~ ~ iil ~ I ~-~ ~ f a "' s: l' 3 ¥ ~ 5f g ~ ::> ...... ...... ...... Table 8.2 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Nonstructural Solutions Structural ..,r .... .,. ... " Impervious Cover Reduction Assess Feasibility of Reducing Existing Impervious cover Implementation, if appropriate Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program Nutrients and Toxics Specific Training Outreach to Facilities to Improve Onsite Source Control Activities Continuation of Existing 1/C Facilities Program Pet Waste Outreach Planning & Assessment Implementation of Pet Waste Bag Dispenser Stations in TMDL Implementation Area Focus on TMDL Implementation Area Resident Outreach Continuation of Existing Pet waste Outreach Post Construction Requirements Specialized Nutrient, Toxics and Runoff Reduction Trainina for Staff Require Implementation of BMPs that Effectively Remove Nutrients and Toxics for Redevelopment Drnio,..+<> in Countv Islands Sewer System Maintenance Specialized Training for Staff Focus maintenance in County Islands Duration 2014 8-12 -24 ----3-6 --8-12 Ongoing 8-12 --8-12 --24 -Ongoing 3-6 --Ongoing 3-6 8-12 Timeline 2015 2016 2017 2018 aJ ~~ §"~ "b~ arill:i 3 ~ ~~ -~ Q; :t.Q g~ ~~ = £i 268 ! ~ g: g 3 0> ~ ~ f ~ I iil "" f ..... ..... 1\.) ~0 1'Sl 3 0 ~C" ~ ~ ~I\.) go ::2 ..... !lj~ Table 8.2 Proposed lmolementation Schedule for Nonstructural Solutions Structural PrniAt-t Smart Gardening Program Planning & Assessment Implementation Street and Parking Lot Sweeping Planning & Assessment Upgrade/Purchase More Effective Street Sweeoers. as needed Conduct Residential Outreach Increase Frequency of Sweeping Duration 2014 I 2015 8-12 Ongoing 8-12 3-6 8-12 ongoing Timeline 2016 2017 2018 OlQ ~~ ~~ "Oi i'"~ i ~ ::s.t'i &t~ =t.l;; g ~ "tt~ ar~ ::s 269 ~0 ~(') "' ..... aO 5'0'" a<D g..., §I\) ~0 !["""' Q~ I ::1 ~ I ~· iil cr CD !!!_ ~ f ~ !!:: "P ~ CD ill ::1 !if g ::1 ~ .... .... w Table 8.3 mentation Schedule for Structural t"ro•ects Cost1 Phase 1 -Install Underground Storage/Infiltration System at Site A2 Planning and Permitting I $0.02m I 15 -24 I Engineering Design Documents I $0.20m I 8-12 Bidding and Construction I $1. 78m I 6 -12 Operations n/a Subtotal $2.0m Phase 2-Install Underground Storage/Infiltration System at Site A 1 Planning and Permitting I $0.05m I 12 Engineering Design Documents I $0.50m I 8-12 Bidding and Construction I $4.47m I 6-12 Operations n/a Subtotal $5.0m Phase 3 Catch Basin Filter Inserts Subtotal $129k 12 Phase 1 Divert Stromwater From Stormdrain 1040 Planning and Permitting I $5.63k I 6 Engineering Design Documents $56.3k 6 Bidding and Construction $0.5m 12 Operations Subtotal $0.56m $61.93k Timeline $2.55m $0.5m a:.o ~~ §"~ 'b:::i (i)!i s ~ ~ ~ --t'l Qj et.Q 0 ... ::s ~ J!:.1:1 ~ ~ 270 ! (.') "' £ I ~ I I ~-OJ ~ OJ = l .... .... ~ io :E$4 30 ~0" 3(t) !!! .., §:!'.) go ..., .... ~~ Table 8.3 lmolementation Schedule for Structural Projects Cost1 Walnut Sump Duration (months) Phase 2-Install Catch Basin Filters in WS-1 Planning and Permitting I $1. Sk I 6 Engineering Design Documents $12.5k 6 Bidding and Construction $111k 12 Operations n/a Subtotal $125k I I 2014 2015 n/a I $125k Phase 3-Aboveground Storage/Infiltration System at Walnut Sump Planning and Permitting I $0.03m I 12 Engineering Design Documents $0.36m 12 Bid/Construct $2.54m 12-18 Operations Subtotal Phase 1 Divert Stromwater From Stormdrain 1040 Planning and Permitting I $6k I 12 Engineering Design Documents $66k 8-12 Bidding and Construction 6-12 Operations Grant Total Baseball Field $0.66m Notes: Time line 2016 2017 $70k 1. Cost estimate by project phase are assumed to be as follows: Planning and Permitting is 1% of Project Cost; Engineering Design Documents is 10% of Proiect Cost; Biddina and Construction is 89% of Proiect Cost. 2018 ~~ ~~ '0~ CD'~ ~~ ::s..tWi iiD 5-l:: ::s ~ ~~ ::s 271 9.0 COST ESTIMATES CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan The cost estimates for the proposed actions outlined in the Implementation Plan are presented in this section. At the planning level, the costs provided will allow an order of magnitude effort necessary to implement structural and nonstructural BMPs in the Machado Lake Watershed to meet the WLAs of both the Nutrient and Taxies TMDLs using the current information on the loading from the TMDL Implementation Area and effectiveness of implementing BMPs. Changes to the TMDLs, the model estimated loads through watershed specific monitoring, or assumed effectiveness of identified BMPs will result in a change in the required BMPs and their associated costs. Cost estimates presented are at the level of detail necessary for planning and strategic decision-making. The BMPs are to be distributed uniformly across the TMDL Implementation Area, and site-specific issues that may result in excessive costs are likely to occur in a portion of the installations. Costs presented in here cannot consider site-specific issues and are likely to underestimate the final costs for applying the identified BMPs throughout the TMDL Implementation Area. 9.1 Best Management Practices Cost Estimates The nonstructural costs estimates are presented in Table 9.1. An assumed 3 percent rate of inflation is used in the cost estimates to determine the cost estimates. Of the BMPs discussed in Section 4, the impervious cover reduction and sanitary sewer maintenance are not included in Table 8.3, as the impervious cover reduction ultimately is a component of the structural BMP program, and the sanitary sewer maintenance is required under the collection system permit. Table 9.1 Nonstructural Best Management Practice Cost Estimates. Program Annual Cost ($)1 Catch Basin Cleanouts 1,500,000 Catch Basin Inserts 2,200,000 Downspout Disconnection Program 200,000 Fats, Oils and Grease Outreach 100,000 Green Waste Outreach 100,000 Illicit Connection Removal 200,000 Industrial/ Commercial Facilities Control Program 100,000 Pet Waste Outreach 500,000 Post Construction Requirements 50,000 Sewer System Maintenance 500,000 Smart Gardening Program 500,000 Street and Parking Lot Sweeping 1,500,000 Total 7,450,000 Note: (1) Program costs through 2018 using 3% rate of inflation October 2014 115 pw:I/Carollo/Documenls/CiientiCAITorrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Draft Report/BMP·Implementation Plan 272 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA BMP Implementation Plan Structural cost estimates are listed in Table 9.2. Implementation costs for the conceptual projects do not include engineering design, permitting, construction, building materials, or O&M. Information on these can found in Appendix F. The details of the five conceptual designs are presented in Section 5. As per the quantification analysis, structural BMPs are required in addition to the conceptual projects and projects situated on County lands. Typical costs for the additional projects are used to estimate the cost of projects on leased or private parcels. The costs do not reflect the costs of negotiation with landowners or the cost of land acquisition. The costs for additional projects are subject to change to reflect the specific site conditions. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix F. Table 9.2 Program Cost Estimates of Structural Best Management Practices Structural Best Management Practice Estimated Cost ($) Walnut Sump $3,613,000 1. Phase 1-Flow Diversion at Stormdrain1040 $563,000 2. Phase 2 -Catch Basin Filter Inserts in WS-1 $125,000 3. Phase 3-Aboveground Storage/Infiltration System $2,925,000 Baseball Field (Option 1) $661,000 Torrance Airport $7,160,000 1. Phase 1 -BMP at Site A2 $2,029,000 2. Phase 2-BMP at Site A1 $5,002,000 3. Phase 3-Catch Basin Filter Inserts in Subcatchment AS1 $129,000 TOTAL 11,434,000 9.2 Cost Schedule The schedule for implementation to achieve the TMDL WLA, requiring 54 percent reduction in phosphorus load, is summarized in Table 6.3. The schedules for nonstructural, structural, redevelopment, and leased property projects were used to distribute the implementation costs over time, ending in 2018, the compliance point for the Nutrients TMDL. The implementation path represented by Table 6.3 is a method of compliance with the Nutrients TMDLs. As the adaptive management and reevaluation of the Nutrient TMDL progresses, the required levels of pollutant loading and the compliance timeline may change. The actual costs and timing of implementation will depend on the specific site characteristics, special studies, and actual effectiveness of installed BMPs. 116 October 2014 pw://Carollo/Documents/Ciient!CA/Torrance/9193AOO/Deliverables/Drafl Report/BMP-Implementation Plan DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix E | Walteria Basin Supplementary Information E-1 | Page 2015 Appendix E Walteria Basin Supplementary Information The Walteria Flood Control Basin (Walteria Basin) is a man-made basin located in the City of Torrance. The basin was built in 1962 by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). Walteria Basin has a perimeter of approximately one mile and extends to an approximate depth of 100 feet. Walteria Basin’s watershed is approximately 2,287 acres (Figure D-1). By jurisdictional area, the basin’s watershed is 92.61% Torrance, 7.35% Palos Verdes Estates and 0.04% Redondo Beach. The primary function of Walteria Basin is to provide flood protection. During storm and dry weather conditions Walteria Basin receives runoff from the surrounding watershed. Water in the basin is discharged during the dry season to pump out accumulated dry weather flows and after storm events to maintain flood protection for the adjacent communities. The discharge is pumped through the Project No. 584 stormdrain and flows through the drainage network where it eventually discharges to Wilmington Drain. Wilmington Drain is a soft-bottom open channel maintained by the LACFCD. Surface water in Wilmington Drain can flow via gravity or an unmanned pump station into Machado Lake. To ensure the downstream capacity is available for other storm flows, the Walteria Basin is only pumped down after runoff in the watershed subsides. In October 2014, the LACFCD and the City of Torrance commenced a Special Study Monitoring Program analyzing Walteria Basin (Special Study). The objective of the Special Study is to: • Compare the mass of pollutants entering Walteria Basin and the mass of pollutants discharged. • Assess inflow and outflow compared to TMDL waste load allocations. As part of the Special Study, the LACFCD is monitoring the 4 inlets to Walteria Basin. The City of Torrance is monitoring the discharges from Walteria Basin during pumping events. The Special Study will span 2 years, and preliminary results will be available late 2015. Pending results of the Special Study, an appropriate Regional Project will be identified. A variety of BMPs are currently being investigated including: • Application of aluminum sulfate to Walteria Basin. • A diversion of the outflows from Walteria Basin to the Torrance airport for infiltration to groundwater (more can be read in City of Torrance’s BMP Implementation Plan, page 60). • Use of water collected in Walteria to irrigate a nearby park or open space. As the Special Study is completed in late 2016, funding and selection of appropriate BMPs will be determined. A BMP implementation strategy for Walteria Basin will be refined and reported through adaptive management. Figure D-1. Walteria Lake Watershed DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix F | City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Master Plan F-1 | Page 2015 Appendix F City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Master Plan 199 SOUTH LOS ROBLES AVENUE • SUITE 530 • PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 • (626) 535-0180 • FAX (626) 535-0185 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx(A) This page intentionally left blank. December 2011 i pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) City of Torrance Stormwater Quality Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.3 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.4 WATERSHEDS AND SUBBASINS .................................................................... ES-3 Santa Monica Bay Watershed ............................................................................ ES-3 Dominguez Channel Watershed ........................................................................ ES-3 Harbor Lakes Sub-Watershed/Machado Lake Sub-Watershed .......................... ES-3 Groundwater Replenishment Retention Basins .................................................. ES-3 ES.5 REGULATIONS ................................................................................................. ES-3 ES.6 WATER QUALITY EVALUATION ...................................................................... ES-7 ES.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. ES-8 CIP by Watershed ............................................................................................ ES-10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 AUTHORIZATION ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 1-5 CHAPTER 2: SERVICE AREA 2.1 SERVICE AREA ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 LAND USE ............................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3 POPULATION ....................................................................................................... 2-6 2.4 CLIMATE .............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.5 SOIL TYPES ......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.6 WATERSHEDS AND SUBBASINS ....................................................................... 2-8 2.6.1 Retention Basins ....................................................................................... 2-9 2.6.2 Santa Monica Bay Watershed ................................................................... 2-9 2.6.3 Dominguez Channel Watershed .............................................................. 2-10 2.6.4 Harbor Lakes Sub-Watershed/Machado Lake Sub-Watershed ................ 2-15 CHAPTER 3: STORMWATER REGULATIONS 3.1 CITY ORDINANCES ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 STORMWATER DISCHARGE TO IMPAIRED WATER BODIES .......................... 3-1 3.2.1 Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL ................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Machado Lake Trash TMDL ...................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Machado Lake Toxics TMDL ..................................................................... 3-8 3.2.4 Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL ............................................................ 3-9 3.2.5 Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL ............................................................. 3-14 ii December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) 3.2.6 Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs ......................................................... 3-16 3.3 REGIONAL NPDES REGULATIONS .................................................................. 3-18 3.3.1 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit ............................................................. 3-18 3.3.2 Ventura MS4 Permit and Reissuance of Los Angeles MS4 Permit .......... 3-21 3.4 NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES ............................................................................. 3-23 3.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND SCHEDULE ............................................... 3-24 3.6 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 3-25 CHAPTER 4: PLANNING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 4.1 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Water Surface Elevation ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Gravity Storm Drains ................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.3 Force Mains ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.4 Natural Channels ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.5 Pump Stations ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA .................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Precipitation Characteristics ...................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Design Storms ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Soil Imperviousness .................................................................................. 4-4 4.3 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ............................................................................... 4-5 4.3.1 Sediments ................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.2 Trash and Debris ....................................................................................... 4-5 4.3.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.4 Trace Metals .............................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.5 Pesticides .................................................................................................. 4-7 4.3.6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons ........................................................................... 4-7 4.3.7 Pathogens (Bacteria, Viruses, and Protozoa) ............................................ 4-8 4.3.8 Summary of Pollutants of Concern ............................................................ 4-8 4.4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................. 4-9 CHAPTER 5: EXISTING STORMWATER SYSTEM 5.1 WATERSHED OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM........................................................................................ 5-1 5.2.1 Catch Basins ............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.2 Storm Drains ............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.3 Open Channels and Ditches ...................................................................... 5-2 5.2.4 Force Mains ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 STORM DRAIN RETENTION/DETENTION BASINS ............................................ 5-2 5.3.1 Detention Basins ...................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Retention Basins ....................................................................................... 5-5 5.4 STORM DRAIN PUMP STATIONS ....................................................................... 5-5 5.5 DISCHARGE LOCATIONS ................................................................................... 5-6 CHAPTER 6: MODEL DE VELOPMENT 6.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 MODEL SOFTWARE SELECTION ....................................................................... 6-1 6.2.1 Water Quantity .......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................. 6-2 6.2.3 Satellite Remote Sensing .......................................................................... 6-4 6.2.4 PLOAD ...................................................................................................... 6-5 6.2.5 P8 - Urban Catchment Model .................................................................... 6-7 December 2011 iii pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) 6.2.6 SUSTAIN ................................................................................................... 6-7 6.3 MODEL CREATION .............................................................................................. 6-8 6.3.1 Water Quantity .......................................................................................... 6-8 6.3.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................... 6-17 6.3.3 Methodology ............................................................................................ 6-21 6.3.4 Calibration Data ....................................................................................... 6-21 6.3.5 Calibration Results .................................................................................. 6-21 CHAPTER 7: WATER QUALITY EVALUATION 7.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 7-3 7.2 WATER QUALITY EVALUATION ......................................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 Impervious Cover Mapping ........................................................................ 7-4 7.2.2 Pollutant Load Estimation .......................................................................... 7-6 7.2.3 Comparison of Pollutant Load Results ..................................................... 7-27 7.2.4 Water Quality Evaluation Results Summary ........................................... 7-30 7.2.5 Ranking of Subareas ............................................................................... 7-30 7.3 BMP TREATMENT OPTIONS ............................................................................ 7-33 7.3.1 Structural BMPs ...................................................................................... 7-33 7.3.2 Non-Structural and Source Control BMPs ............................................... 7-34 7.4 BMP SITING PLAN ............................................................................................. 7-38 7.4.1 Regional and Distributed BMPs ............................................................... 7-45 7.5 BMP DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 7-46 7.5.1 BMP Sizing .............................................................................................. 7-47 7.6 RECOMMENDED STORMWATER TREATMENT PRACTICES ......................... 7-52 7.6.1 Selection of Wet Weather Stormwater Treatment Practices .................... 7-52 7.6.2 Selection of Low Flow Stormwater Treatment Practices .......................... 7-63 CHAPTER 8: WATER CAPACITY EVALUATION 8.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION ............................................................... 8-1 8.2.1 Criteria for Identifying Hydraulic Bottlenecks ............................................. 8-2 8.2.2 Analysis Results ........................................................................................ 8-2 8.3 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS .................................................................................. 8-5 8.3.1 No Action ................................................................................................... 8-6 8.3.2 Upgrading the Existing System .................................................................. 8-6 8.3.3 Low Impact Development .......................................................................... 8-6 8.3.4 Runoff Detention ....................................................................................... 8-9 8.3.5 Infiltration Ponds (Retention Basins) .......................................................... 8-9 8.4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ............................................................................... 8-9 8.4.1 Dominguez Channel Watershed .............................................................. 8-10 8.4.2 Walteria Lake Watershed ........................................................................ 8-11 8.4.3 Harbor Lakes Watershed ......................................................................... 8-11 CHAPTER 9: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9.1 COST ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 Level of Accuracy ...................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.2 Construction Costs .................................................................................... 9-2 9.1.3 Project Costs ............................................................................................. 9-4 9.1.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs ........................................................... 9-5 9.2 PROJECT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES.............................................................. 9-6 9.2.1 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Projects ....................................... 9-6 iv December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) 9.2.2 Wet Weather Flow Stormwater Quality Projects ........................................ 9-6 9.2.3 Stormwater Capacity Projects .................................................................... 9-7 9.2.4 Miscellaneous Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects ......................... 9-7 9.3 PROJECT PHASING METHOD ............................................................................ 9-7 9.3.1 Phase 1 ..................................................................................................... 9-7 9.3.2 Phase 2 ..................................................................................................... 9-8 9.3.3 Phase 3 ..................................................................................................... 9-8 9.3.4 Phase 4 ..................................................................................................... 9-9 9.3.5 Phase 5 ..................................................................................................... 9-9 9.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................. 9-17 9.4.1 CIP by Planning Phase ............................................................................ 9-17 9.4.2 CIP by Watershed ................................................................................... 9-25 9.5 MONITORING COSTS ....................................................................................... 9-27 9.6 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................................... 9-29 9.6.1 Water Quality Fee Initiative ...................................................................... 9-29 9.6.2 Annual Costs ........................................................................................... 9-29 9.6.3 Potential Funding..................................................................................... 9-30 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A – REFERENCES APPENDIX B – REGULATIONS AND MONITORING PLANS Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Resolution Machado Lake Trash TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Machado Lake Trash TMDL Resolution Machado Lake PCBs and Toxics TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Machado Lake PCBs and Toxics TMDL Resolution Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL Modeling Study Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL Resolution Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Ventura County MS4 Permit Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring Study Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDL Resolution Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Santa Monica Bay Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL Resolution Santa Monica Bay Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Santa Monica Bay Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL State of Support Resolution Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL Basin Plan Amendment Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL Resolution Machado Lake Toxics TMDL Monitoring Study APPENDIX C – LOS ANGELES COUNTY GUIDELINES County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Manual LACDPW Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance December 2011 v pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) APPENDIX D MODEL DEVELOPMENT MAPS Figure D.1 XP-SWMM Subbasins Figure D.2 PLOAD Model Subbasins Figure D.3 P8 Model Subareas Figure D.4 Satellite Imagery Figure D.5 Imperviousness from Satellite Imagery Figure D.6 Water Quality Calibration City Model TSS Load Figure D.7 Water Quality Calibration City Model TP Load Figure D.8 Water Quality Calibration City Model TN Load Figure D.9 Water Quality Calibration Los Angeles County Model TSS Load Figure D.10 Water Quality Calibration Los Angeles County Model TP Load Figure D.11 Water Quality Calibration Los Angeles County Model TN Load APPENDIX E MISC MAPS Figure E.1 Known Problem Areas in Existing Stormwater System LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 Summary of TMDLs for City of Torrance ................................................ ES-4 Table ES.2 Recommended CIP Summary ................................................................ ES-8 Table ES.3 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Project Type .................................. ES-9 Table ES.4 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Watershed .................................. ES-10 Table 2.1 Land Use Categories – City of Torrance (2010)......................................... 2-3 Table 2.2 Historic and Projected Population .............................................................. 2-6 Table 2.3 Historic Climate Data ................................................................................. 2-7 Table 2.4 Infiltration Rates for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups ................................... 2-8 Table 3.1 TMDL grouped by Agency and Receiving Water Body .............................. 3-3 Table 3.2 Status Summary of Relevant TMDLs ......................................................... 3-2 Table 3.3 Applicable TMDLs for City of Torrance ...................................................... 3-3 Table 3.4 Total Annual Nutrient Load Entering Machado Lake .................................. 3-4 Table 3.5 City WLA for Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL ............................................ 3-5 Table 3.6 Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL Schedule ................................................. 3-6 Table 3.7 Machado Lake Trash TMDL Schedule ...................................................... 3-7 Table 3.8 Concentration Based WLAs for Machado Lake Toxics TMDL .................... 3-8 Table 3.9 Machado Lake Toxics TMDL Schedule ..................................................... 3-9 Table 3.10 Concentration Based WLAs for Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL ......... 3-10 Table 3.11 Mass Based WLAs for ExxonMobil Refinery ............................................ 3-12 Table 3.12 Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Schedule .......................................... 3-13 Table 3.13 Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDLs Schedule ............................................ 3-15 Table 3.14 Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs Schedule ......................................... 3-17 Table 3.15 Machado Lake TMDL Compliance........................................................... 3-23 Table 3.16 Summary of TMDL Requirements ........................................................... 3-26 Table 4.1 Rainfall Volumes ....................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4.2 Summary of Pollutants of Concern ............................................................ 4-8 Table 4.3 System Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................ 4-9 Table 5.1 Active Detention Basins ............................................................................. 5-2 Table 5.2 Active Retention Basins ............................................................................. 5-5 Table 5.3 Pump Stations ........................................................................................... 5-6 vi December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) Table 6.1 Functions of PLAT Components ................................................................ 6-4 Table 6.2 Watershed and Subbasin Delineation Summary ........................................ 6-9 Table 6.3 Imperviousness Range by Watershed ..................................................... 6-13 Table 6.4 Land Use Distribution by Watershed........................................................ 6-19 Table 6.5 Imperviousness and Pollutant EMC by Land Use Type ........................... 6-20 Table 6.6 P8 Calibration Results ............................................................................. 6-27 Table 7.1 Imperviousness Range by Watershed ....................................................... 7-6 Table 7.2 Pollutant Loads by Watershed ................................................................... 7-7 Table 7.3 Comparison of PLAT Results................................................................... 7-23 Table 7.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection Matrix ................................................. 7-33 Table 7.5 Runoff Coefficients Based on Impervious/Pervious Area Ratios .............. 7-49 Table 7.6 Calculation of Stormwater Quality Design Flow ....................................... 7-50 Table 7.7 Calculation of Stormwater Quality Design Volume ................................... 7-51 Table 7.8 Identified BMPs in Dominguez Channel Watershed ................................. 7-53 Table 7.9 Identified BMPs in Harbor Lakes Watershed ........................................... 7-58 Table 7.10 Predicted Wet Weather BMP Efficiency Table ......................................... 7-62 Table 7.11 Identified BMPs in Dominguez Channel Watershed ................................. 7-64 Table 7.12 Identified BMPs in Harbor Lakes Watershed ........................................... 7-66 Table 8.1 Frequent and Major Floodings in Dominguez Watershed ........................ 8-10 Table 8.2 Frequent and Major Floodings in Walteria Lake Watershed ..................... 8-11 Table 8.3 Frequent and Major Floodings in Harbor Lakes Watershed ..................... 8-12 Table 9.1 Project Estimate Guidelines(1) .................................................................... 9-1 Table 9.2 Construction Cost Assumptions ................................................................. 9-3 Table 9.3 Capital Project Cost Assumptions .............................................................. 9-5 Table 9.4 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects ............... 9-10 Table 9.5 Wet Weather Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects ......................... 9-13 Table 9.6 Stormwater Capacity Improvement Projects ............................................ 9-15 Table 9.7 Miscellaneous Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects ....................... 9-16 Table 9.8 Recommended CIP Summary ................................................................. 9-17 Table 9.9 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Project Type ................................... 9-17 Table 9.10 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Watershed ..................................... 9-25 Table 9.11 Monitoring Components of TMDLs .......................................................... 9-27 Table 9.12 Projected Monitoring Costs ...................................................................... 9-28 Table 9.13 Annual Cost by Planning Phase .............................................................. 9-30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 Study Area.............................................................................................. ES-2 Figure ES.2 Watershed and Basin Layout .................................................................. ES-5 Figure ES.3 Capital Cost by Phase .......................................................................... ES-10 Figure ES.4 Capital Cost by Project Type ................................................................ ES-11 Figure ES.5 Capital Cost by Category ...................................................................... ES-12 Figure ES.6 Water Quality Projects Included in CIP ................................................. ES-13 Figure ES.7 Stormwater Capacity Projects Included in CIP ...................................... ES-15 Figure 1.1 Study Area................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 2.1 Service Area .............................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.2 Land Use Map ........................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2.3 Soil Map .................................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2.4 Watershed and Basin Layout ................................................................... 2-13 Figure 3.1 TMDL Compliance Schedule ................................................................... 3-27 Figure 4.1 Design Storm Distribution .......................................................................... 4-4 December 2011 vii pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) Figure 5.1 Existing Stormwater System ...................................................................... 5-7 Figure 6.1 Schematic of PLAT .................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6.2 Watershed and Subbasin Delineation for PLOAD .................................... 6-11 Figure 6.3 Percent Imperviousness Comparison ...................................................... 6-13 Figure 6.4 Percent Imperviousness by Subbasin ...................................................... 6-14 Figure 6.5 Subbasin 2051 Water Quantity Calibration Results ................................. 6-22 Figure 6.6 Subbasin 2021 Water Quantity Calibration Results ................................. 6-23 Figure 6.7 Subbasin 2090 Water Quantity Calibration Results ................................. 6-24 Figure 6.8 Subbasin 2099 Water Quantity Calibration Results ................................. 6-25 Figure 6.9 Calibration Subbasin Comparison ........................................................... 6-26 Figure 7.1 The Impervious Cover Model ..................................................................... 7-5 Figure 7.2 Average Annual TSS Load ........................................................................ 7-9 Figure 7.3 Average Annual TP Load ........................................................................ 7-11 Figure 7.4 Average Annual TN Load ........................................................................ 7-13 Figure 7.5 Average Annual TSS Load per Acre by Subbasin ................................... 7-15 Figure 7.6 Average Annual TP Load per Acre by Subbasin ...................................... 7-17 Figure 7.7 Average Annual TN Load per Acre by Subbasin ...................................... 7-19 Figure 7.8 PLOAD Subbasin Priority Index Ranking for TP ...................................... 7-21 Figure 7.9 PLOAD Subbasin Priority Index Ranking for TKN .................................... 7-22 Figure 7.10 P8 Subarea Priority Index Ranking for TSS ............................................. 7-24 Figure 7.11 P8 Subarea Priority Index Ranking for TP ............................................... 7-25 Figure 7.12 P8 Subarea Priority Index Ranking for TKN ............................................. 7-26 Figure 7.13 Pollutant Load Comparison for TSS by Subarea ..................................... 7-28 Figure 7.14 Pollutant Load Comparison for TN by Subarea........................................ 7-29 Figure 7.15 Pollutant Load Comparison for TP by Subarea ........................................ 7-29 Figure 7.16 High Priority Subareas ............................................................................. 7-32 Figure 7.17 Impact of Street Sweeping Frequency on Sediment Removal ................. 7-35 Figure 7.18 Potential BMP Sites ................................................................................. 7-39 Figure 7.19 Recommended Wet Weather BMPs and BMP Siting Locations ............... 7-41 Figure 7.20 Recommended Low Flow Diversion BMP Sites ....................................... 7-43 Figure 7.21 Rainfall Intensity ...................................................................................... 7-49 Figure 7.22 Volumetric BMP Sizing Curve .................................................................. 7-51 Figure 7.23 Hydrodynamic Separator ........................................................................ 7-56 Figure 7.24 Torrance Airport ...................................................................................... 7-59 Figure 7.25 Plastic Infill Underground Detention System ........................................... 7-59 Figure 7.26 Underground Infiltration System ............................................................. 7-59 Figure 7.27 Diversion in Crenshaw Boulevard ........................................................... 7-59 Figure 7.28 Sur la Brea Park ..................................................................................... 7-61 Figure 7.29 Diversion in Western Avenue ................................................................. 7-61 Figure 7.30 Prioritization of Recommended Low Flow Diversion BMPs ...................... 7-67 Figure 8.1 Water Capacity Hydraulic Deficiencies ...................................................... 8-3 Figure 8.2 Recommended Water Quantity Deficiencies Improvements ...................... 8-7 Figure 9.1 Capital Cost by Phase ............................................................................. 9-18 Figure 9.2 Wet Weather Stormwater Quality Projects ............................................... 9-19 Figure 9.3 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Projects ..................................... 9-21 Figure 9.4 Stormwater Capacity Projects ................................................................. 9-23 Figure 9.5 Capital Cost by Phase ............................................................................. 9-26 Figure 9.6 Capital Cost by Category ......................................................................... 9-26 viii December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Description ac Acre ACP Asbestos Cement Pipe af Acre Foot APWA American Public Works Association BMPs Best Management Practices BPA Basin Plan Amendment Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc. CC Construction Cost CDS Continuous Deflective Separation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs Cubic Feet per Second CIP Capital Improvement Program City City of Torrance CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Clean Water Act DCIA Directly Connected Impervious Area DDF Depth Duration Frequency DEM Digital Elevation Model EMC Event Mean Concentration ENR Engineering News Record ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus fps Feet per Second gpm Gallons per minute GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran ICM Impervious Cover Model ISA Impervious Surface Area KMHRP Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LACFD Los Angeles County Flood Control District LAWQCB Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board LID Low Impact Development LSWPPP Local Stormwater Pollution prevention Program µg/kg Micrograms per Kilogram (dry weight) µg/l Micrograms per Liter MEP Maximum Extent Possible mg/l Milligrams per Liter MRP Monitoring and Reporting Plan MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System N-SPECT Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool NCDC National Climactic Data Center NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS Non-Point Source NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NSQD National Stormwater Quality Database NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service December 2011 ix pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) Abbreviation Description PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PLAT Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCB Reinforced Concrete Box PS Point Source QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCS Soil Conservation Service SDMP Storm Drain Master Plan SPI Subbasin Priority Index SQMP Stormwater Quality Management Plan SUSMP Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan TDH Total Dynamic Head TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TM Thematic Mapper TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorous TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSS Total Suspended Solids VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe WAG Watershed Authority Groups WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WMMS Watershed Management Modeling Systems WLA Waste Load Allocation WQFI Water Quality Fee Initiative XP SWMM Name of hydraulic modeling software x December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/SWMP TOC_LOA.docx (A) This page intentionally left blank. December 2011 ES-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) Executive Summary ES.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Torrance (City) faces an increasingly complex set of challenges in managing stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution. A combination of growth and regulatory programs, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements, place very specific land-use and stormwater management demands on the City. Given the continued development pressure and increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, it has become necessary for the City to develop this Stormwater Quality Master Plan (SQMP). The SQMP includes modeling and analysis of various land-use and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) scenarios and provides quantitative comparisons of a range of management options. This quantitative information will be used in selecting the most effective and efficient solutions to manage stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution. Identification of cost-effective solutions is critical given the limited financial resources available to meet multiple regulatory requirements. The results of the quantitative analysis aids the City in a broad range of land- use planning activities in addition to compliance with specific regulatory programs. The main focus of this SQMP is to assess changes in stormwater runoff volume and pollutant loading in the City. Analysis parameters include total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP). These evaluated parameters were used as indicators to predict pollutant loading of various constituents. This analysis was used to identify the BMPs to be developed to treat stormwater pollutants, meet regulatory compliance requirements opportunities, and express the City’s renewed commitment to the use of environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and sustainable solutions. ES.2 BACKGROUND The City completed previous Stormwater Drainage Master Plans in 1960 and 1997. While the City is built out, the increased requirements associated with stormwater quality have led the City to develop this SQMP to assist the City in complying with regulatory requirements in an efficient and cost-effective manner. ES.3 STUDY AREA The study area of this report consists of the City’s stormwater service area as shown in Figure ES.1. It should be noted that water quality analyses for areas that are part of the Santa Monica Bay watershed have been conducted in previous studies, including the Stormwater Basin Enhancement Program (Carollo, 2008). The recommendations from those studies were incorporated within this SQMP and separate analysis for the Santa Monica watershed was therefore not part of this study. Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AngelesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez C h a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure ES.1Study AreaStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LegendStudy AreaRetention Basin (Excluded, TMDLs Not Applicable)City BoundaryFreewayMajor Roads TORRANCE City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 ES-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) ES.4 WATERSHEDS AND SUBBASINS The City is divided into various drainage basins that comprise four watersheds, as shown on Figure ES.2. Each drainage basin has a system of conveyance facilities to collect and dispose runoff. Santa Monica Bay Watershed The Santa Monica Bay Watershed is located in western Los Angeles County and includes watersheds for several creeks discharging to the Santa Monica Bay, stretching from the Malibu Creek Watershed to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watersheds. Dominguez Channel Watershed The Dominguez Channel Watershed is located in southern Los Angeles County and overlies portions the City, the City of Los Angeles, Carson, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Overall, the watershed is about 110 square miles in size, with about 19 square miles residing within the City’s boundary. Harbor Lakes Sub-Watershed/Machado Lake Sub-Watershed Stormwater flow from the City’s Walteria and Harbor Lakes subbasins is directed to Machado Lake, which discharges to the Los Angeles Harbor (west of the Dominguez Channel inlet). Machado Lake is located within the Machado Lake Sub-Watershed, which is approximately 20 square miles and positioned within the larger 110-square-mile Dominguez Channel Watershed. The sub-watershed is located in southern Los Angeles County and includes all, or a portion of, the following communities: City of Los Angeles, Torrance, Carson, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, and Los Angeles County. Groundwater Replenishment Retention Basins Several areas within the City do not discharge stormwater outside the City’s boundary. These areas are referred to as retention basins. Rather than discharging stormwater to other bodies of water, stormwater is recharged into the groundwater basin through infiltration at retention sumps, also referred to as retention basins. ES.5 REGULATIONS The City is a permittee under the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and discharges stormwater accordingly. The City is subject to several existing and pending Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) regulations that are associated with the various water bodies to which the City discharges stormwater to. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN ES-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) The specific TMDLs applying to the waters the City discharges stormwater to were implemented as a result of a consent decree resulting from the National Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) 1998 lawsuit against the EPA and the RWQCB’s 1996 and 1998 water quality assessments which identified over 700 potential pollutant waterbody combinations requiring TMDLs. As a part of the consent decree, a 13-year schedule was established (between 1999 and 2012) for implementation of the TMDLs, which were consolidated from the 700 potential pollutant waterbody combinations into 92 TMDLs. The list of TMDLs has been modified in the intervening years. Table ES.1 provides a summary of the various existing and pending TMDLs associated with each body of water the City discharges to. Compliance dates are also discussed in Chapter 3. It should be noted that areas of the City replenishing groundwater through retention basins are not subject to TMDLs, and thus do not require BMPs. Table ES.1 Summary of TMDLs for City of Torrance Body of Water TMDL Name Pollutant(1) Resolution Number Effective Date Machado Lake Nutrient Nitrogen, Phosphorus R08-006 11 March 2009 Trash Trash 2007-006 6 March 2008 Toxics Pesticides, PCBs R10-008 2 September 2010 Dominguez Channel(1) Toxics(2) Copper, Lead, Zinc, DDT, PAHs, PCBs, Chlordane, Dieldrin, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury R11-008 Not Yet Effective (Approved by RWQCB on 5 May 2011) Santa Monica Bay Debris Trash, Plastic Pellets R10-010 Not Yet Effective (Approved by SWQCB 6 December 2011) Bacteria Bacteria 2002-004 2002-022 2006-008 15 July 2003 15 July 2003 6 April 2006 Notes: 1. Interim, final, and phased Waste Load Allocations (WLA) are listed in Chapter 3 where applicable. 2. The Resolution Name for what is referred to here as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is “Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDLs.” Dominguez Channel discharges into the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Ch a n n e l Walteria Lake Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdCrenshaw BlvdWalteria Mobil Ocean AmieHenrietta Entradero Doris Del Amo Pioneer 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery El Dorado Vista Del Parque East Torrance Region Delos Drive Region South Torrance Region Southeast Torrance Region East-Central Region North-Central Region Refinery Region North East Region Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Santa Monica Bay Figure ES.2Watershed and Basin LayoutStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGENDWatershedsGroundwater ReplenishmentBishop MontgomeryDel AmoOceanVista Del ParqueDominguez ChannelSurface DrainageEl DoradoMobilPioneer Santa Monica BaySurface DrainageAmieDorisEntraderoHenriettaHarbor LakesSurface Drainage237th St.Madrona MarshWalteria OthersBodies of WaterStudy AreaExcluded from Study AreaDetention BasinsRetention BasinsParcels City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 ES-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) In addition, additional internal costs are anticipated to the City related to reissuance of the Los Angeles County MS4 permit in the near future. Changes associated with the reissuance are discussed in Chapter 3. The following are anticipated cost impacts to the City associated with reissuance of the MS4 permit:  Increased cost of the City’s development projects  Increased time for City staff to review and inspect development plans  Increased time for City staff to track and inspect BMPs implemented as a part of development and redevelopment  Potentially, increased operations and maintenance efforts for BMPs associated with developments  Increased cost for water quality monitoring  Increased cost to track data and prepare annual report More details regarding stormwater regulations are described in Chapter 3 of this report. ES.6 WATER QUALITY EVALUATION Predictions of pollutant levels within the City’s stormwater discharge are developed using several stormwater models. The model development is discussed in Chapters 6, while the the water quality analysis results are described in Chapter 7. Based on a combination of satellite imagery, land use maps, imperviousness, and topography, pollutant loads of TSS, TP, and TKN were estimated for the City’s entire stormwater watershed. Based on the results, the following five subbasins were identified as high-priority areas:  Subbasin DC-S4: Wilson Park and Torrance Blvd. Median  Subbasin DC-S3: ExxonMobil Detention Basin (existing basin)  Subbasin DC-S2: Wilson Park, El Prado Park, and Torrance Blvd. Median  Subbasin HL-S3: Torrance Airport and intersection of Crenshaw/Skypark  Subbasin HL-S2: De Portola Park These high priority areas are shown on Figure 7.16 and are shaded in pink on Figure ES.6. This prioritization was used to phase improvements discussed in the following section. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN ES-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) ES.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Based on the analysis discussed in Chapter 7, recommendations were made to meet water quality objectives for the Harbor Lakes and Dominguez Channel watersheds under two conditions, full treatment of wet weather flows and low flow diversion of dry weather flows. Additionally, recommendations to meet stormwater capacity criteria are discussed in Chapter 8. In addition, recommended stormwater quality projects from previous studies for the Santa Monica Bay are included in the list of proposed projects in this SQMP. CIP by Project Category The recommended CIP is based on implementation of low flow diversion stormwater quality improvements, capacity improvements, and miscellaneous improvements. The cost of wet weather stormwater quality improvements are presented for information purposes only. As shown in Table 9.8 the total estimated cost of the dry weather CIP is nearly $112 million. If wet weather improvements are implemented in lieu of the low flow diversion (dry weather) improvements, the total CIP would increase to $185 million. Table ES.2 Recommended CIP Summary Improvement Category Capital Cost ($ million) Source Low Flow Diversion Water Quality Projects $47.1 Table 9.4 Capacity Improvement Projects $54.4 Table 9.6 Miscellaneous Improvement Projects $10.4 Table 9.7 Total Cost of Recommended Dry Weather CIP $111.9 n/a Wet Weather Water Quality Projects $120.2 Table 9.5 Total Cost of Wet Weather CIP(1) $185.0 n/a Notes: 1. Does not include Low Flow Diversion Improvement Projects to avoid double counting. CIP Phasing The recommended improvements were divided into five phases.  Phase 1 consists of water quality recommendations within high priority subareas discharging to the Harbor Lakes watershed. The compliance with the interim targets in the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL is required by March 2014, while compliance with the final targets is required by September 2018. Implementation of this phase will need to be initiated prior to 2014. Phase 1 also includes implementation of recommendations from previous studies for the Santa Monica Bay watershed, currently under design. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 ES-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) City of Corona 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN  Phase 2 consists of water quality recommendations within high priority subareas discharging to the Dominguez Channel watershed. The first compliance deadline for the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is in 2017, thus Phase 2 should be implemented prior to 2017. The schedule for potential TMDLs for Dominguez Channel, such as a nutrient or bacteria TMDL, are not yet developed, but would be anticipated after the Toxics TMDL.  Phase 3 consists of water quality recommendations within the remaining subareas of Harbor Lakes. Installation of street sweeping within areas of the City discharging to the Santa Monica Bay watershed are also included in Phase 3.  Phase 4 consists of water quality recommendations within the remaining subareas of Dominguez Channel.  Phase 5 consists of stormwater capacity improvements. The water quantity improvements are not driven by a TMDL related deadline. Chapter 9 provides details on all of the recommended projects for both the wet weather and low flow diversion recommendations, including the stormwater capacity improvements. The breakdown of costs for each of project phase is summarized in Table ES.3. Table ES.3 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Project Type Category Phase 1 ($M) Phase 2 ($M) Phase 3 ($M) Phase 4 ($M) Phase 5 ($M) Total ($M) BMPs $10.5 $5.7 $2.4 $6.0 $0.0 $24.6 Diversion Structures $0.3 $0.7 $0.8 $0.7 $0.0 $2.4 Storm Drains and Force Mains $1.5 $6.7 $4.9 $13.3 $54.4 $80.7 Street Sweeping $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 $1.0 Pump Stations $0.0 $1.5 $0.8 $0.9 $0.0 $3.1 Valves and Site Piping $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 Total $12.4 $14.7 $9.2 $21.2 $54.4 $111.9 As shown in Table ES.3, the capital cost for Phase 1 is estimated at $12.4 M while the capital cost associated with the remaining phases is estimated at $99.5 M. Figure ES.3 presents the capital costs for each identified phase. The overall CIP cost is estimated at $111.9 million and includes stormwater capacity as well as water quality recommendations. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN ES-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) Figure ES.3 Capital Cost by Phase Locations for improvements included in the CIP are shown on Figure ES.6. CIP by Watershed The breakdown of capital costs for the improvements included in the CIP by watershed are included in Table ES.4. Table ES.4 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Watershed Watershed Phase 1 ($M) Phase 2 ($M) Phase 3 ($M) Phase 4 ($M) Phase 5 ($M) Total ($M) Dominguez Channel $0.0 $14.7 $0.0 $21.2 $28.0 $63.9 Harbor Lakes $2.3 $0.0 $8.9 $0.0 $11.5 $22.8 Walteria Lake $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.9 $14.9 Santa Monica Bay $10.1 $0.0 $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $10.4 Total $12.4 $14.7 $9.2 $21.2 $54.4 $111.9 $12.4 $14.7 $9.2 $21.2 $54.4 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5Capital Cost($ million) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 ES-11 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) City of Corona 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN As shown in Table ES.4, the Dominguez Channel watershed includes the majority of the recommended improvements at $63.9 million, with the Harbor Lakes and Walteria Lake watersheds including $22.8 million and $14.9 million, respectively. Santa Monica Bay includes an estimated $10.4 million of recommended improvements. CIP by Project Type The distribution of project cost by project type is graphically presented on Figure ES.4. Figure ES.4 Capital Cost by Project Type As shown on Figure ES.4, pipelines, including storm drains and force mains represent the most significant component of the CIP, accounting for about 72 percent of the total CIP cost. BMPs account for 22 percent. Pump stations, diversion structures, street sweeping signs, and valves and site piping make up the balance of the CIP, accounting for about 6 percent. Figure ES.5 shows the cost breakdown between improvements recommended for water quality and water quantity. As shown, water quality improvements represent the bulk of the CIP, with about 51 percent of the total CIP cost. Water capacity improvements represent the remaining 49 percent of the CIP. BMPs, $24.6, 22% Diversion Structures, $2.4, 2% Storm Drains and Force Mains, $80.7, 72% Street Sweeping $1.0 Pump Stations, $3.1, 3%Valves and Site Piping, $0.1, 0% Total CIP $111.9 million City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN ES-12 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/ES.docx (D) Figure ES.5 Capital Cost by Category The location of the stormwater quality improvements included in the CIP are depicted on Figure ES.6, while the alignments of the stormwater capacity improvements are shown on Figure ES.7. Detailed information for each project is included in tables Chapter 9. In addition, Chapter 9 includes a financial plan that describes the anticipated cost impacts to the City and the potential for a parcel based fee for recovering these costs. Water Quality Improvements $57.5M 51% Water Quantity Improvements $54.4 49% Total CIP $111.9 million Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Do m i n g u e z Ch a n n e l Q17Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a c h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWell 8 Walnut St.Sump 237th St.Sump Vine Av.Sump Airport Pond Wilson Park De Portola Park Guenser Park ExxonMobil Basin McMaster Park El Prado Park Torrance Airport SCE Yard Lincoln Elementary School New DC Infiltration Basin New Basin El Camino College Parking Lot Torrance Blvd Median Crenshaw/Skypark Q08 Q15 Q27 Q05 Q21 Q04 Q14 Q25 Q22 Q16 Q18 Q24 Q23 Q26 Q17 Q19 Q09 Q13 Q03 Q23 Q28 Q28 Q26 Q27 Q06 Q08, Q10, Q11, Q12 Q01 Q02 Q10 (Diverted to Wilson Park)Q11 (Diverted to Wilson Park) Q10 Q16 Q07 Q24 Q18 Q05 Q28 Q27 Q08 Q11 Q26 Q12 Q25 Q19 Q20 Q23 Q21 Q01 Q02 Q04 Q22 Q15 Q14 Q06 Q09 Q13 Q03 OC BM Q18 Q24 Q05 12"18"30" 24"15"18"12"15"12"12" 18" Q21 Q12Q20Q20 36"78"66"81"75"45"54" 8" 27" 16"69"51"21"48" 60" 84"4"63" 6" 72" 30"18"102"15" 33" 42" 39" 57" 10"24"10" 42"66"24"72"30"6" 30" 42"63"6"30"66"42"21"8"72"66"6"63"48" 24" 42" 69"36"51"24"42" 42" 33"36"54" 48"15"45" 75"36"42"30"69"18"78" 30"15"30"54"18"30" 45" 24" 51"45"51"6"42"84"48" Figure ES.6Low Flow DiversionStormwater Quality CIP ProjectsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Existing Pump Stationsby Owner LACDPW Existing BMPsby TypeContinuous Deflective SeparatorBodies of Water Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor Roads CIP Projects Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station BMP Tributary Area (ID in Italics) Diversion Pipelines City Boundary Additional BMP Locations Retention and Detention BasinsTypeDetention Basin Retention Basin Recommended BMP Locationsby TypeInfiltration Wetlands Retention HDS None (Use Existing Facility) High Priority Subareas Study Area Note: Not all proposed diversion structures and site piping shown due to scale of map.pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_9.2-Low_Flow_Diversion_Stormwater_Quality_Projects.mxd Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Cha n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdC30 C25 C22 C18 C23 C34C37C27C17C35 C24 C21 42"48"48"C14 C16C15C11C13C1251"C10C06C05 C03C09C04C01 C07 C 0 8C0248"66"42"36"30"3 0 " 36"36"42"36"30" 48" 42" 36" 48"24"36"36"51"51"27"36"30" 36"54"54" 42"24"36"78"66"81"75"45"54"8" 27" 16"69"51"21"48"60"84"4"22"63" 6" 72" 30"18"102"15"33"42" 12"39"57" 10"24"42"54"42"48" 24"24"27" 36" 51" 42"78"33"63"72" 24" 42"24"36"18"66"18" 42" 6"66"24" 30" 63" 54"36"36"27"54" 48"33"54" 54" 75" 66"30"48" 78" 30" 48"36"6"15" 33" 60"45"30"24"36"15"8"30" 42"72"78"54"69"30"72"42" 24 "6"54"24" 54"30"39"24" 6" 54" 54"57"27" 51"42"42"81"18"36"24"51"33"48"33"24"24"15"66"30 " 36"84"24"42" 66" 42"12"33" 45" 48"24"54" 24" 24" 33" 69" 57"84"24"60"18"42" 51"8"Figure ES.7Stormwater CapacityCIP ProjectsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor RoadsOthersRetention BasinDetention BasinBodies of Water Minor EventWater Quantity Deficiencies Replace, Parallel, or New Construction Study Area pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_9.4-Stormwater_Capacity_CIP_Projects.mxd December 2011 1-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch01.docx (I) Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Torrance (City) faces an increasingly complex set of challenges in managing stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution. A combination of growth and regulatory programs, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements, place very specific land use and stormwater management demands on the City. Given the continued development pressure and increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, it has become necessary for the City to develop this Stormwater Quality Master Plan (SQMP). The SQMP includes modeling and analysis of various land use and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) scenarios and provides quantitative comparisons of a range of management options. This quantitative information will be used in selecting the most effective and efficient solutions to manage stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution. Identification of cost-effective solutions is critical given the limited financial resources available to meet multiple regulatory requirements. The results of the quantitative analysis will be of use to the City in a broad range of land use planning activities in addition to compliance with specific regulatory programs. The main focus of this SQMP is to assess changes in stormwater runoff volume and pollutant loading in the City. Analyses were conducted to predict loading of pollutants including total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP). These pollutants were used as indicator contaminants (e.g., metals are primarily associated with TSS). This analysis was used to identify the BMPs to be undertaken to treat stormwater pollutants, meet regulatory compliance requirements opportunities, and express the City’s renewed commitment to the use of environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and sustainable solutions. This study consists of three key steps: 1. An assessment of land use and imperviousness in the City. 2. An associated pollutant load with the land use for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, and water volume. 3. Identification of current and necessary BMPs to improve water quality to meet regulatory requirements. 1.2 AUTHORIZATION The City retained Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) to prepare this SQMP to aid in the planning of its stormwater management system. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 1-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch01.docx (I) This report is prepared in accordance with the consulting engineers’ agreement for the NPDES Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) project between the City and Carollo dated October 29, 2008. This report presents findings of the SDMP. 1.3 BACKGROUND The City completed previous SDMPs in 1960 and 1997. While the City is built out, the increased requirements associated with stormwater quality have led the City to develop this SQMP to assist the City in complying with regulatory requirements in an efficient and cost- effective manner. The 1997 SDMP identified capacity-related deficiencies in 48.8 miles of storm drains and developed a 66-year phased capital improvement program (CIP) for replacement of deficient storm drains to meet an annual budget of $1.5 million. The plan also identified improvements for 10 of the City’s detention and retention basins with an estimated improvement cost of $26.3 million. Torrance was a relatively mature community, with few natural areas to develop, when the last SDMP was prepared in 1997. However, since that time, there have been many redevelopment and residential improvement projects, including home additions, patios, driveways, and pools, that increased the proportion of hardscape area in the City. While the existing drainage conveyance system is modern and was appropriately designed, these more intensive land use utilization patterns have led to an increase in the impervious area, decreased percolation, shorter times of concentration, higher runoff volumes, and the potential for exceeding the flood control system capacity. For community safety and well-being, the 1997 SDMP was updated based on the general plan land use patterns and impervious factors derived from high-resolution satellite imagery. The SQMP developed during this study is a living document that will assist the City to verify the integrity of its flood control facilities, evaluate the efficiency of the drainage network, identify areas of possible deficiency, and prioritize improvements to the system. 1.4 STUDY AREA The study area of this report consists of the areas of the City’s stormwater service area. Water quality analyses for areas that are part of the Santa Monica Bay watershed have been conducted in previous studies. Therefore, there was no further analysis conducted for these areas as part of this study. The recommendations from those studies are incorporated within this SQMP. As will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 5, portions of the City’s service area fall within retention basin watersheds, for which TMDLs are not applicable and thus these portions of the City’s service area are excluded from this SQMP. While watersheds are discussed in more detail in Chapters 2 and 5, Figure 1.1 outlines the study area as well as the regional location of the City. Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AngelesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez C h a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure 1.1Study AreaStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LegendStudy AreaRetention Basin (Excluded, TMDLs Not Applicable)City BoundaryFreewayMajor Roads TORRANCE City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 1-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch01.docx (I) 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION Chapter 1 - Introduction This chapter presents the purpose of this report, describes the background and study area, and discusses the content of each chapter of the report. Chapter 2 - Service Area This chapter presents a description of the City’s service area and various aspects of the area served including climate, land use, population, soil types, watershed basins, and subbasins. Chapter 3 - Stormwater Regulations This chapter identifies the regulations that govern the collection and discharge of stormwater by the City, including current and anticipated stormwater regulations. Chapter 4 - Planning and Evaluation Criteria This chapter summarizes the analysis criteria used in the qualitative and quantitative system analysis, as well as planning criteria used in development of the CIP. Chapter 5 - Existing Stormwater System This chapter provides a brief overview of the City’s existing stormwater collection system including descriptions of the existing collection network, discharge points, stormwater volumes, as well as known system deficiencies. Chapter 6 - Model Development This chapter discusses the technical procedure used to develop the stormwater models including descriptions of the City’s previous hydraulic model, the various data sources used to update the model, the loading of the model, and the details of the calibration process. Chapter 7 - Water Quality Evaluation This chapter describes water quality analyses used to identify water pollution problems in the study area and presents results of those analyses. Recommendations are provided for identified water pollution deficiencies. Chapter 8 - Water Quantity Evaluation This chapter provides details on the hydraulic evaluation of the conveyance capacity of the City’s stormwater collection system and presents results of that analysis. Recommendations are provided for any identified conveyance deficiencies. Chapter 9 - Capital Improvement Program This chapter provides planning-level cost estimates for the improvements recommended in Chapters 7 and 8. This CIP includes a phased implementation schedule with three phases. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 1-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch01.docx (I) 1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Carollo wishes to acknowledge and thank City staff for their support and assistance in completing this report, with special gratitude extended to John Dettle. Staff instrumental in contributing to this SQMP includes the following. Public Works Director Robert Beste, P.E. Engineering Manager John Dettle, P.E. The following Carollo staff members were involved in the preparation of this report: Principal-in-Charge Graham Juby, Ph.D., P.E. Project Manager Inge Wiersema, P.E. Project Lead Sam Darkwah, Ph.D., P.E. Project Support Brian Brenhaug, P.E. Graphics and Mapping Li-Chen Wang City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 1-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch01.docx (I) This page left intentionally blank. December 2011 2-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) Chapter 2 SERVICE AREA 2.1 SERVICE AREA The City of Torrance (City) is located about 15 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles, in southern Los Angeles County, just north of the Palos Verdes Hills. The City was incorporated on May 12, 1921, and is just over 20.5 square miles in area. The City is bounded by Redondo Beach on the west and north, Lawndale and Gardena on the north, the City of Los Angeles on the east, Lomita to the southeast, and Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates on the south. The City is also bounded by approximately 4,000 feet of Santa Monica Bay coastline (i.e., Torrance Beach). The City’s storm conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. Neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verde Estates discharge stormwater into the City’s and/or Los Angeles County’s storm conveyance systems located within the City’s boundaries. As the area is highly urbanized drainage is primarily conducted through an extensive network of underground storm drain facilities, but also includes several open channels, the largest of which is the Dominguez Channel traversing the City’s northeast corner. The primary use of the Dominguez Channel and all other open channels in the Dominguez Watershed (including Wilmington Drain, Machado Lake, and Madrona Marsh) is flood protection. Satellite imagery of the City’s service area is shown on Figure 2.1. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works maintains the system of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Machado Lake receives urban and stormwater runoff from a complex network of storm drain systems. The first of three primary storm drain channels that flow into Machado Lake is the Wilmington Drain. Approximately 65 percent of the runoff from the Machado Lake Watershed flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. The other two primary storm drain channels are the Project No. 77 Drain and the Harbor City Relief Drain. Several smaller storm drains also discharge into Machado Lake, including a 72-inch storm drain outlet and the Figueroa Street Outlet (known as the Project No. 643 Drain). Machado Lake discharges at the southern end by overflowing a concrete dam into the Machado Lake wetland. Water discharges from the wetland through the Harbor Outflow structure and into the West Basin of the Los Angeles Harbor. Walteria Lake, located within the City’s boundaries, is owned and operated by Los Angeles County. It is approximately 1,005 acre-feet in capacity and receives raw stormwater mainly from Torrance, Rolling Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates. Effluent from the lake is pumped at a maximum rate of 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) through a force main system into a 54-inch drain line that lies under Skypark Drive. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AnglesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado LakeHawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure 2.1Service AreaStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LegendCity BoundaryBodies of Water TORRANCE Satellite Imagery from WorldView for July 10, 2010 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 2-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) The discharge eventually leaves the City near the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Amsler Street tributary to Machado Lake. 2.2 LAND USE The City’s General Plan (Torrance, 2010), adopted in April 2010, defines the distribution of land use types throughout the City and the maximum allowable densities of residential land use categories. The City is nearly built out and has only a few vacant areas remaining. However, the City’s General Plan projects that the City’s population will continue to increase. To accommodate this future growth, portions of the City will redevelop at higher densities. This densification process is typical in Southern California due to limited space and high land cost. Table 2.1 presents the land use categories from the General Plan along with total area for each land use category. Land use distribution is shown on Figure 2.2. Table 2.1 Land Use Categories – City of Torrance (2010) Land Use Density Area(1) (acres) Percentage of Total Residential (du/ac) Low Density (R-LO) 0.0 - 9.0 4,002 30.4% Low-Medium Density Residential (R-LM) 9.1 - 18.0 420 3.2% Medium-Density Residential (R-MD) 18.1 - 31.0 606 4.6% Medium-High Density Residential (R-MH) 31.1 - 44.0 274 2.1% High-Density Residential (HDR) 44.1+ 5 0.0% Subtotal - Residential 5,307 40.3% Commercial FAR General Commercial (C-GEN) Max 0.6(2) 825 6.3% Commercial Center (C-CTR) Max 1.0 402 3.1% Residential Office (R-OF) Max 0.6(2) 41 0.3% Subtotal - Commercial 1,268 9.6% Industrial Heavy Industry (I-HVY) Max 0.6 859 6.5% Light Industry (I-LT) Max 0.6 527 4.0% Business Park (I-BP) Max 0.6 881 6.7% Subtotal - Industrial 2,267 17.2% City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 2-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) Table 2.1 Land Use Categories – City of Torrance (2010) Land Use Density Area(1) (acres) Percentage of Total Open Space, Public, and Quasi-Public FAR Public / Quasi-Public / Open Space (PUB) - 1,218 9.3% Hospital / Medical (HM) Max 0.6(3) 62 0.5% Airport (AIR) - 313 2.4% Subtotal - Open Space, Public, and Quasi-Public 1,593 12.1% Other (ROW) - 73 0.6% Subtotal - Other 73 0.6% SUBTOTAL 10,508 79.9% Not Included in General Plan(4) (Streets) 2,646 20.1% TOTAL 13,154 100.0% Notes: Source: City 2009 General Plan (Torrance, 2010). 1. Area based on Land Use Plan. 2. For mixed-use projects, maximum FAR is 1.0. For R-OF, residential density is 18.1 – 31 du/ac. 3. Maximum of 1.0 FAR for hospital-adjacent medical office land uses. Hospital land uses may exceed maximum FAR with approval of the Planning Commission or City Council. 4. Based on difference between total General Plan land use acreage and total City boundary acreage. Assumed to consist of street right-of-way. The City is predominantly residential land use, with concentrations of industrial and commercial uses. This reflects the City’s history as a “company town,” where homes were built to house the local work force of industries. Residential development covered about 40 percent of the City’s land area. Industrial uses occupied the second largest land area, at 17 percent. Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space uses represent about 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Land uses not included in the General Plan, such as streets, represent about 20 percent of the City’s land area. Torrance also had a limited supply of vacant land mostly within commercial and industrial areas. Given the built-out character of the community, only minor land use changes from baseline year 2010 conditions will occur over the long term. Residential uses are located throughout the City at varying development densities. The highest residential densities occur along major streets and near major transportation corridors, in older neighborhoods, and in apartment or condominium developments and Planned Development communities around Sepulveda Boulevard and Plaza Del Amo between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards. The lowest residential densities are largely located in the western and southern portions of the City. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AngelesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado LakeHawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure 2.2Land Use MapStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles TORRANCE LegendGeneral Plan Land UsePublic/Open Space/AirportIndustrialCommercialResidentialBodies of WaterCity Boundary City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 2-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) 2.3 POPULATION The City’s population for year 2010 is estimated at 145,438 people (USCB, 2011). Future population projections for the City were obtained from the General Plan and are presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Historic and Projected Population Year Population(1) 1960 100,991 1970 134,584 1980 129,881 1990 133,107 2000 137,946 2010(2) 145,438 2020 151,286 2030 157,029 Notes: 1. Historic and projected population from General Plan (Torrance, 2010) for all years except 2010. 2. 2010 population from 2010 Census (USCB, 2011). As shown in Table 2.2, the City’s population grew from 100,991 in 1960, when the City’s first stormwater master plan was completed, to 137,946 in 2000, just after the previous stormwater master plan. Between 2010 and 2030, the City is anticipated to grow by about 11,591, an average annual growth rate of about 0.38 percent, reflecting the built-out conditions within the City. 2.4 CLIMATE The City’s climate is characterized by warm summers and slightly cooler winters. The climate data for the City is presented in Table 2.3. As shown in Table 2.3, the summer temperatures tend to be around 70 to 80 degrees F, while temperatures during winter tend to be around 50 to 60 degrees F. The warmest month of the year is August with an average maximum temperature of 79 degrees F, while the coldest months of the year are December and January with an average minimum temperature of 45 degrees F. Temperature variations between night and day tend to be moderate throughout the year with an average difference of about 20 degrees F. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 2-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) Table 2.3 Historic Climate Data Month Average Max. Temperature (°F) Average Min. Temperature (°F) Average Total Precipitation (in) January 65.8 44.2 3.09 February 66.5 45.8 3.25 March 67.4 47.3 2.04 April 69.6 49.8 0.83 May 71.6 53.4 0.18 June 73.8 56.7 0.06 July 77.6 60.2 0.02 August 78.6 61.0 0.06 September 78.0 59.5 0.22 October 75.4 55.4 0.42 November 71.5 48.9 1.31 December 67.0 45.0 2.18 Annual Average 71.9 52.3 13.66 Notes: Source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2011). Period of Record from 1/1/1932 to 12/31/2010. The annual average precipitation in the City is about 14 inches. As shown in Table 2.3, the majority of the rainfall occurs in the months November through March. February is typically the wettest month with an average rainfall of about 3.25 inches. 2.5 SOIL TYPES Soils play a pronounced role in the hydrology and runoff processes in a watershed. Soils invariably affect natural and constructed conveyance systems. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classifies soil into four hydrologic soil groups. The soils are classified on the basis of water intake at the end of long duration storms after prior wetting, an opportunity for swelling, and without the proactive effects of vegetation. The hydrologic soil groups are: A. Soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels. Soils included in this group often have loamy sand, sandy loam, loam to silt loam textures. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 2-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) B. Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures, such as loam, silt loam, silt, or sandy clay loam. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils with moderately fine to fine texture, such as loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam, slay loam, and silty clay loam. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D. Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with high swelling potential, soils with permanent high water table, soils with clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. Soils included in this group have clay textures. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Each soil group is associated with the typical infiltration soil properties as listed in Table 2.4, and graphically depicted on Figure 2.3. Table 2.4 Infiltration Rates for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups Soil Group Soil Type within City Maximum Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Minimum Infiltration Rate (in/hr) A Sand, Sandy Loam 2.0 0.065 B Sandy Loam, Loam 1.5 0.050 C Clay Loam, Clay 1.0 0.035 D Clay 0.5 0.020 2.6 WATERSHEDS AND SUBBASINS The City is divided into basins within four watersheds, as shown on Figure 2.4. Each drainage basin has a system of conveyance facilities to collect and dispose runoff. Basins within each of the four watersheds are discussed in more detail below. Excluding the extreme southern section and western beach areas, the City is relatively flat, but naturally drains toward the southeast and into the Dominguez Channel and Harbor Lakes and Machado Lake area, which are maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Over the years, some of the City’s watershed boundaries have shifted with changing drain alignments and the elimination of some of the retention basins. Figure 2.4 outlines the watersheds within the City, including the upstream watershed affiliated with each watershed to more accurately portray the actual study area. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 2-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) The City’s storm conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. Neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estate and Palos Verde Estate discharge stormwater into the City’s and or Los Angeles County’s storm conveyance systems located within the City’s boundaries. 2.6.1 Retention Basins Stormwater discharge from the City’s retention basins, consisting of the Bishop Montgomery, Del Amo, Ocean, and Vista del Parque basins, is directed to retention basins where it percolates into the groundwater basin. There is no discharge from these basins. Portions of the City within the retention basins total about 1 square mile and represent about 7 percent of the City’s total surface area. 2.6.2 Santa Monica Bay Watershed The Santa Monica Bay Watershed is located in western Los Angeles County and includes watersheds for several creeks discharging to the Santa Monica Bay, stretching from the Malibu Creek Watershed to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watersheds, and encompasses about 40 square miles. Six of the City’s basins shown on Figure 2.4 are a part of the Santa Monica Bay watershed. Portions of the City within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed total about 3 square miles and represent about 8 percent of the Santa Monica Bay Watershed and about 15 percent of the City’s total surface area. Three of the City’s basins, the Amie Avenue Detention Basin (Amie Basin), the Henrietta Detention Basin (Henrietta Basin), and the Entradero Detention Basin (Entradero Basin), drain into a Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) storm drain, called the Herondo Drain, which conveys stormwater into the Santa Monica. Recommendations were made for the basins discharging into the Herondo Drain as a part of a 2008 study titled “Predesign of BMPs for Detention Basins Tributary to Santa Monica Bay CIP No. I- 102” (Carollo, 2008). As a part of implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to comply with the Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs, dry weather flows from Amie Basin are pumped through a force main and discharged to the Dominguez Channel. As discussed in Chapter 1, basins that are a part of the Santa Monica Bay watershed are excluded from the study area for analysis within this report since water quality recommendations were made in previous studies. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 2-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) 2.6.3 Dominguez Channel Watershed The Dominguez Channel Watershed is located in southern Los Angeles County and overlies portions the City, the City of Los Angeles, Carson, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Overall, the watershed covers about 133 square miles of land and water, with about 9 square miles residing within the City’s boundary (excluding the Harbor Lakes/Machado Lake sub-watershed). Portions of the City within the Dominguez Channel Watershed represent about 10 percent of the Dominguez Channel Watershed (excluding the Harbor Lakes/Machado Lake sub-watershed) and about 44 percent of the City’s total surface area. Stormwater discharge within the City’s basins of the Dominguez Channel Watershed is collected and discharged to the Dominguez Channel, which traverses the northeast corner of the City as shown on Figure 2.3. The channel is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The Dominguez Watershed drains the following regions of the City: • Northeast Region - Drains south into northeastern Torrance from southern Gardena, then enters the Dominguez Channel, which drains out of Torrance near the intersection of Western Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. The tributary area is bordered on the north by Compton Boulevard, on the east by Western Avenue and the Dominguez Channel forms the approximate Western and southern borders. This area slopes slightly to the south and consists primarily of residential, light commercial, and public use zones. Discharge is conveyed into the Dominguez Channel at multiple inlets in the channel. • North-Central Region - The tributary area for the second drainage region is bordered on the north and south by the Dominguez Channel and an irregular divide located between 185th and 190th streets, while the eastern and western divides runs along Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, respectively. Region 2 is primarily residential and light commercial zones and slopes gently to the northeast and into the Dominguez Channel, which drains out of the City near the intersection of Western Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. Discharge is conveyed into the Dominguez Channel at multiple inlets in the channel. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AngelesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez C h a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m i n R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdPalos Verdes DR Figure 2.3Soil MapStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles TORRANCE Legendby Soil TypeClay (Group C and D)Clay Loam (Group C)Loam (Group B)Sand (Group A)Sandy Loam (Group A and B) Study AreaExcluded from Study AreaParcelsBodies of Water City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 2-12 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) This page left blank intentionally. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Ch a n n e l Walteria Lake Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdCrenshaw BlvdWalteria Mobil Ocean AmieHenrietta Entradero Doris Del Amo Pioneer 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery El Dorado Vista Del Parque East Torrance Region Delos Drive Region South Torrance Region Southeast Torrance Region East-Central Region North-Central Region Refinery Region North East Region Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Santa Monica Bay Figure 2.4Watershed and Basin LayoutStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGENDWatershedsGroundwater ReplenishmentBishop MontgomeryDel AmoOceanVista Del ParqueDominguez ChannelSurface DrainageEl DoradoMobilPioneer Santa Monica BaySurface DrainageAmieDorisEntraderoHenriettaHarbor LakesSurface Drainage237th St.Madrona MarshWalteria OthersBodies of WaterStudy AreaExcluded from Study AreaDetention BasinsRetention BasinsParcels December 2011 2-15 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) • East-Central Region - The tributary area for Drainage Region 3 is south of the Dominguez Channel and west of Western Avenue. The western border runs south along Crenshaw Boulevard to 182nd Street then follows an irregular divide southeast to about 195th street and Western Avenue. The area is primarily residential and light commercial and slopes gently to the northeast and east, draining into the Dominguez channel and exiting the City south of the intersection of Western Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. • Refinery Region - Drainage Region 4 is south of Regions 2 and 3, along the irregular border between 185th and 190th Streets with an equally irregular southern border near Plaza Del Amo. The western and eastern borders run near Hawthorne Boulevard and Western Avenue and includes the main commercial and industrial sections of Torrance with a significant residential contribution from areas located west of Cabrillo Avenue and south of Maricopa Street. The tributary area is mostly a rolling topography that drains to the east and collects in the channel that leaves the City at Western Avenue and 212th Street, before joining the Dominguez Channel near the intersection of the San Diego Freeway and Avalon Boulevard. The dominant features of the area are the Mobil Oil Refinery, its large detention basin (southeast of the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and 190th Street) and the pumped discharge from the Pioneer Avenue basin on the west side. Runoff entering the Mobil basin requires visual inspection for contamination prior to discharge, preventing integration of the runoff from this private sump into the regional drainage system, and illustrating how privately controlled facilities can affect regional drainage. 2.6.4 Harbor Lakes Sub-Watershed/Machado Lake Sub-Watershed Stormwater flow from the City’s Walteria and Harbor Lakes subbasins is directed to Machado Lake, which discharges to the Los Angeles Harbor (west of the Dominguez Channel inlet). Machado Lake is located within the Harbor Lakes/Machado Lake sub-watershed, which is approximately 40 square miles and positioned within the larger 133-square-mile Dominguez Channel Watershed. The sub-watershed is located in southern Los Angeles County and includes all, or a portion of, the following communities: City of Los Angeles, Torrance, Carson, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, and Los Angeles County. Portions of the City within the Harbor Lakes/Machado Lake sub-watershed total about 7 square miles and represent about 20 percent of the Harbor Lakes/Machado Lake sub-watershed and about 34 percent of the City’s total surface area. The dominant land use in the Harbor Lakes/ Machado Lake sub-watershed is high-density single-family residential, accounting for approximately 45 percent of the land use. Industrial, vacant, retail/commercial, multi-family residential, transportation, and educational City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 2-16 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch02.docx (I) institutions each account for 5 to 7 percent of the land use, while "all other" accounts for the remaining 23 percent. Machado Lake is a receiving body of urban and stormwater runoff from a network of storm drains throughout the watershed. There are three discharge points into Machado Lake from the following storm drain channels: • Wilmington Drain. • Project No. 77. • Harbor City Relief Drain. Approximately 88 percent of the Machado Lake Sub-Watershed area flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. Stormwater discharge within the City’s Walteria basin is collected through the stormwater collection system at Walteria Lake in the southwest of the City before being discharged through the Wilmington Drain along with discharge from the remaining basins of the Harbor Lakes watershed, including discharge from Palos Verde Estates and Rolling Hills Estates. As mentioned previously, the Wilmington Drain discharges to Machado Lake, ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean. The Harbor Lake Watershed drains the following regions of the City: • South Torrance - Within Torrance, the South Torrance region primarily drains the area on the eastern side of the Municipal Airport, but the watershed reaches to the crest of the Palos Verdes Hills, far into the communities of Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. This area is primarily low density residential, with some commercial and agricultural areas in the steep canyons. Most of the area on the extreme south side of Torrance is also steep, but the slope flattens in the commercial area near the airport. The runoff from this area discharges through two large Los Angeles County storm drains that leave the City at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and 250th Street then descend eastward, through Lomita, to the Harbor Lakes Area. • Delos Drive - An area in the extreme southeast corner consists mostly of open area zones with natural drainage. The major City drain in this area was damaged during the flooding of 1995 and was replaced by the City in 1996. • East Torrance - The East Torrance region drains the small residential and light industrial area around Sepulveda Boulevard and Western Avenue and slopes to the east where it eventually enters the Harbor Lakes Area. • Southeast Torrance - The Southeast Torrance region consists primarily of the residential area north of Lomita, south of Plaza del Arno, west of Western Avenue and east of Gamier Street and Juniper and Telo Avenues. The area includes the Vine and Walnut Street basins, which have been bypassed by Los Angeles County drainage facilities and their continued dedication to drainage will be further investigated in Chapter 7 of this report. The terrain is irregular with many small hills and basins; however, the flows are eventually collected in the County storm drain system and discharge to the Harbor Lakes Basin and Los Angeles Harbor. December 2011 3-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Chapter 3 STORMWATER REGULATIONS This chapter provides an overview of the regulations affecting the collection and discharge of stormwater from the City’s service area. It includes an overview of ordinances related to stormwater within the City, a discussion of each of the specific requirements for discharge to watersheds, and a discussion of the City’s NPDES permit. This chapter concludes with a discussion of non-compliance issues and a corrective action plan based on the results of this Stormwater Quality Master Plan (SQMP). Note that while some discussion on discharge requirements for Santa Monica Bay is included in this chapter, basins that are a part of the Santa Monica Bay watershed are excluded from the study area of this report and the analysis and recommendations within this report do not cover these areas since the basins that are a part of the Santa Monica Bay watershed were evaluated in previous studies with associated recommendations. 3.1 CITY ORDINANCES City of Torrance (City) Code Section 410 dictates the City’s requirements for stormwater pollution control. Section 410.1.060 requires Best Management Practices (BMP) for individual premises regarding sweeping of parking lots and restriction of discharging industrial and commercial wastes and other pollutants in violation of the City’s MS4 permit. The City also requires areas of new development or redevelopment meeting specific criteria not required to submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to develop and submit a site-specific plan to mitigate adverse effects of stormwater quality. In addition, the City requires that construction sites follow BMPs listed in City Code Section 411.1, including restricting runoff containing sediment, oil, grease, and construction waste from leaving construction sites, preventing erosion, covering of excavated soil during precipitation, and utilization of a temporary sediment barrier. The City does not currently have an ordinance requiring low impact development (LID). As will be discussed later, it is recommended that the City adopt a LID ordinance to limit the impact of future development on existing stormwater quality and capacity problems. 3.2 STORMWATER DISCHARGE TO IMPAIRED WATER BODIES States are required to designate impaired water bodies that do not meet water quality standards after pollution point sources have installed pollution control technologies in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) are used to set load allocations for constituents in impaired water bodies. In California, development of TMDLs is administrated by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) In general, TMDLs consist of:  Assessment of the water body to establish the pollutant load under existing conditions  Defining the allowable pollutant load to maintain beneficial uses of the water  Identification of pollutant sources (both point sources and non-point sources)  Allocation of the allowable pollutant load to the pollutant sources, with associated pollutant reductions (this will often require monitoring to establish a baseline WLA and an associated monitoring and report plan)  Development of an implementation plan to realize the allocated pollutant reductions  Monitoring and scheduled compliance dates with associated target pollutant reductions TMDLs generally include provisions for re-evaluation of the loading and allocations within the compliance schedule. After development, TMDLs are incorporated into the applicable Basin Plan. As a Basin Plan amendment, the TMDL requires approval from the SWRCB, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the EPA after adoption by the RWQCB. The specific TMDLs applying to the waters the City discharges stormwater to were implemented as a result of the RWQCB’s 1996 and 1998 water quality assessments which identified over 700 potential pollutant waterbody combinations requiring TMDLs and a consent decree resulting from the National Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) 1998 lawsuit against the EPA. As a part of the consent decree, a 13-year schedule was established (between 1999 and 2012) for implementation of the TMDLs, which were consolidated from the 700 potential pollutant waterbody combinations into 92 TMDLs. If the listed TMDLs are not implemented within the prescribed schedule by the RWQCB, the EPA will be required to establish federal TMDLs for the listed waters. Several of the bodies of water the City discharges stormwater to are designated as CWA Section 303(d) impaired water bodies, including Santa Monica Bay, Machado Lake, Long Beach Harbor, Los Angeles Harbor, and portions of the Dominguez Channel (SWQCB, 2006). The TMDLs resulting from the consent decree can be divided into two groups, TMDLs issued by the EPA and TMDLs issued by the RWQCB. In addition, TMDLs can be grouped by receiving water body. This grouping is summarized in Table 3.1, while the status and year of issue is summarized in Table 3.2. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.1 TMDL grouped by Agency and Receiving Water Body Agency Receiving Water Body TMDL EPA Santa Monica Bay Sediment Toxicity (Eliminated) DDT PCB Metals Pesticides (eliminated 2003) Wilmington Drain Copper Lead Dominguez Channel Ammonia Coliform RWQCB Machado Lake Toxics Nutrients Trash Santa Monica Bay Debris (Trash and Plastic Pellets) Bacteria (dry weather) Bacteria (wet weather) Dominguez Channel(1) Toxics and Metals Notes: 1. Dominguez Channel (DC) discharges into the Los Angeles Harbor; thus TMDLs may apply to dischargers to the DC even though the Body of Water is listed as Los Angeles Harbor. TMDLs established or under development that are applicable to the bodies of water that the City discharges stormwater to are listed in Table 3.3. As shown in Table 3.3, six TMDLs are currently identified as applicable to the City’s stormwater discharge. The relevant resolutions and basin plan amendments (BPA) are included in Appendix B, while each TMDL is discussed in more detail in the following sections. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.2 Status Summary of Relevant TMDLs Body of Water TMDL Name Pollutant Status Date Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Bacteria Effective 2003 Metals Metals Delisted 2003 Chlordane Pesticides Delisted 2006 PCBs + DDT PCBs In Development(1) 2011 Debris Trash + Plastic Pellets Adopted 2010 Dominguez Channel(2) Bacteria Bacteria In Development - Los Angeles Harbor Coliform Bacteria Effective 2005 Pesticides Pesticides Adopted(3) 2011 PAHs PAHs Adopted(3) 2011 Metals Metals Adopted(3) 2011 Machado Lake Nutrients Nutrients Effective 2009 Trash Trash Effective 2008 Notes: 1. The EPA released a draft TMDL for this pollutant on December, 9, 2011 (EPA, 2011). 2. Dominguez Channel (DC) discharges into the Los Angeles Harbor; thus TMDLs may apply to dischargers to the DC even though the Body of Water is listed as Los Angeles Harbor. 3. The pollutants listed here are being addressed under the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics and Metals TMDL, also referred to in this report as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDLs. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.3 Applicable TMDLs for City of Torrance Body of Water TMDL Name Pollutant Resolution Number Effective Date Machado Lake Nutrient Nitrogen, Phosphorus R08-006 11 March 2009 Trash Trash 2007-006 6 March 2008 Toxics Pesticides, PCBs R10-008 2 September 2010 Dominguez Channel(1) Toxics(1) Copper, Lead, Zinc, DDT, PAHs, PCBs, Chlordane, Dieldrin, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury R11-008 Not Yet Effective (Approved by RWQCB on 5 May 2011) Santa Monica Bay Debris Trash, Plastic Pellets R10-010 Not Yet Effective (Approved by SWQCB 6 December 2011) Bacteria Bacteria 2002-004 2002-022 2006-008 15 July 2003 15 July 2003 6 April 2006 Notes: 1. The Resolution Name for what is referred to here as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is “Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDLs.” Dominguez Channel discharges into the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. 3.2.1 Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Machado Lake, located in the Dominguez Channel Watershed in southern Los Angeles County, is identified on the 1998 and 2002 Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to eutrophic conditions, algae, ammonia, and odors. The Machado Lake eutrophic, algae, and odor impairments are caused by excessive loading of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, to Machado Lake (LAWQCB, 2008). Ammonia is found to be at levels below the toxicity standards, but nevertheless, these concentrations contribute to the total nitrogen loading in the lake. Table 3.4 provides a summary of the quantifiable loads entering Machado Lake on an annual basis (LAWQCB, 2008). Nutrient flux from the sediments and atmospheric nitrogen deposition are the two directly quantifiable non-point sources included as part of the total nutrient load. The total annual nitrogen and phosphorus loads are estimated to be 24,327 kg and 10,421 kg, respectively. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Machado Lake is located in the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP). Serving the Wilmington and Harbor City areas, the KMHRP, a City of Los Angeles park, encompasses 231 acres. The park is located west of the Harbor Freeway (California State Route 110) and east of Vermont Avenue between the Tosco Refinery on the south and the Pacific Coast Highway on the North. Machado Lake is one of the last lake and wetland systems in City of Los Angeles; the area is approximately 103.5 acres in total size. The upper portion, which includes the open water area, is approximately 40 acres and the lower wetland portion is about 63.5 acres. Machado Lake is a shallow polymictic lake; the depth is generally 0.5 to 1.5 meters; the average depth is approximately 1.0 meter (polymictic lakes lack thermal stratification due to shallow depth, allowing the water to mix throughout the depth of the lake). The lake was originally developed as part of Harbor Regional Park in 1971 and intended for boating and fishing. Over the years water quality generally declined; boating was stopped and signs were posted warning of the risk of eating fish from the lake. Table 3.4 Total Annual Nutrient Load Entering Machado Lake Source Total N (kg) Total P (kg) Ortho-P (kg) Inorg-N (kg) External Load 7,587 3,260 737 3,736 Sediment Flux 16,520 7,161 4,963 16,520 Atmospheric Deposition 220 Total Annual Load 24,327 10,421 5,700 20,256 Notes: Source: Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft - April 2008 (LAWQCB, 2008). Within the TMDL, the City is identified as a point source for nutrients and is assigned a concentration based interim and final Waste Load Allocation (WLA). The WLAs within the TMDL Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) are assigned on a concentration basis, with the point of compliance within Machado Lake. The Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL requires the City to submit a Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP) within 1 year of the effective date of the resolution or propose a Special Study Work Plan following the requirements of one of three options for special studies. The City proposed a Special Study Work Plan (SSWP), allowing the City to assess compliance with the WLA on a mass basis. Assessment of compliance on a mass basis allows the City to demonstrate compliance through reductions in pollutant load rather than the resulting concentration in the discharge body of water. Compliance is demonstrated through monitoring reports based on sampling data at the stormdrain outfall of the City’s stormwater system. Table 3.5 presents the WLA assigned to the City on a mass basis. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.5 City WLA for Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL Phase Compliance Deadline(1) Phosphorus WLA (kg) Total Nitrogen WLA (kg) 1 11 March 2014 3,760 7,370 2 11 October 2018 301 3,008 Notes: Source: Special Study Work Plan (included in Appendix B). 1. Compliance deadlines are based on the effective date of 11 March 2009. Phase 1 is required to be implemented by 5.0 Years after Effective Date while Phase 2 is required to be implemented by 9.5 Years after Effective Date. As shown in Table 3.5, the City’s WLA is phased, with initial reductions in pollutant loading to the interim targets by 2014 and reductions in pollutant loading to the final targets by 2018. The timeline for preparation and implementation of the MRP is shown in Table 3.6 along with the compliance deadlines from Table 3.5. 3.2.2 Machado Lake Trash TMDL The Machado Lake Trash TMDL requires that trash be eliminated in Machado Lake and on its shoreline, through either assessment and collection or installation of full capture systems on discharges to the lake. The City is identified as a point source for trash based on being a permittee under the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit. Based on the Machado Lake TMDL, the City’s Waste Load Allocation (WLA) is zero trash, meaning no trash may be discharged to the lake through the City’s storm drains that discharge stormwater to the lake. The City is required to develop a Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plan (TMRP) describing the methodologies that will be used to assess and monitor compliance with the TMDL. The timeline for implementations of the TMRP and the schedule for compliance with the TMDL is presented in Table 3.7. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.6 Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL Schedule Task Description BPA Task(1) Schedule from Effective Date Compliance Deadline(2) Interim WLAs Apply(3) 1 On Effective Date 11 March 2009 Submit MRP or work plan for Optional SSWP Option 3 to RWQCB 5, 7 1 year 11 March 2010 Submit Optional SSWP Options 1 or 2 work plans to RWQCB 8 1.5 year 11 October 2010 Submit Optional SSWP Option 3 final report to RWQCB 15 2.5 years 11 October 2011 Submit MRP plan and TMDL Implementation plan to RWQCB 16 2.5 years 11 October 2011 Begin monitoring and implementation of TMDLs 17 60 days from approval of MRP and TMDL Implementation plan February 2012 Submit annual monitoring reports 18 from approval of MRP and TMDL Implementation plan December 2012 (and annually thereafter) Interim WLAs apply 21 5 years 11 March 2014 Submit Optional SSWP Option 1 and 2 final reports to RWQCB 19 6 years 11 March 2015 Final WLAs apply 23 9.5 years 11 October 2018 Notes: Source: Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL (RWQCB, 2011), included in Appendix B. 1. The BPA establishes 23 tasks. Tasks with requirements for the City’s selected options for compliance or targeted WLA reductions are included in this table. Task 22 consists of reevaluating the TMDLs and potentially adjusting the WLAs, and would occur 7.5 years from the effective date (11 October 2016). This task is assigned to the RWQCB and thus not a compliance deadline for the City, but may impact the City’s final WLA. 2. Compliance deadlines are based on the effective date of 11 March 2009. Approval of MRP assumed to require 2 months. Dates in italics are based on an assumed approval date. 3. On the effective date, interim concentration-based WLAs apply to the MS4 permittees with a point of compliance in Lake Machado. The interim total phosphorous WLA is 1.25 mg/L (consistent with the 5 year interim WLA) while the interim total nitrogen WLA is 3.50 mg/L (slightly higher than the 5 year interim WLA of 2.45 mg/L). City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.7 Machado Lake Trash TMDL Schedule Task Description BPA Task(1) Schedule from Effective Date Compliance Deadline(2) Submit TMRP 1 6 months 6 September 2008 Submit Results of TMRP, Recommend Trash Baseline WLA, Propose Prioritization 3 2 years from RWQCB approval of TMRP November 2010 20% Reduction from Baseline WLA 4 4 years 6 March 2012 40% Reduction from Baseline WLA 5 5 years 6 March 2013 60% Reduction from Baseline WLA 7 6 years 6 March 2014 80% Reduction from Baseline WLA 8 7 years 6 March 2015 100% Reduction from Baseline WLA 9 8 years 6 March 2016 Notes: Source: Machado Lake Trash TMDL (RWQCB, 2011), included in Appendix B. 1. The BPA establishes nine tasks. Tasks with requirements for the City or targeted WLA reductions are included in this table. Task 6 consists of evaluating the effectiveness of the effectiveness of full capture systems installed to achieve the 40 percent goal and reevaluate the WLA. This task is assigned to the RWQCB and thus not a compliance deadline for the City. 2. Compliance deadlines are based on the effective date of 6 March 2008. Approval of TMRP assumed to require 2 months. Dates in italics are based on an assumed approval date. As shown in Table 3.7, compliance with the WLA of zero trash is phased over eight years in 20 percent increments. The City will need to begin implementation of BMPs to reduce the baseline WLA prior to its first compliance deadline of 6 March 2012. As a part of Phase 3, the City implemented a pilot program to test potential BMPs, including catch basin inserts and trash screens. Advantages and disadvantages of the various BMPs were described in a conceptual report previously developed by Carollo for the City (Carollo, 2008), included in Appendix B. Based on results of the pilot program, the City has elected to focus its efforts on expanding its street sweeping activities to fully sweep streets (currently, the City sweeps the center of each street as street sweeping signage has not yet been established throughout the City’s service area). The additional operational cost associated with the expanded street sweeping program are included in the capital improvement program presented in Chapter 9. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) 3.2.3 Machado Lake Toxics TMDL The Machado Lake Toxics TMDL addresses several pesticides and PCBs to protect beneficial uses of Machado Lake. The Machado Lake Toxics TMDL was approved by the LAWQCB on September 2, 2010. The Machado Lake Toxics TMDL specifically addresses pesticides and PCBs found in fish tissue. Specific pollutants addressed include DDT, PCBs, chlordane and dieldrin (as well as Chemical Group A, referring to bio-accumulating pesticides predominately represented by chlordane and dieldrin). These pollutants bind with soil particles and are thus transported with soil within stormwater runoff. The City is identified as a point source for the identified pollutants based on being a permittee under the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit. Based on the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL, the City’s WLAs are listed in Table 3.8. Table 3.8 Concentration Based WLAs for Machado Lake Toxics TMDL PCBs (µg/kg) DDT (µg/kg) DDE (µg/kg) DDD (µg/kg) Total DDT (µg/kg) Chlordane (µg/kg) Dieldrin (µg/kg) 59.8 4.16 3.16 4.88 5.28 3.24 1.9 Notes: Source: Machado Lake Toxics TMDL, Resolution Number R10-08, Basin Plan Amendment (LAWQCB, 2010). 1. WLA for suspended sediment associated contaminants based on dry weight; WLAs are applied with a three-year averaging period. As a point source, the City is required to conduct WLA compliance monitoring, consisting of samples of suspended solids in the City’s stormwater discharge. The monitoring is to be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 consists of sampling during three wet weather events, including the first large storm event of the season, for two years. Phase 2 consists of sampling one wet weather event every two years. The monitoring is to be conducted based on a Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan, with annual or biennial reports submitted to the RWQCB. The BPA also requires the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to monitor Wilmington Drain through bed sediment sampling, inspections, and operation of BMPs. Table 3.9 presents relevant milestones for implementation of the TMDL. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.9 Machado Lake Toxics TMDL Schedule Task Description BPA Task(1) Schedule from Effective Date Compliance Deadline(2) Submit MRP and QAPP 7 6 months 11 September 2011 Conduct Phase 1 Monitoring 9 Monitor for 2 years from RWQCB approval of MRP November 2011 to November 2013 Submit Implementation Plan 10 6 months after completion of monitoring May 2014 Begin Implementation Actions to Attain WLAs 11 60 days from plan approval September 2014 Achieve WLAs for Pesticides and PCBs 12 - 30 September 2019 Notes: Source: Machado Lake Toxics TMDL (RWQCB, 2011), included in Appendix B. (1) The BPA establishes 12 tasks. Tasks with requirements for the City or targeted WLA reductions are included in this table. (2) Compliance deadlines are based on the effective date of 2 September 2010. Approval of MRP and implementation plan assumed to require 2 months. Dates in italics are based on an assumed approval date. As shown in Table 3.9, the City is required to achieve compliance with the WLAs for this TMDL by 30 September 2019. Certain tasks within the schedule, including the timeline for monitoring, submission of the implementation plan, and implementation actions, is tied to the approval of the MRP rather than the effective date and depend on the schedule for monitoring (which is dependent on storm events). Thus, compliance deadlines for some tasks can only be approximated. 3.2.4 Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL In addition to the TMDLs applicable to Machado Lake (which is considered a part of the Dominguez Channel watershed), an additional TMDL to regulate toxics is applicable to the City’s stormwater discharges to the Dominguez Channel watershed. The Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board (LAWQCB) has placed the Dominguez Channel on the State's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for several constituents including pesticides, metals, bacteria, and organic compounds. There are two reaches of Dominguez Channel currently listed on the 303(d) list. The first reach is the estuary portion of the channel, which stretches from the mouth at Los Angeles Harbor to Vermont Avenue in Gardena. This reach is downstream of the City’s discharge points. The second reach stretches from Vermont Avenue to just north of the Highway 105 corridor where the channel becomes a network of subsurface storm drains. This reach extends through the northeast corner of the City. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) The Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDLs was adopted by the board on 5 May 2011. However, it has not yet been approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Office of Administrative Law, or the EPA. A hearing before the SWRCB is scheduled for January 2012, and EPA approval is currently anticipated around March 2012. The City is assigned WLAs for the identified pollutants based on being a permittee under the Los Angeles County MS4 NPDES permit. A February 2009 draft report describing the calibration of a system to support the development of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDL is included in Appendix B along with the adopted resolution and basin plan amendment. Table 3.10 presents the freshwater metals interim WLAs for Copper, Lead, and Zinc based on the WLAs found in the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDL. Table 3.10 Concentration Based WLAs for Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Pollutant WLA Freshwater Toxicity Interim Allocation (TUc) Toxicity 2 Freshwater Metals Interim Allocation (µg/l) Copper 207.51 Lead 122.88 Zinc 898.87 Interim Sediment Allocations (for DC Estuary) (mg/kg sediment) Copper 220.0 Lead 510.0 Zinc 789.0 DDT 1.727 PAHs 31.60 PCBs 1.490 Freshwater Toxicity Final Allocation (TUc) Toxicity 1 Freshwater Metals Final Allocation (g/day) Copper 1,300.3 Lead 5,733.7 Zinc 9,355.5 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-11 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.10 Concentration Based WLAs for Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Pollutant WLA Torrance Lateral Wet Weather Unfiltered Water WLA (µg/l) Copper 9.7 Lead 42.7 Zinc 69.7 Torrance Lateral Sediment WLA (mg/kg sediment) Copper 31.6 Lead 35.8 Zinc 121 Final Metals and PAHs WLAs (for DC Estuary) (kg/year)(1) Copper 22.4 Lead 54.2 Zinc 271.8 PAHs 0.134 Final WLA for DDT and PCBs (for DC Estuary) (g/year)(1) DDT 0.250 PCBs 0.207 Final Sediment WLAs for Metals (for DC Estuary) (mg/kg sediment)(2) Cadmium 1.2 Notes: Source: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic TMDL, Basin Plan Amendment. 1. For MS4 permitees, mass based WLAs are based on share of area. WLAs shown are total mass WLA. The BPA did not establish the share of area for each permittee. 2. The BPA also specifies WLA for Chromium and Mercury; however, these are applicable only to the Consolidated Slip and Fish Harbor. The Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) also includes mass-based WLAs for the ExxonMobil Refinery, which falls within the City’s boundary. The mass based WLAs for the ExxonMobil Refinery are presented in Table 3.11. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-12 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.11 Mass Based WLAs for ExxonMobil Refinery Total Copper (kg) Total Lead (kg) Total Zinc (kg) 1.36 5.98 9.75 Note: Source: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic TMDL, Basin Plan Amendment. As an assigned responsible party, the City must develop a MRP and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The MRP must be submitted for public review 20 months after the effective date. Monitoring will need to begin six months after approval of the MRP. Monitoring will consist of sampling of water and suspended solids at the outlet of storm drains discharging to the Dominguez Channel. In addition, fish and sediment samples will be taken in the Dominguez Channel Estuary. Water and suspended solids are to be sampled during a single dry weather event and two wet weather events, including the first large storm of the year. Sediment and fish tissue are to be sampled every two years. While the assigned responsible parties are individually responsible to conduct water, suspended solids, sediment, and fish tissue sampling, they may collaborate to minimize costs, in which case the development of the MRP must be coordinated between the various assigned responsible parties. Coordination of monitoring for two superfund sites located east of the City discharging stormwater into the Torrance Lateral are discussed individually in the BPA. Decisions regarding these two sites may impact the approval, review, and coordination of the City’s monitoring and implementation plans. Implementation is divided into three phases for the responsible parties identified for the Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral, and Dominguez Channel Estuary. The objective of Phase 1 is to reduce the amount of sediment transport being discharged to the Dominguez Channel and is planned to consist of watershed-wide implementation actions, including non-structural and structural BMPs. Phase 2 is anticipated to include implementation of additional BMPs and remedial actions as well as site-specific cleanup actions. Phase 3 is anticipated to include implementation of secondary and additional remediation actions. Table 3.12 presents several tasks pertinent to the City and the associated schedule. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-13 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.12 Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Schedule Task Description BPA Task(1) Schedule from Effective Date Compliance Deadline(2) Submit MRP 1 20 months December 2013 Submit Implementation Plan and Contaminated Sediment Management Plan 5 2 years April 2014 Submit annual monitoring reports to LAWQCB 4 15 months after monitoring begins (and annually thereafter) November 2015 Submit annual implementation reports to LAWQCB 7 3 years (and annually thereafter) April 2015 Complete Phase 1 8 5 years April 2017 Submit updated Implementation Plan and Contaminated Sediment Management Plan 9 5 years April 2017 Report on status of implementation and remaining efforts associated with Phase 2 11 5 years April 2017 Complete Phase 2 12 15 years April 2027 Complete Phase 3 13 20 years April 2032 Demonstrate attainment of WLAs 14 20 years April 2032 Notes: Source: Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL (RWQCB, 2011), included in Appendix B. 1. The BPA lists 14 tasks; tasks with specific requirements of the City are presented here. 2. The effective date is not yet established; the compliance schedule is estimated using an assumed effective date of April 2012 (based on EPA approval in March 2012). Approval of MRP assumed to require 2 months. Dates in italics are based on an assumed approval or effective date. As shown in Table 3.12, the scheduled implementation of the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is planned for 20 years after the effective date. Since the BPA is still pending review by the SWRCB and the EPA, the effective date has not yet established and a compliance schedule cannot be projected. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-14 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) 3.2.5 Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL The Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL requires no trash or plastic pellets in Santa Monica Bay. The City is identified as a point source for trash based on being a permittee under the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit. Based on the Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL, the City’s Waste Load Allocation (WLA) is zero trash, meaning no trash may be discharged to the bay through the City’s storm drains. The TMDL requires that the City utilize any compliance strategies within its authority to eliminate discharge of trash. As a part of the trash portion of the TMDL, the City is required to develop and implement a Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plan (TMRP). The City may achieve compliance through implementation of full capture systems, partial capture systems, or institutional controls. If the City achieves compliance through full capture systems, installation of the capture devices is required over an eight- year period. If the City achieves compliance using the partial capture systems, or institutional controls, compliance must be demonstrated through a mass balance analysis. As a part of the TMRP, the City can either develop a site-specific baseline WLA for trash or use the default Baseline WLA of 807 gallons per square mile per year assigned in the BPA. The TMRP establishes details on frequency, location, and reporting format for monitoring, and establishes a metric (examples given in the BPA include weight, volume, or number of pieces of trash) for measuring the amount of trash discharged by the City. The second component of the Debris TMDL requires no plastic pellets in Santa Monica Bay. The TMDL identifies industrial facilities handling plastic pellets as being the point sources for plastic pellets discharged through the stormwater system. Several industrial facilities within the City handle plastic pellets, and thus are subject to the WLA for plastic pellets within the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL. The City, having industrial facilities handling plastic pellets within its jurisdiction, is required to prepare a Plastic Pellet Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which details monitoring, inspection, and establishes actions to address plastic pellet spills. The Debris TMDL was adopted by the RWQCB on November 5, 2010, and approved by the SWRCB on December 6, 2011. The OAL and EPA have not yet approved the Debris TMDL. Table 3.13 presents the anticipated compliance dates based on the tasks outlined in the BPA and an assumed effective date of March 2012. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-15 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.13 Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDLs Schedule Task Description BPA Task(1) Schedule from Effective Date Compliance Deadline(2) Submit TMRP 1a 6 months(3) September 2012 Implement TMRP 2a 6 months after RWQCB approval May 2013 Submit PMRP 1b 18 months September 2013 Adopt ordinance banning plastic bags, smoking in public places, and single use polystyrene food containers (Optional; provides three year extension to Task 10) 11 3 years from RWQCB adoption date 5 November 2013 Submit results of implementing TMRP and PMRP, recommend baseline WLA, and propose prioritization of BMPs. 3 20 months from RWQCB approval Trash: July 2014 Plastic Pellets: July 2015 (annually thereafter) Implement PMRP 2b 4 years March 2016 Achieve 20 percent reduction from Baseline WLA 4 4 years March 2016 Achieve 40 percent reduction from Baseline WLA 5 5 years March 2017 Achieve plastic pellet WLA 6 5 years March 2017 Achieve 60 percent reduction from Baseline WLA 8 6 years March 2018 Achieve 80 percent reduction from Baseline WLA 9 7 years March 2019 Achieve 100 percent reduction from Baseline WLA 10 8 years March 2020 Notes: Source: Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL BPA, included in Appendix B. 1. The BPA lists 11 tasks; tasks with specific requirements of the City are presented here. In addition, the RWQCB may reevaluate WLAs five years after the effective date (March 2017 based on an assumed effective date of March 2012). 2. The effective date is not yet established; the compliance schedule is estimated using an assumed effective date of March 2012 (based on EPA approval in February 2012). Approval of MRP assumed to require 2 months. Dates in italics are based on an assumed approval or effective date. 3. The BPA notes that if the TMRP is not approved within nine months of the effective date, the Regional Board will establish appropriate monitoring plans. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-16 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) As shown in Table 3.13, monitoring to establish the trash Baseline WLA (if the City does not elect to use the default baseline) is anticipated to begin in 2013, with results submitted to the RWQCB in 2014. Implementation of the trash related BMPs is anticipated on a phased basis between 2016 and 2020. Implementation of the plastic pellet monitoring is anticipated to begin in 2016, with the full plastic pellet WLA achieved in 2017. 3.2.6 Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs Santa Monica Bay is currently listed on the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 303 (d) listing of impaired water bodies due to excessive levels of bacteria. At times, these levels in the bay exceed the State’s ocean water quality standards for public water-contact areas and result in beach closures. In order to address these water quality issues, the LARQCB adopted Resolution 2002-004, which incorporated a dry-weather TMDL for bacteria, and Resolution 2002-022, which incorporated a wet-weather TMDL for bacteria at Santa Monica Bay beaches. Both of these TMDLs went into effect on 15 July 2003. Attachment A to Resolution 2002-022 includes the use of the State’s “single sample” bacteriological standards as water quality objectives that apply to stormwater discharges entering the bay. Each bacteria TMDL limits the number of days each year for which bacterial indicators exceed specified levels under their respective conditions. Separate TMDLs cover dry weather and wet weather and the Bacterial TMDLs include separate limitations on the number of days for summer dry weather, winter dry weather, and wet weather. These limitations are based on individual beach monitoring locations. The implementation plans were approved in separate resolutions of the LARQCB by jurisdictional group. The City falls within Jurisdictional Group 6, whose implementation plan was approved as Resolution 2006-007. It should be noted that Resolution 2002-022 included the City in both Jurisdictional Group 6 and 7, but the resolutions approving the implementation plans only included the City in Jurisdictional Group 6. Table 3.14 presents the scheduled compliance dates for both TMDLs. The wet weather bacteria TMDL allowed agencies to pursue either an integrated water resources approach or demonstrate compliance by themselves. Agencies pursuing an integrated water resources approach were given an additional eight years to achieve compliance. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-17 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.14 Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs Schedule Task Description Schedule from Effective Date Compliance Deadline(2) Dry Weather Bacteria TMDL Submit Monitoring Plan and identify discharges with Report of Waste Discharge 120 days 12 November 2003 Achieve compliance with allowable exceedances days during summer dry weather 3 years July 2006 Achieve compliance with allowable exceedances days during winter dry weather 6 years July 2009 Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL – Integrated Approach Achieve 10 percent of required exceedance- day reductions 6 years July 2009 Achieve 25 percent of required exceedance-day reductions 10 years July 2013 Achieve 50 percent of required exceedance- day reductions 15 years July 2018 Achieve compliance with allowable exceedances days 18 years July 2021 Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL – Non-Integrated Approach Achieve 25 percent of required exceedance-day reductions 6 years July 2009 Achieve 50 percent of required exceedance- day reductions 8 years July 2011 Achieve compliance with allowable exceedances days 10 years July 2013 Notes: Source: Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs, included in Appendix B. 1. The BPAs established 12 tasks; relevant tasks are included in this table. 2. Compliance deadlines are based on the effective date of 15 July 2003. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-18 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) 3.3 REGIONAL NPDES REGULATIONS Surface water discharges are regulated via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the applicable RWQCB. Stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) are required to be permitted under the NPDES Stormwater Program. 3.3.1 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for the City’s municipal stormwater and urban runoff discharges are specified in NPDES Permit CAS004001, known as the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. This permit covers municipal stormwater and urban runoff for Los Angeles County, 84 of the cities within Los Angeles County, and Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Los Angeles County’s MS4 permit was last issued in 2001 (LAWQCB Order 01-182), with additional TMDL provisions incorporated in 2006 (LAWQCB Order R4-2006-0074), 2007 (LAWQCB Order R4-2007-0042), and 2009 (LAWQCB Order R4-2009-0130). The permit was again amended in April 2011 to remove the TMDL provisions incorporated in 2006; there is a reissue scheduled for 2012. LAWQCB is anticipating a new permit structure with more interrelated management methods and has stated that water quality will be the key driver for the reissued permit. A copy of the Los Angeles County’s 2001 MS4 permit is included in Appendix B. Historically, the Los Angeles County MS4 permit has been structured as a single unified permit due to the highly interconnected stormwater system in Los Angeles County. The permit includes standard and special provisions for all permittees, and specific watershed- based TMDL requirements, such as the Trash TMDL for the Los Angeles River watershed. Under the MS4 permit, the City is required to comply with applicable water quality standards to the “maximum extent possible (MEP).” Where MEP requires that municipal permits “shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” The major components of the MS4 permit are discussed in the following paragraphs. Discharge Prohibitions The City’s MS4 permit requires the City to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system with the exception of certain specific types of non-stormwater discharges. Some of the exempt non-stormwater discharges include non-stormwater discharges permitted separately, discharges from natural flows, fire fighting, landscape irrigation runoff, discharge from drains and condensation, non-commercial car washing, City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-19 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) sidewalk rinsing, releases associated with the potable water system and dewatering of fountains, ponds, and swimming pools under certain dechlorination conditions. It should be noted that some of these discharges, such as the rinsing of sidewalks, are currently prohibited by the City’s water conservation ordinance. Receiving Water Limitations The City is required to implement control measures to reduce pollutants within discharges to eliminate violations of water quality standards on receiving waters. If discharges are causing or contributing to exceeding water quality standards for the receiving water, the City must submit a Receiving Water Limitations Compliance Report. Stormwater Quality Management Program Implementation The City is required to implement a Stormwater Quality Management Program, either through participation in the countywide program or development of a local program. In either case, the City must implement or require the implementation of a combination of BMPs in order to reduce pollution. As a part of implementation of the Stormwater Quality Management Program, the City supplies a voting representative to a Watershed Management Committee, which facilitates cooperation between the various permittees in the MS4 permit. Special Provisions The City’s MS4 permit includes six additional programs that are considered special provisions. There programs are briefly described below. Public Information and Participation Program: As a part of the MS4 permit, Los Angeles County is required to implement a Public Information and Participation Program to educate the City’s businesses and residents on the impacts of stormwater pollution on the receiving waters and the measures to resolve the problems caused by stormwater pollution and change waste disposal and runoff pollution generation behaviors of the City’s businesses and residents, involving the various socio-economic groups within the City. Some of the specific measures required as a part of the public information program include adding notices to storm drains and establishing a countywide hotline for reporting illicit discharges of non-stormwater to the stormwater system. Some components of this program can also be implemented by the City. Specific requirements of the City include conducting educational activities within its jurisdiction, participation in countywide stormwater education events, update Los Angeles County with contact information for the City’s appropriate staff responsible for stormwater public education, and provide outreach materials to the public. Industrial and Commercial Facilities Program: The City must implement an Industrial and Commercial Facilities Program to require implementation of pollutant reduction and control measures at industrial and commercial facilities within its jurisdiction. This program City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-20 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) consists of tracking, inspecting, and ensuring compliance at facilities representing “critical sources of pollutants in stormwater.” Development Planning Program: The City must implement a Development Planning Program, which requires that development and redevelopment projects maximize pervious surfaces, minimize discharge to impervious surfaces, and incorporate BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution loads. The permit includes specific design criteria for development and redevelopment projects and requires approval of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) approved by the RWQCB for certain categories of development. As a part of the Development Planning Program, Los Angeles County was required to develop a technical manual to design and site BMPs (last updated in August 2010 and included in Appendix C). As a part of this provision, the City is required to include consideration of stormwater quality impacts into its CEQA review process, include policies and management considerations related to stormwater quantity and quality in any General Plan updates, and annually train City development planning staff on stormwater related development planning requirements. Development Construction Program: In addition to the Development Planning Program, the City is required to implement a Development Construction Program to control runoff related to construction activities from construction sites using BMPs. For construction sites over one acre in size, the City must also require submittal of a Local Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP), and inspect all construction sites to ensure that the LSWPPP is being implemented. Additional requirements are made for sites larger than five acres in size. Public Agency Activities Program: In order to limit the impact of stormwater pollution from public agencies, the City is required to implement a Public Agency Activities Program. This program consists of specific considerations for ten areas related to public agencies. Some of the specific requirements include planning for sewer system discharges, documenting the application of fertilizers at parks, frequency the City is required to clean catch basins, and frequency of street sweeping. Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Program: The City is required to implement an Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Program to eliminate all illicit connections and discharges to the stormwater system. As a part of this program, the City must document, track, and report illicit connections and illegal discharges. The permit states the required planning and response times for any investigations into illicit connections and illegal discharges. Standard Provisions This section of the permit describes the requirements for the City to comply with the permit, the method of reporting, the review process, authority for inspection, continued operations and maintenance, and the conditions by which the permit may be modified. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-21 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) TMDL Provisions The permit includes TMDL provisions for Trash in the Los Angeles River watershed. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, additional TMDLs are applicable to bodies of water in which the City discharges stormwater, including the Machado Lake Nutrient and Trash TMDLs and the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL. However, these TMDLs were removed from the MS4 permit in April 2011; current plans schedule the TMDLs to be incorporated into the reissued permit in 2012. 3.3.2 Ventura MS4 Permit and Reissuance of Los Angeles MS4 Permit The Ventura County MS4 Permit was reissued by the LAWQCB in July of 2010 (as Order R4-2010-0108). Since the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit is in the process of being updated for reissue in 2012, regionally, the Ventura County MS4 Permit has been looked to as a precursor to the type of changes that may be made to the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. The Ventura County MS4 Permit is included in Appendix B. Some of the key differences between the reissued Ventura County MS4 Permit and the current Los Angeles County MS4 Permit include:  The Industrial and Commercial Facilities Program is also applicable to nurseries.  New development and redevelopment projects meeting specific criteria are required to limit effective impervious area to 5 percent (or, if technically infeasible, limit effective impervious area to 30 percent with mitigation).  The establishment of water quality mitigation criteria for use in new development and redevelopment projects.  Track and inspect BMPs implemented as a part of development and redevelopment projects. - Establish a GIS tracking system for BMPs implemented as a part of development and redevelopment projects. - Inspect once after construction, once every 2 years, and receive annual reports for any BMPs not owned by the City.  Applicable TMDLs adopted by the LAWQCB, OAL, and EPA are incorporated into the permit as water quality based effluent limits (a total of eight TMDLs were included). The permit includes discussion of monitoring requirements for each TMDL, but the monitoring section notes that the monitoring requirements are intended to be consistent with the TMDL. In addition, the LAWQCB has indicated that the reissuance of the Ventura County MS4 permit added provisions for hydromodification controls and refocused monitoring further upstream in watersheds. The permit includes separate provisions for onsite retention and prevention of hydromodification, but a single BMP can satisfy both provisions. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-22 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) The Ventura County MS4 permit also considers potential TMDLs, requiring permittees to “implement all necessary control measures to reduct pollutant(s) which cause of continue to cause or contribute to water quality impairments, but for which TMDLs have not yet been developed or approved” (LAWQCB, 2009). The LAWQCB has expressed intent to complement local efforts, as some of the permittees covered by the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit have enacted Low Impact Development (LID) ordinances. Thus, some of the permit requirements within the reissued Los Angeles MS4 permit may be watershed specific and may not be uniformly applied to all permittees. While the limitation of effective impervious area for new developments and redevelopment projects represents the most significant difference identified above, the cost of implementing this provision will fall primarily on the developer and thus private enterprises. Impacts to growth and economic development are beyond the scope of this study. The City should expect limited additional costs related to plan checking and inspection, as well as increased costs for City projects falling within the criteria for development or redevelopment. More significant direct impacts for the City are anticipated for the provisions related to the tracking and inspection of BMPs implemented as a part of development and redevelopment projects. Currently, the City is required to track and inspect BMPs associated with industrial sites. It is anticipated the City can expect a similar level of effort for development and redevelopment sites (on a per site basis). In addition, if the responsibility for operations and maintenance of individual BMPs implemented by new developments and redevelopments to comply with the limitation of effective impervious area fall upon the City, significant operations and maintenance costs could be incurred. As a part of the Ventura County MS4 permit development process, an economic analysis of the impact of the new requirements on public agencies was conducted and is documented in “Economic Considerations of the Proposed Order” (LAWQCB, 2008b) and the “Stormwater Cost Survey” (CSUS, 2005). This analysis did not quantify the economic impact of not implementing the new permit, or the economic impact to residents, residential developments, and commercial interests. The basis of these studies was a survey and developed unit cost ranging between $18 and $45 per household for estimated costs of the stormwater program for six selected cities within California. However, this study did not take into account the specific increased requirements of the Ventura MS4 permit, but rather attempted to estimate the overall cost of implementation of the stormwater permit. In addition, the relevant requirements of the MS4 permit for each of the surveyed cities was not evaluated or discussed. In addition, the TMDLs incorporated into the MS4 permit represent significant capital expenses in the form of BMPs, and significant ongoing annual costs for operations and maintenance of BMPs as well as monitoring programs to demonstrate compliance. While City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-23 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) the City would need to fund these programs based on the BMP requirements, their inclusion in the MS4 permit associates these costs with complying with the MS4 permit. In summary, the anticipated internal cost impacts to the City of reissuance of the Los Angeles County MS4 permit include increased time for City staff to review and inspect development plans, increased time for City staff to track and inspect BMPs implemented as a part of development and redevelopment, and potentially increased operations and maintenance efforts for BMPs associated with developments. 3.4 NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES As will be discussed in the water quality evaluation in Chapter 7, without additional BMPs the City’s pollutant loading is predicted to exceed the City’s eventual WLA for the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL. Table 3.15 presents the model prediction of pollutant loading for the City’s subbasins discharging to the Harbor Lakes and Walteria Lakes watersheds. Table 3.15 Machado Lake TMDL Compliance Condition Phosphorus WLA Total Nitrogen WLA (kg) (lb) (kg) (lb) WLA 5.0 Years after Effective Date(1) 3,760 8,289 7,370 16,248 WLA 9.5 Years after Effective Date(1) 301 664 3,008 6,632 Pollutant Loading Predicted by Model(2) 1,324 2,919 7,665 16,899 Notes: 1. From Table 3.5. 2. Average of PLOAD and N-SPECT models from Table 7.3. As shown in Table 3.15, the City’s pollutant loading for discharges to Machado Lake are predicted to exceed the WLAs for nitrogen under the 5 year deadline and the WLAs for both phosphorus and nitrogen under the 9.5 year deadline. Trash TMDLs are in effect for Machado Lake and are anticipated to become effective for Santa Monica Bay (as a part of the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL) sometime in 2012. Both TMDLs have a WLA assigned to the City of zero, with phased compliance over several years. Assuming the City does not choose to apply the default baseline WLA, the level of non-compliance will be established during the monitoring to establish a baseline WLA. The Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL also includes a WLA related to discharge of plastic pellets. The City is assigned a WLA of zero for plastic pellets. The level of non-compliance will be established during the monitoring to establish a baseline WLA and associated preparation of the implementation plan. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-24 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) The Machado Lake Toxics TMDL became effective in 2011 and is currently in the monitoring phase. This monitoring phase is intended to establish a baseline WLA and the level of non-compliance. Since many of the pollutants covered by this TMDL bind to sediment, within analysis conducted as a part of this report TSS will be used as an indicator constituent with the selection of BMPs to cover toxics covered by this TMDL. The Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxic and Metals TMDL, anticipated for approval by the SWRCB and EPA sometime in 2012, includes several WLAs. Initial monitoring to establish baseline WLAs is anticipated to occur from 2013 to 2014. The level of non-compliance will be established during the monitoring to establish a baseline WLA. Since many of the pollutants covered by this TMDL bind to sediment, TSS will be used in this report as an indicator constituent for with the selection and sizing of BMPs to meet the Toxics TMDL requirements. If additional TMDLs are added in the future for other bodies of water which the City discharges stormwater into, similar analysis will be required. Compliance with the Santa Monica Bay related provisions of the City’s MS4 permit and Santa Monica Bay TMDLs was evaluated as a part of previous studies. 3.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND SCHEDULE In order to meet the water quality criteria associated with the WLAs assigned to the City, the current constituent levels within the City’s stormwater discharges will need to be reduced. As a part of the water quality analysis in this study, BMPs are recommended to reduce the constituent levels within the City’s stormwater discharges in order to meet the required WLAs and achieve compliance. Chapter 7 will include siting and recommendations related to water quality compliance. Through the “Predesign of BMPs for Detention Basins Tributary to Santa Monica Bay” (Carollo, 2008), the City investigated and evaluated alternatives to satisfy the MEP, MS4, and TMDL requirements in order to reduce bacterial loadings to the Santa Monica Bay. Study recommendations have been implemented through installation of Continuous Deflective Separation units on several storm drains discharging to Torrance Beach. As detailed in the City’s MS4 permit, the City is required to perform operations and maintenance on BMPs to maintain functionality. Routine inspection and cleaning of BMPs is required to maintain the treatment capacity and water quality benefits associated with each BMP. For privately owned BMPs, this maintenance will need to be required of the individual owner. For BMPs owned and operated by the City, the City will need to adequately budget for this effort. The City is required to inspect BMPs on a regular basis. The City’s current MS4 permit requires this for BMPs implemented by industrial sites. The City will need to include City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-25 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) inspection of BMPs implemented to meet the WLAs as a part of compliance. As mentioned in Section 3.3.2, it is anticipated that, if development and redevelopment LID provisions are included in the City’s reissued MS4 permit, the number of BMPs the City is required to routinely inspect will increase dramatically. Each of the WLAs associated with the water quality TMDLs include provisions for monitoring and sampling. In addition, it is anticipated that watershed monitoring requirements may be increased in the future as a part of the City’s reissued MS4 permit. Thus, it is anticipated that the City’s monitoring and reporting requirements and costs will increase in the future. The monitoring information will be used to refine the City’s water quality model in order to design corrective BMPs for implementation. A summary of the TMDL schedules is presented in Figure 3.1. 3.6 SUMMARY A summary of each of the TMDLs discussed in this chapter is provided in Table 3.16. As shown in Table 3.16, the City is subject to several TMDLs in each watershed and for each of the various water bodies to which it discharges stormwater. Chapter 7 of this report includes BMP recommendations to comply with the TMDLs for the Dominguez Channel watershed. In addition, additional internal costs are anticipated to the City related to reissuance of the Los Angeles County MS4 permit. These cost impacts include:  Increased cost of the City’s development projects  Increased time for City staff to review and inspect development plans  Increased time for City staff to track and inspect BMPs implemented as a part of development and redevelopment  Potentially, increased operations and maintenance efforts for BMPs associated with developments. Estimates for these costs are presented in the Capital Improvement Program found in Chapter 9. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-26 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Table 3.16 Summary of TMDL Requirements Body of Water TMDL Name Constituent WLA Watershed Machado Lake Nutrient Total Nitrogen 3,008 kg(1) Dominguez Channel Total Phosphorous 301 kg(1) Dominguez Channel Trash Trash None Dominguez Channel Toxics PCBs 59.8 µg/kg Dominguez Channel DDT 4.16 µg/kg Dominguez Channel DDE 3.16 µg/kg Dominguez Channel DDD 4.88 µg/kg Dominguez Channel Total DDT 5.28 µg/kg Dominguez Channel Chlordane 3.24 µg/kg Dominguez Channel Dieldrin 1.9 µg/kg Dominguez Channel Dominguez Channel Toxics and Metals Various Various Dominguez Channel Santa Monica Bay Debris Trash None Santa Monica Bay Plastic Pellets None Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Summer Dry Weather 0 Days Exceedance Santa Monica Bay Winter Dry Weather 1 Days Exceedance Santa Monica Bay Wet Weather 17 Days Exceedance Santa Monica Bay Notes: 1. Dominguez Channel (DC) discharges into the Los Angeles Harbor; thus TMDLs may apply to dischargers to the DC even though the Body of Water is listed as Los Angeles Harbor. 2. Based on 9 year mass based compliance level as developed in Special Study Work Plan. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 3-27 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) Figure 3.1TMDL Compliance Schedule LETTER-SIZED (8.5x11) FIGURE City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 3-28 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch03.docx (H) This page left blank intentionally. December 2011 4-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) Chapter 4 PLANNING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA This chapter presents the planning and evaluation criteria used to develop the stormwater model development for the City of Torrance (City) and to identify system deficiencies of the City’s existing stormwater system. The planning and evaluation criteria discussed in this chapter includes hydraulic, hydrologic, and water quality criteria. A summary of the criteria discussed herein is included at the end of this chapter. 4.1 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 4.1.1 Water Surface Elevation The hydraulic model was used to predict the water surface elevation at each model node. When modeled water surface elevation exceeds overflow elevation, flooding is predicted to occur. 4.1.2 Gravity Storm Drains Within the hydraulic modeling software (XP SWMM), flow through gravity pipelines is calculated using the Manning equation, and based on the flow, cross-sectional area, hydraulic radius, and slope input during model development. Pipeline sizing is primarily based on capacity during stormwater events. Pipelines are selected so that they do not exceed capacity during stormwater events, indicated by the water surface elevation exceeding overflow elevation at model nodes. When a pipeline exceeds capacity during stormwater events, it is upsized to the next standard size. The minimum size for new stormwater pipelines, excluding service laterals, is 12 inches in diameter. The standard pipeline diameter sizes used include 12 inches, 15 inches, 18 inches, 21 inches, 24 inches, 30 inches, 36 inches, 42 inches, 48 inches, 54 inches, 60 inches, 66 inches, 72 inches, 78 inches, 84 inches, and 90 inches. 4.1.3 Force Mains For segments where pressurized flow occurs, headloss is modeled using the Hazen-Williams formula in place of the Manning equation. Friction factors were selected based on pipeline material and age. For force mains, a maximum velocity of 10 feet per second (fps) was used as the evaluation criteria; flows exceeding this are an indication that the pipeline segment may be deficient. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 4-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) 4.1.4 Natural Channels Natural channels with velocities exceeding 5 fps have the potential for erosive conditions. Any natural channel segments with predicted velocities above 5 fps will be identified as candidates for channel stabilization and restoration. 4.1.5 Pump Stations Pump stations included in the hydraulic model are based on the hydraulic characteristics of pump stations at each detention basin. Capacity of the pump stations was evaluated as a part of the evaluation of capacity of the detention basins. No additional evaluation criteria were utilized. 4.2 HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA Many hydrologic criteria were obtained from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works’ 2006 Hydrology Manual (LACDPW, 2006). This document provides design flood parameters and procedures in the planning and design of local drainage and flood control systems. The hydrologic analysis of the City’s storm drainage system was based on the recommendations of this document, as applicable to local drainage issues. This section describes the hydrologic characteristics of the City and the design storms that were used for the development of this SWMP. 4.2.1 Precipitation Characteristics The City’s wet season occurs from November through March. The mean annual precipitation in the City is approximately 13.7 inches. The Depth-duration-frequency (DDF) curves, for 50-year storm events, were obtained from the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (LACDPW, 2006). 4.2.2 Design Storms The Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual (LAC, 2009) recommends use of an 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event for calculation of the design storm to size BMPs. This SWMP has used this criterion for the sizing of the City‘s BMPs. Rainfall data were used to generate the basis for stormwater evaluations. Data are generally characterized by amount (inches), intensity (inches per hour), frequency, duration (hours), spatial distribution (location variance), and temporal distribution (time variance). Rainfall data were needed for two parts of the evaluations: design storm simulations, and pollutant loading projections. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 4-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) Long-term rainfall data is needed to establish the average annual rainfall volume for pollutant loading projections. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) keeps rainfall records in daily or hourly intervals for major rain gages. In the City, these records are compiled for the Torrance Airport from 1946 to the present (NCDC, 2010). This site is located in the south of the City, within the Walteria basin. The depth of rainfall in inches for a specific return period and storm duration is the most basic parameter needed in the design and analysis of a stormwater management system. For the water quantity design storm events, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Type II 24-hour distribution was used to construct the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25- and 100-year storm events. The rainfall depth for the 50-year storm event was obtained along with multiplication factors for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25- and 100-year storm events from the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (LACDPW, 2006) and are presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Rainfall Volumes Return Interval (years) Annual Exceedances Probability (%) Rainfall Multiplication Factor(1,2) Rainfall Depth(1) (inches) 2 50% 0.387 2.3 5 20% 0.584 3.5 10 10% 0.714 4.3 25 4% 0.878 5.3 50 2% - 6.0 100 1% 1.122 6.7 Notes: 1. Source: Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (LACDPW, 2006). 2. Multiplied by 50-year storm event to calculate other years. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which was formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), has developed 24-hour hyetographs with shapes that are typical for various geographic locations within the United States. The SCS Type 1A curve was used for this study. The SCS Type 1A rainfall distribution is illustrated on Figure 4.1, both cumulatively and incrementally. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 4-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) Figure 4.1 Design Storm Distribution 4.2.3 Soil Imperviousness For stormwater modeling, the key factor relating land use to runoff is “effective percent imperviousness.” Rainfall on impervious surfaces is not subject to losses by infiltration into the soil; the only losses in impervious areas are due to depression storage. All initial losses for impervious areas, typically 0.02 to 0.08 inches, are assumed to be satisfied by precipitation preceding the design storm. An impervious surface, in the context of watershed management, refers to any material that prevents the infiltration of water into the soil. While pavement and rooftops are the most prevalent and easily identified types of impervious surface, other types include sidewalks, patios, bedrock outcrops, and compacted soil. The basin proportion of effective or directly connected impervious area is related to land use, stormwater drainage system configuration, and recurrence interval. If runoff from an impervious area flows directly into a concentrated flow path, e.g., a gutter, it is considered directly connected; if it flows over a pervious area before becoming a concentrated flow, it is considered unconnected. For the City’s service area, effective percent imperviousness was determined based on analysis of satellite imagery. This process is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. 0.000 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 0.030 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 6 12 18 0 Incremental Unit Rainfall (inches)Cumulative Unit Rainfall (inches)Time of Day SCS Type 1A Cumulative Distribution SCS Type 1A Incremental Distribution City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 4-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) 4.3 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA To effectively manage stormwater pollution in and from the City’s service area, the analysis will need to include multiple water quality pollutants. Pollutants of concern consist of any pollutants that exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Existing loadings or historic deposits of the pollutants are impacting the beneficial uses of receiving waters. 2. Elevated levels of the pollutants are found in sediments of receiving waters or have potential to bioaccumulate. 3. Detectable inputs of the pollutant are at concentration or loads considered potentially toxic to humans and/or flora and fauna. The pollutants of concern for water quality analysis are those that are anticipated or potentially could be generated from the City at concentrations (based on water quality data collected from land uses similar as those of the City) that exhibit the above characteristics. Identification of the pollutants of concern considered land uses, current 303(d) listings, and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Dominguez Channel and Machado Lake discussed in Chapter 3, as well as pollutants that have potential to cause toxicity or bioaccumulate in the City’s receiving waters. Pollutants associated with urban runoff can be generally categorized as sediments, trash, debris, nutrients, trace metals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and pathogens. Each of these pollutants categories are described in the proceeding sections of this chapter. 4.3.1 Sediments Excessive erosion, transport, and deposition of sediment in surface waters can result in significant water quality problems. Sediment, typically expressed in total suspended solids (TSS) or turbidity imbalances impair waters' designated uses, and also impair aquatic life. Excessive sediment can cause taste and odor problems in drinking water supplies and block water intake structures. Many common stormwater pollutants such as phosphorus, some heavy metals, and hydrocarbons are often found strongly attached to sediment particles. For these reasons, sediment is considered a pollutant of concern for this study. 4.3.2 Trash and Debris Trash (such as paper, plastic, polystyrene packing foam, and aluminum materials) and biodegradable organic debris (such as leaves, grass cuttings, and food waste) are general waste products on the landscape that can be entrained in urban runoff. The presence of trash and debris may have a significant impact on the recreational value of a water body and aquatic habitat. Excess organic matter can create a high biochemical oxygen demand in a water body and thereby lower its water quality. Additionally, in areas where stagnant water exists, the presence of excess organic matter can promote septic conditions, which City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 4-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) results in the growth of undesirable organisms and the release of odorous and hazardous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. A component of debris is plastic pellets. Plastic pellets are formed from raw plastic resin and used in plastic manufacturing, and can enter the stormwater system through routine handling or spillage at facilities which process, transports, recycles, or manufacture plastics. Plastic pellets represent a potential danger to marine life through release of additives within the plastic and the ability of the plastic pellets to absorb or transport toxics, such as PCBs and DDT (HTB, 2010). EPA notes that the toxic effects of ingestion of plastic pellets is currently unknown, recommending further study (EPA, 2011b).Currently, the City tracks 13 industrial facilities within its service area that handle plastic pellets. 4.3.3 Nutrients Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are essential for the proliferation of plants and animals. However, an excess of these nutrients in surface waters can over-stimulate biological growth, which can cause algal blooms and lead to eutrophication. Eutrophication is a natural aging process of surface waters and is usually accelerated by human activities. Changes in algae, benthic, and fish communities can develop from eutrophication due to excessive nutrient input; extreme eutrophication can cause hypoxia or anoxia, resulting in fish kills. Urban areas have several sources of nutrients, which are mainly from fertilizers in lawn runoff, pet waste, failing septic systems, and atmospheric deposition from industry and automobile emissions. Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus only occurs in combined form in nature. Phosphate compounds are the most common forms of phosphorus found in water and they include orthophosphate, polyphosphate, and organic phosphate. The soluble form of phosphorus, orthophosphate, is readily available to plants and microorganisms. Phosphates are contained in animal waste, fertilizers, pesticides, detergents, and naturally in rocks. The most likely sources of phosphate in urban stormwater are runoff from lawns and landscaped areas, and industrial and commercial effluent. Because nutrients are common urban stormwater pollutants and downstream receiving waters are currently impaired for nutrients, these constituents are considered pollutants of concern for this study. The nutrient forms of most concern are nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and dissolved phosphorus. However, the impact assessment will also consider total nitrogen and total phosphorus, since numeric benchmarks are available for comparison to these constituents. 4.3.4 Trace Metals The primary sources of trace metals in stormwater are typically from commercially available metals used in transportation (e.g., automobiles), buildings, and infrastructure. Metals are also found in fuels, adhesives, paints, and other coatings. Copper, lead, and zinc are the City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 4-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) most prevalent metals typically found in urban runoff. Other trace metals, such as cadmium, chromium, and mercury, are typically not detected in urban runoff or are detected at very low levels (LADPW, 2000). Metals are of concern because of the potential for toxic effects on aquatic life and the potential for groundwater contamination. High metal concentrations can lead to bioaccumulation in fish and shellfish and affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. These metals are considered to be pollutants of concern for the analysis; this classification is attributable to the Dominguez Channel being listed as impaired for copper, lead, and zinc in addition to the prevalence of those same metals in urban stormwater . While copper and zinc are often found in both dissolved and particulate forms in urban runoff, dissolved lead is rarely detected (LADPW, 2000). As such, the impact assessment will only consider total lead concentrations and loads; however, both total and dissolved concentrations and loads will be considered for copper and zinc. The Dominguez Channel was listed for chromium in 2002; however, this listing was removed from the 2006 303(d) list. (LACDPW) Since this metal is rarely detected in stormwater at concentrations of concern, it will be addressed qualitatively. 4.3.5 Pesticides Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) are chemical compounds commonly used to control insects, rodents, plant diseases, and weeds. Excessive application of a pesticide may result in runoff containing toxic levels of its active component. Pesticides may be generally classified as organochlorine pesticides or organophosphorus pesticides, the former is associated with persistent bioaccumulative pesticides (e.g., Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and the latter with legacy pesticides), which have been banned. The City’s receiving waters are currently listed as impaired for several pesticides including chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin. Due to insufficient data to model pesticides from the City’s land uses, this pollutant cannot be analyzed with the model. Instead, a qualitative assessment of potential impacts to pesticides is provided. 4.3.6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons The sources of oil, grease, and other petroleum hydrocarbons in urban areas include spillage fuels and lubricants, discharge of domestic and industrial wastes, atmospheric deposition, and runoff. Runoff can be contaminated by leachate from asphalt roads, wearing of tires, and deposition from automobile exhaust. Additionally, do-it-yourself auto mechanics may dump used oil and other automobile-related fluids directly into storm drains. Petroleum hydrocarbons, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms from contaminated water, sediments, and food and are toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations. Hydrocarbons can persist in sediments for long periods of time and result in adverse impacts on the diversity and abundance of benthic communities. Hydrocarbons can be measured as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), oil and grease, or as individual groups of hydrocarbons, such as PAHs. The City’s receiving waters are currently listed as impaired for PAHs including benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 4-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) phenanthrene, and pyrene. Due to insufficient data for modeling PAHs from the City’s land uses, a qualitative assessment of potential impacts to PAHs is provided in Chapter 7. The generation of PAHs at concentrations that would pose a risk to humans and/or flora and fauna are not anticipated. 4.3.7 Pathogens (Bacteria, Viruses, and Protozoa) Elevated levels of pathogens (such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) are typically caused by the transport of domestic animal, wildlife, or human fecal wastes from the watershed. Runoff that flows over land, such as urban runoff, can mobilize pathogens, including bacteria and viruses. Even runoff from natural areas can contain pathogens (e.g., from wildlife). Other pathogen sources in urban areas include pets and leaky sanitary sewer pipes. The presence of pathogens in runoff can impair receiving waters and contaminate drinking water sources. Elevated pathogens are typically caused by the transport of animal or human fecal wastes from the watershed. Historically, an indicator organism, such as fecal coliform, has been used for pathogens due to the difficulty of monitoring for pathogens directly. More recently, the scientific community has questioned the use of coliform as an indicator organism. Scientific studies show no correlation between coliform as an indicator organism and pathogen levels; therefore, total and fecal coliform may not indicate a significant potential to cause human illness (Paulsen and List, 2003). For lack of a better alternative, and because the Dominguez Channel is listed as impaired for coliform, these indicators will still be assessed with respect to the City’s potential to impact pathogen levels in receiving waters. Pathogens will be assessed qualitatively because there are no statistically reliable data for these indicators to use in land use-based annual loads modeling. 4.3.8 Summary of Pollutants of Concern The evaluation approach for each pollutant category is summarized in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Summary of Pollutants of Concern Pollutants Evaluation Approach Modeled Qualitative Analysis TSS √ Turbidity √ Nutrients √ Trace Metal (Copper, Lead, and Zinc) √ Petroleum hydrocarbons √ Pesticides √ Trash and Debris √ Pathogens √ City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 4-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) As shown in Table 4.2, the stormwater hydraulic model was used to evaluate the TSS, nutrients, and trace metals. Based on availability of reliable data, a qualitative analysis was provided for the other pollutant categories. 4.4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA Table 4.3 summarizes the evaluation criteria for this study. Note that water quality criteria listed are targets and interim targets may apply (as discussed in Chapter 3). Table 4.3 System Evaluation Criteria CATEGORY Parameter Evaluation Criteria Source HYDRAULIC CRITERIA Water Surface Elevation > Overflow Elevation Gravity Storm Drains Capacity(1) Force Mains - Velocity 10 fps Natural Channels - Velocity 5 fps Pump Stations Capacity(1) HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA Design Storms LACDPW 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Imperviousness Generated from Satellite Imagery WorldView WATER QUALITY CRITERIA Sediments TSS Turbidity Qualitative Analysis Trash and Debris Trash (Machado Lake) No Trash Machado Lake TMDL NUTRIENTS Nitrogen 3,008 kg Machado Lake TMDL Phosphorous 301 kg Machado Lake TMDL Trace Metals City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 4-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch04.docx (I) Table 4.3 System Evaluation Criteria CATEGORY Parameter Evaluation Criteria Source Copper (Dominguez Channel) 207.51 µg/l LALB Harbor Waters TMDL Lead (Dominguez Channel) 122.88 µg/l LALB Harbor Waters TMDL Zinc (Dominguez Channel) 898.87 µg/l LALB Harbor Waters TMDL Pesticides Qualitative Analysis Petroleum Hydrocarbons Qualitative Analysis Pathogens Qualitative Analysis Notes: 1. Evaluated for whether capacity is exceeded or not. December 2011 5-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch05.docx (I) Chapter 5 EXISTING STORMWATER SYSTEM The stormwater system within the City of Torrance’s (City’s) service area consists of approximately 60 miles of storm drains, about 2,000 catch basins, and 2 miles of open channels. While most of the small- and medium-diameter stormwater drains and catch basins are maintained by the City, many of the large-diameter stormwater drains and channels are maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). In addition, many smaller drains and catch basins are the responsibility of individual property owners. 5.1 WATERSHED OVERVIEW The City’s service area falls within two watersheds, the Dominguez Channel watershed and the Santa Monica Bay watershed. Although it is technically a part of the Dominguez Channel watershed, the Machado Lake Sub-Watershed discharges into Los Angeles Harbor rather than the Dominguez Channel. A portion of the City’s service area falls within the Machado Lake Sub-Watershed. The Walteria Subbasin discharges in the Machado Lake Sub-Watershed. Delineation of the subbasins into subareas is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. 5.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM The City’s collection system includes an interconnected network of storm drains, open channels, and force mains that collect stormwater and direct it toward discharge locations. 5.2.1 Catch Basins While not evaluated as a part of this project, the 1997 Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) estimated that the City owns and maintains about 1,400 catch basins within its service area, while LACDPW maintains about 1,000 catch basins within the City’s service area. The tentative Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit estimated about 2,000 catch basins within the City’s service area. 5.2.2 Storm Drains According to the 1997 SDMP, the City’s storm drains include about 59 miles of storm drains and laterals, ranging from 6 to 102 inches in diameter. The majority of the City’s storm drains are constructed from reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), with some pipeline segments constructed from corrugated metal pipe (CMP), asbestos cement pipe (ACP), vitrified clay pipe (VCP), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and some constructed as reinforced concrete box (RCB) structures. In addition, the 1997 SDMP estimated that about 51.6 miles of storm drains are maintained by LACDPW. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 5-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch05.docx (I) 5.2.3 Open Channels and Ditches The City’s stormwater system also includes about 9,000 feet of channeled drains, including six channels, a ditch, a wash, and a marsh. In addition, LACDPW maintains three channels: the Dominguez Channel, which traverses the northeast corner of the City’s service area; a drainage channel southwest of the ExxonMobil Refinery, which drains the industrial facilities in the area; and about 2,000 feet of channels in the vicinity of South Torrance High School. 5.2.4 Force Mains Discharge from many of the City’s detention basins is conveyed through force mains into other storm drain lines. 5.3 STORM DRAIN RETENTION/DETENTION BASINS The City’s stormwater system includes 12 active retention and detention basins that are used to store stormwater. These basins are described in the two following subsections. It should also be noted that the City’s stormwater system included eight additional basins that are no longer in use as a part of the stormwater system. 5.3.1 Detention Basins The City’s stormwater system includes nine active detention basins as listed in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Active Detention Basins Basin Name Volume (af) Surface Elevation (ft-MSL) Discharge Type Discharge Body Discharge Capacity (cfs) Entradero 85 78 Gravity Herondo Drain 107.0 Henrietta 101 66 Pumped Herondo Drain 60.0 Amie Avenue 135 70 Pumped Herondo Drain / Dominguez Channel(1) 13.0 Susana/Doris Way 18 55 Pumped Santa Monica Bay 80.0 Walteria Lake 1,005 64 Pumped Machado Lake 57.0 Madrona Marsh 81 75 Pumped Walteria 30.0 El Dorado Street 14 75 Pumped Harbor Lakes 5.0 Pioneer Avenue 45 81 Pumped ExxonMobil Refinery detention basin 9.5 Total 1,484 Note: (1) The Amie Avenue detention basin discharges dry weather flows to the Dominguez Channel watershed. Existing outlet capacity of force main and pump station to the Herondo Drain is 13 cfs according to the Santa Monica Bay Predesign of BMPs (Carollo, 2008). City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 5-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch05.docx (I) It should be noted that Walteria Lake, though listed in Table 5.1, is owned and operated by Los Angeles County. Not listed in Table 5.1 is the ExxonMobil Refinery detention basin, which is privately owned and discharges to the Dominguez Channel. Each of the basins is discussed in more detail below. Entradero Basin Entradero Basin is bounded by Towers Street on the north, Halison Street on the south, Ronald Avenue on the west, and Surgess Street on the east. The basin has 25.6 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 463 acres. The basin has an available volume of approximately 85 acre-feet and receives water from three inlets and the Entradero Channel. The basin has an existing outflow capacity of 107 cubic feet per second (cfs) (48,000 gpm). Stormwater is discharged to LACDPW Project Number 1105, which drains through Redondo Beach into the Santa Monica Bay via outlet SMB6-1. This basin has earthen slopes and existing trees and vegetation. It has five baseball fields constructed for little league throughout the basin. In addition, the basin has a residential park and a dog park on the north end. Flows from the Entradero Channel are directed to the sump area by makeshift berms. Henrietta Basin Henrietta Basin is located at Henrietta Street between Edgemere Drive and Sara Drive. The basin has 6.9 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 594 acres. The basin has an available volume of approximately 101 acre-feet and receives runoff pumped from the Amie Basin and local stormwater through two additional inlets. The basin has an existing outflow capacity of 60 cfs (26,900 gpm) and the water flows into the outlet and to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Project No. 1105, which drains through Redondo Beach into the Santa Monica Bay via outlet SMB6-1. This basin has earthen slopes, existing trees, vegetation, and fauna. Amie Avenue Basin Amie Basin is located at Spencer Street between Hawthorne Boulevard and Prairie Avenue. The basin has 4.3 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 396 acres. With an available volume of 135 acre-feet and an existing outflow capacity of 13 cfs, runoff from the basin is pumped via a 24-inch diameter force main and gravity line to the Henrietta Basin; or is diverted to the Dominguez Channel through a 10-inch diameter pipeline. The basin has steep sloped concrete walls and an unlined bottom with three inlets. Currently, the basin consists of two small ponds. The basin’s dry-weather flow includes the start-up water from two “desalters” located in the drainage area that treat well water. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 5-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch05.docx (I) Susana Avenue and Doris Way Basins The Susana Avenue and Doris Way Basins are located along the City’s west boundary between Pacific Coast Highway and Palos Verdes Boulevard. Runoff from the area west of Seaside Elementary School is collected at these basins. Susana Avenue Basin also collects some runoff from the area of the City north of Palos Verdes Boulevard. The Doris Way Basin consists of two baseball fields. The basins have a combined volume of about 18 acre-feet and an existing outflow capacity of 80 cfs. The basins have 3.5 acres of surface area with a tributary area of about 273 acres. Discharge from the Susana Avenue Basin is conveyed by a pipeline to the Doris Way Basin, from which flow is discharged through a pipeline into the LACDPW storm drains within Redondo Beach, ultimately discharging to the Santa Monica Bay. Walteria Lake Walteria Lake is located west of Hawthorne Boulevard, between 234th Street and 238th Street. The basin has 26 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 2,287 acres. Walteria Lake is owned and operated by LACDPW and has a volume of about 1,005 acre-feet. LACDPW maintains a 57 cfs pump station that discharges stormwater from the lake into Machado Lake through the 54-inch diameter Wilmington Drain. Madrona Marsh Madrona Marsh is located north of Sepulveda Boulevard between Madrona Avenue and Maple Avenue. The basin is a vernal marsh consisting of natural habitat and is used as a nature preserve. The basin consists of about 6.5 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 251 acres. With an available volume of 81 acre-feet and an existing outflow capacity of 30 cfs, runoff from the basin is pumped via a pipeline to Walteria Lake. El Dorado Street Basin El Dorado Street Basin is located about half a mile north of Madrona Marsh, east of Maple Avenue and north of El Dorado Street. The basin is surrounded by trees, consisting of about 0.13 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 64 acres. With an available volume of 14 acre-feet and an existing outflow capacity of 5 cfs, runoff from the basin is pumped via a pipeline into the City’s storm drain system discharging into LACDPW’s stormdrain system at the east boundary of the City near Torrance Boulevard. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 5-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch05.docx (I) Pioneer Avenue Basin Pioneer Avenue Basin is located northwest of Prairie Avenue south of the railroad north of Del Amo Boulevard. The basin collects runoff from the surrounding industrial park to the west and is located west of the ExxonMobil Refinery. The basin consists of about 2.8 acres of surface area with a tributary area of 120 acres. With an available volume of 45 acre-feet and an existing outflow capacity of 9.5 cfs, runoff from the basin is pumped to the ExxonMobil Refinery detention basin, located about a mile to the east. The ExxonMobil Refinery detention basin is privately owned and discharges to the Dominguez Channel. 5.3.2 Retention Basins In addition to the nine detention basins, the City’s stormwater system includes three active retention basins that are used to percolate stormwater into the groundwater basin. There are no discharges from these basins. Table 5.2 lists the City’s three active retention basins along with volume and location. Table 5.2 Active Retention Basins Basin Name Volume (af) Design Surface Elevation (ft-MSL) Location Bishop Montgomery 122 84 Palos Verdes Boulevard and Torrance Boulevard Ocean Avenue 229 79 Ocean Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard Del Amo Center 86 75 Madrona Avenue and Plaza Del Amo Total 437 The City worked with the RWQCB to recognize the tributary areas to these basins as sub- regional BMPs for permit and TMDL compliance. Since these basins do not discharge to Section 303(d) listed impaired bodies of water, TMDLs are not applicable to stormwater discharge from the tributary areas to these basins. It should be noted that the Del Amo Center retention basin, though listed in Table 5.2, is privately owned. 5.4 STORM DRAIN PUMP STATIONS As mentioned in Section 5.3.1, seven of the City’s detention basins discharge stormwater using pump stations. Table 5.3 presents capacities and discharge bodies for each of the City’s pump stations. As shown in Table 5.3, the City’s pump stations have a combined capacity of nearly 300 cfs. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 5-6 Revised February 2012 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch05.docx (I) Table 5.3 Pump Stations Basin Name Discharge Body Capacity (cfs) Entradero Herondo Drain 100.0 Amie Avenue Dominguez Channel 8 Susana/Doris Way Santa Monica Bay 80 Walteria Lake Machado Lake 57 Madrona Marsh Walteria 30 El Dorado Street Harbor Lakes 5 Pioneer Avenue ExxonMobil Refinery detention basin 10 Total 290 5.5 DISCHARGE LOCATIONS The City’s stormwater system discharges into LACDPW storm drains at several locations which are indicated on Figure 5.1. As shown in this figure, these points of discharge are primarily located along the east boundary of the City’s service area. In addition, there are several discharge locations along the Dominguez Channel in the northeast portion of the City. The stormwater collection system shown on Figure 5.1 also shows how stormwater is routed throughout the City. In general, the routing is as follows:  Stormwater from the east side of the City is ultimately routed to the Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors via the Dominguez Channel and Machado Lake.  Stormwater from the west side of the City, stormwater discharge is routed to Santa Monica Bay.  Stormwater from the northwest areas of the City’s service area that are within the Santa Monica Bay watershed, is routed through LACDPW’s Herondo Drain, which discharges stormwater into the Santa Monica Bay at the Redondo Beach King Harbor Marina and Pier. The Herondo Drain is also equipped with a low flow diversion pump station, which diverts dry weather flows into the sewer system.  Stormwater from the southwest areas of the City’s service area that are within the Santa Monica Bay watershed, is either directly discharged into Santa Monica Bay at Torrance Beach, passing through one of several Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) units or is routed into LACDPW’s storm drain network within Redondo Beach, which passes through the Avenue I Low Flow Diversion Pump Station, diverting dry weather flows to sanitary sewer. Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez C h a n n e l Torrance Lateral Santa Monica Bay Santa Monica Bay Harbor Lakes Dominguez Channel Hawthorne B lvd Artesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Palos Verdes Dr Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWalteria Mobil Ocean Del Amo Pioneer 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery El Dorado Doris Henrietta Entradero Amie Susana Vista del Parque Dow Chemical Dominguez Way Vine Walnut TorranceAirport Skypark Crenshaw UnionCarbide 190th St Columbia Park 195th St Walteria Lake Pump Station Avenue I Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Herondo Drain Wilmi n g t o n D r a i n Herondo DrainLow Flow Diversion Pump Station 10" 18"69"24"36"78"51 66"30"2 7 " 48" 42" 51" 21"6"57"8"54"45"33"3'W12"60"72"16"4'X4'84"39" 15" 5' 2-6"21"24"48"8"12"24"30" 6" 42"24"24"60"24"36"27"18"48"12" 60"15"6" 27"18"27"24"12"15"69"24 "33"24"30"6"18"18"36"24"42"42"8" 15"24"42"51"30"45"36"42"30"30"8"42" 10"18"27" 30" 24 24" 69"54"42" 48" 8"45"12" 81"84" 72"60"33" 39" 15"4'X7"24"48"12" 48" 18" 18" 27"18"18"27" 60" 30"15"18" 30" 24" 45" 27" 27"27"24"18"54" 24" Figure 5.1Existing Stormwater SystemStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGENDWatershedsGroundwater ReplenishmentBishop MontgomeryDel AmoOceanVista Del ParqueDominguez ChannelSurface DrainageEldoradoMobilPioneer Santa Monica BaySurface DrainageAmieDorisEntraderoHenriettaHarbor LakesSurface Drainage237th St.Madrona MarshWalteria pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_5.1 .mxdOthers Bodies of Water Parcels Facilities Detention Basin Retention Basin Pump Stationsby Owner LACDPW City Continuous Deflective SeparatorDischarge to Storm Drain Flow DirectionLACDPW Stormwater SystemOpen Channels Storm Drains(Thickness Related to Size) December 2011 6-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) Chapter 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT 6.1 METHODOLOGY Detailed water quantity (hydrologic and hydraulic) and water quality models were developed to analyze the water quantity and water quality response of the City of Torrance’s (City’s) stormwater system. Development of the models included the following major components:  Develop new hydrologic and hydraulic models.  Develop pollutant-loading tool for the water quality analysis.  Extract impervious information from satellite imagery. After development of the model, calibration of the model was performed by comparing the model results to Los Angeles County’s watershed model results. Following model development and calibration, analysis was conducted by simulating design storms to identify problem areas for flood control and water quality, and by recommending solutions for flooding and water quality. This process will be discussed in more detail in Chapters 7 through 9. 6.2 MODEL SOFTWARE SELECTION Levels of detail in stormwater computer models range from planning-level models, which calculate runoff hydrographs and route flows, to more sophisticated design, operational, and water quality models, which evaluate complex hydraulic structures, flood elevations, and water quality parameters. More complex models require calibration using verification data (rainfall, runoff, streamflow, and water quality) and detailed system information including overflow elevations, stream cross-sections, as-built information for hydraulic structures, base flow measurements, and outfall conditions (river stage or tidal elevation). Separate models were selected for portions of the water quality and water quantity analysis. 6.2.1 Water Quantity As is typical for a master plan, the project team and City staff determined a planning level model was appropriate for the stormwater quantity analysis. A significant amount of additional data collection would be required to construct the more complex operational-level model. Specifically, all channels and culverts should be surveyed, and flow and rainfall gauges installed on major tributaries. Future model enhancements are anticipated as data becomes available, and the software used is capable of including operational and water quality analyses. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) XPSWMM (XP Software, Inc.) was selected as the model to use for this study. The following factors were considered:  Watershed characteristics.  Availability of required data.  Cost of and time for setting up and running.  Potential model enhancement to incorporate complex hydraulics.  Potential model enhancement for flood level evaluation.  Potential model enhancement to simulate water quality.  Potential for the City to use as an ongoing planning, design, and operational tool. XPSWMM was judged the most appropriate and cost effective means to analyze current conditions and future needs. 6.2.2 Water Quality A number of commonly used and well-documented models were selected and used for water quality modeling and analysis. The models were combined to create a tool for the City to analyze pollutant loadings. The tool called PLAT (Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool) refers to a collection of commonly used watershed models. The main models are PLOAD, Program for Predicting Pollution Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, & Ponds (P8), and SUSTAIN models. Two other models, Los Angeles County Watershed Management Modeling Systems (WMMS) and N-SPECT (Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool) are employed for validation. A schematic of PLAT is presented on Figure 6.1. As shown on Figure 6.1, land use, imperviousness, and precipitation information are used in conjunction with PLOAD model to generate annual pollutant load for each of the three watershed studied. PLAT has five main components: 1. Extraction of hydrologic and water quality parameters from satellite imagery 2. Pollutant loading 3. Pollutant prioritization. 4. BMP screening. 5. BMP design and optimization. SCHEMATIC OF PLAT FIGURE 6.1 CITY OF TORRANCE 20-TORRANCE7-11F6.1-8419A00.AI Land UseImpervious DataAnnual PrecipitationSubbasin boundaryEMC data Land UseSoil dataHourly PrecipitationDaily Temperature N-SPECT ModelPLAT ValidationLA County Model PLOAD Model 245 Subbasins P8 Model15 Subareas SUSTAIN Model BMP Selection City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) The Los Angeles County WMMS model was used to calibrate PLOAD model, verify PLAT outputs, and assess total maximum daily load (TMDL) compliance. The Non-Point Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) was used to verify pollutant loads computed by PLOAD and P8. The functions of each of the models used to develop PLAT are summarized in Table 6.1. Each PLAT component is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. Table 6.1 Functions of PLAT Components Model Function Satellite Remote Sensing 1. Derive impervious cover information. 2. Pollutant prioritization. PLOAD 1. Estimate pollutant loading using simple method. 2. Identify pollutant loading hot spots. 3. Screen structural BMPs. 4. Calibrate P8 model. P8 1. Generate and route pollutant loading. 2. Screen and conduct preliminary BMP sizing. 3. Conduct flow diversion scenarios. 4. Conduct both storm event based and continuous simulation. 5. Generate input data for SUSTAIN. SUSTAIN 1. Conduct BMP optimal siting. 2. Detailed BMP sizing. 3. BMP optimization. 4. Assess TMDL compliance. Los Angeles County WMMS Model 1. Calibrate PLOAD model. 2. Verify SUSTAIN results. 3. Assess TMDL compliance. N-SPECT 1. Validate PLOAD and P8 pollutant load estimates. 6.2.3 Satellite Remote Sensing Satellite remote sensing information provides an effective way for monitoring land use/land cover changes in urban areas through mapping variations in anthropogenic impervious surfaces. Impervious surface area (ISA) is considered a key indicator of environmental quality and is also used to identify extent of urban land use because it is highly related to urban land use categories and development density (Xian and Crane, 2005). In addition, ISA can be measured fast and economically by using multi-temporal satellite remotely sensed information. The longtime records available from land remote sensing data makes it possible to quantitatively estimate spatial and temporal variations of land use/cover conditions. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) Ground surveys are expensive and generally not practical for mapping impervious surfaces of large areas such as the City’s service area. While GPS is useful for assisting in collecting field data, it is not easily implemented for mapping large areas either. Remote sensing, in the form of aerial photography, has been an important source of land use-land cover information for many years and impervious surface area can be readily interpreted from aerial photographs (Draper and Rao, 1986). However, the cost of aerial photography acquisition and interpretation of cover types is prohibitively expensive for large geographic areas. An alternative is to acquire the needed information from digital satellite imagery such as the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) or Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+), WorldView, IKONOS, and QuickBird. This approach has several advantages: 1. The synoptic view of the sensor provides large area coverage, 2. The digital form of the data lends itself to efficient analysis, 3. The classified data are compatible with geographic information systems (GIS), eliminating the need to digitize interpreted information, and 4. Land cover maps can be generated at considerable less cost than by other methods. A number of studies have demonstrated the feasibility of using multispectral satellite data to classify impervious surface area in urban environments. In this study, a high-resolution WorldView satellite imagery acquired on July 10, 2010 was used for ISA mapping. Examples are presented in Figure D.4 of Appendix D. DigitalGlobe's WorldView-2, the world’s newest high-resolution commercial color imaging satellite, was launched on October 8, 2009 from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. WorldView-2 is the first high-resolution satellite with 8-multispectral imaging bands. It can simultaneously collect panchromatic imagery (black and white) at 0.46 m grid resolution and multispectral imagery at 1.84 m grid resolution. The satellite provides full-color images for enhanced spectral analysis, mapping and monitoring applications, land-use planning, disaster relief, exploration, defense and intelligence, and visualization and simulation environments. The combination of WorldView-2’s increased agility and high altitude enables it to typically revisit any place on earth in 1.1 days. 6.2.4 PLOAD The PLOAD model was originally developed to calculate pollutant loads for urban and suburban watersheds, which was subsequently adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for watershed management planning and was integrated into the BASINS model (USEPA 2001). PLOAD determines pollutant load from a watershed based on watershed land-use data, percent imperviousness, and pollutant export coefficients or event mean concentrations (EMC) values based on either observed data or available literature. It is commonly used to estimate pollutant loadings on an annual average basis for any user-specified pollutant. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) However, PLOAD does not have the ability to estimate conveyance, e.g., it cannot evaluate changes in peak flow or water quality due to transport. The model also cannot accurately be applied to assess loading for short time intervals. Unlike other models such as P8, it also cannot be used to locate and size Best Management Practices (BMPs). In order to use PLOAD to determine the pollutant load from a watershed, a watershed nutrient budget is developed from various point and non-point sources (NPS) based on watershed land use data, percent imperviousness, and pollutant export coefficients or event mean concentration (EMC) values based on either observed data or available literature. The PLOAD models NPS loads using either the export coefficient method or the simple method, each of which is described as follows. As will be discussed in Section 6.3.2.1, PLAT will utilize the simple method. 6.2.4.1 Export Coefficient Method The export coefficient method calculates loads for each specified pollutant type by subbasin using the following equation: Lp =�(Lpu ∗Au)u1 (6.1) where, LP is the pollutant load in pounds, LPU is the export coefficient for land use type ‘U’ in pounds per acre per year, and AU is the area of land use type ‘U’ in acres. 6.2.4.2 Simple Method The simple method calculates pollutant loads using two equations (Equations 2 and 3). First, the runoff coefficient for each land use type must be derived with the equation: 𝑅𝑣𝑢= 0.05 + 0.009 ∗ 𝐼𝑢 (6.2) Where, RVU is the runoff coefficient for land use type ‘U’, and IU is the percent of imperviousness area associated with land type ‘U’. The percent impervious is extracted from an impervious terrain factor table. The pollutant loads are then calculated using the following equation: 𝐿𝑝=� � 2.72∗P∗Pj∗Rvu∗Cu∗Au12�𝑢1 (6.3) where, LP is the pollutant load in pounds, P is the precipitation in inches per year, Pj is the ratio of storms producing runoff, the typical value for which is 0.9, RVU is the runoff City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) coefficient for land use type ‘U’, CU is the event mean concentration for land use type ‘U’ in milligrams per liter, and AU is the area of land use type ‘U’ in acres. 6.2.5 P8 - Urban Catchment Model The P8 is designed to predict the generation and transport of runoff pollutants in urban watersheds. It consists mainly of methods derived from other tested urban runoff models, including SWMM, HSPF, D3RM, and TR-20. As described in Section 6.2.1, XPSWMM was selected to model water quantity for this Stormwater Quality Master Plan (SQMP). Although XPSWMM has the capability to model water quality, it requires considerable information about the existing drainage system, as well as particle and component data that is not readily available for the City’s stormwater system. Furthermore, typical BMPs such as swales are not as easily incorporated into an XPSWMM model in order to evaluate their effectiveness. The P8 model was developed to design and evaluate development runoff treatment control combinations for pollutant removal efficiency. Although, due to its simplicity, the P8 model has inherent limitations, this model is highly suitable for planning level studies and scenario testing. Model components include stormwater runoff assessment, surface water quality analysis, and routing through structural controls. The model applications include development and comparison of stormwater management plans, watershed-scale land-use planning, site planning, and evaluation for compliance, effectiveness of BMPs, and selection and sizing of management practices. In P8, continuous water balance and mass balance calculations are performed on a user-defined system consisting of watersheds, devices (runoff storage/treatment areas, BMPs), particle classes, and water quality components. Simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall and daily air temperature time series data. The model simulates pollutant transport and removal in a variety of treatment devices (BMPs), including swales, buffer strips, detention ponds (dry, wet, and extended), flow splitters, and infiltration basins (offline and online), pipes, and aquifers. Water quality components include total suspended solids (TSS) (five size fractions), total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), copper, lead, zinc, and hydrocarbons (Huber et al. 2006). In addition, pollutants can be added or modified by the user and the dataset is easily populated with National Urban Runoff Program (USEPA, 1983) 50th or 90th percentile data on particles and components. 6.2.6 SUSTAIN To overcome the limitations of P8, the SUSTAIN model is employed to comprehensively size and place BMPs, perform optimization analysis, and assess TMDL compliance. Input for SUSTAIN is derived by P8. The SUSTAIN model is public domain software developed by USEPA. SUSTAIN includes algorithms for simulating urban hydrology, pollutant loading, and treatment processes City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) packaged from multiple models that individually address such processes. Users have the option to import time series data from external watershed models (e.g., Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) or SWMM instead of performing new land simulations in SUSTAIN. 6.3 MODEL CREATION This study involves independent models for water quantity and water quality evaluations. This section describes technical procedures used to develop the stormwater models to perform the drainage system evaluations. Relevant GIS databases, aerial photographs, record drawings, and pipeline plan and profile drawings were provided by the City for development of the two models. The watershed inventory, which consisted of collecting, compiling, and evaluating existing data applicable to the SQMP, was conducted. A data search was conducted to identify information to be used by the project team. The digital and hard copy information collected and compiled during the study is provided below: 1. Existing and future land use 2. Record drawings 3. Pipeline plan and profile drawings 4. Aerial photograph 5. Land parcel information 6. Contour data 7. Drainage maps 8. WorldView-2 satellite imagery As part of the study evaluation processes, numerous new data sets were developed using GIS technology to organize the drainage structures and key results of the study. 6.3.1 Water Quantity The RUNOFF block of XPSWMM was used to simulate the hydrology or quantity of stormwater runoff that flows overland in each subbasin during a particular storm event. The RUNOFF block output data was generated by the model based on the input parameters listed as follows:  Area of subbasin.  Width of subbasin.  Directly connected impervious area (DCIA) or effective impervious area.  Ground slope. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I)  Surface roughness.  Soil infiltration.  Rainfall A discussion of each of these parameters is included in the following paragraphs. 6.3.1.1 Watershed and Subbasin Delineation Watersheds and subbasins form natural hierarchical dissections of landscapes. Delineation of watersheds and subbasins was accomplished using a digital elevation model (DEM), a collection of discrete elevation points at regularly spaced interval generated from the City’s ground elevation contours. Watersheds and subbasins are readily calculated from a DEM across a wide range of spatial scales, provided the DEM represents surface drainage accurately. In order to generate subbasins from a DEM, terrain surfaces are dissected into small, essentially planar, elements bounded by contour lines and flow lines. This produces a natural discretisation of the landscape that reflects the convergence and divergence of surface water flow, simplifying hydrologic analyses. As an initial part of model development, the study area was divided into 245 subbasins as shown on Figure 6.2. The subbasin boundaries were automatically generated in ArcView GIS. The receiving waters, areas, and number of subbasins per watershed are summarized in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Watershed and Subbasin Delineation Summary Watershed Receiving Water Area (ac) Number of Subbasins Dominguez Channel Dominguez Channel 4,878 115 Walteria Lake Machado Lake via Harbor Lakes network 2,109 49 Harbor Lakes Machado Lake 2,067 43 Del Amo Groundwater 169 5 El Dorado Detention 64 2 Mobil Detention 474 10 Pioneer Detention 124 3 Madrona Marsh Detention 254 6 Ocean Retention 489 11 237th Street Detention 69 1 Total n/a 10,697 245 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) The subbasins shown on Figure 6.2 form the basis of further delineation based on the type of analysis performed, thus the number of subbasins used by each model is different. The subbasins shown on Figure 6.2 were used pollutant load estimation using PLOAD. The PLOAD subbasins were further divided into smaller subbasin for water quantity analysis within XPSWMM. The delineation was based on locations and number of stormdrain inlets. These subbasins are shown in Appendix D on Figure D.1. P8 subbasins were derived by combining a number of the PLOAD subbasins and are shown in Appendix D on Figure D.3. 6.3.1.2 Impervious Area Impervious area was determined based on satellite imagery. As part of this project, the City purchased high-resolution satellite data from WorldView captured on July 10, 2010. The imagery was selected to minimize the impact of cloud cover and atmospheric effects. The imagery was geometrically and radiometrically corrected using standard methods. Terrain correction using the USGS 1-arc second National Elevation Dataset was performed to improve geolocation accuracy. The geo-rectified satellite imagery is shown in Appendix D on Figure D.4. An image processing model was developed whereby impervious surfaces were extracted from the imagery based on user-defined variables. Within the study area, five image samples, distributed throughout the watershed and encompassing all general land uses were input to the model. Each of the sample images were classified as either pervious or impervious cover. The output was put into GIS for further analysis. A ground-truth dataset was created by generating a stratified random sample of points across the study area and classifying the points as either pervious or impervious. This step was accomplished via photo interpretation of current high-resolution vertical and oblique color aerial photography. The completed impervious cover map after image classification and statistical analysis is shown in Appendix D on Figure D.5. The percentage of impervious surface area is depicted as a continuous variable, ranging from 0 to 100 percent imperviousness based on redness. Areas shaded in deep red have the highest percentage of imperviousness, while areas shaded in gray have the lowest percentage of imperviousness. To confirm that satellite imagery can be used to accurately classify the percent impervious surface area, the satellite estimates were compared to measurements made from aerial photographs provided by the City. The location where the comparison was made is shown in Appendix D on Figure D.4. Figure 6.3 shows the correlation between the percent imperviousness between these two sources. The results indicate that there is a strong relationship between aerial photograph measurements and satellite-derived estimates. Based on the comparison, an impervious cover map was created using satellite imagery for the entire study area. Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado LakeHawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd S Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ach Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWL-49 HL-24 WL-25 HL-1 WL-32 HL-33 HL-5 WL-48 HL-9 DC-24 DC-47 WL-1 DC-50 DC-32 HL-10 HL-37 DC-34 DC-80 HL-2 DC-57 DC-96 DC-8 DC-23 HL-20 WL-18 DC-3 HL-38 DC-28 HL-49 WL-57 HL-25 HL-35 WL-2 HL-44 HL-27 DC-105 DC-63 DC-52 WL-33 HL-23 DC-4 DC-55 HL-6 DC-94 DC-113 DC-77 DC-12 DC-111 DC-5 DC-29 DC-16 HL-31 WL-41 DC-100 DC-66 DC-30 HL-3 HL-28 HL-4 DC-71 HL-32 HL-16 HL-36 WL-26 WL-10 DC-99 DC-22 HL-13 WL-22 DC-18 DC-79 DC-86 DC-59DC-60 WL-36 DC-6 HL-53 WL-31 HL-17 WL-24 WL-30 HL-22 HL-19 DC-13 DC-1 DC-89 WL-40 DC-87 WL-37 DC-76 WL-11 DC-20 HL-29 WL-29 DC-104 DC-101 DC-75 WL-54 WL-4 WL-23 DC-85 DC-49 DC-118 DC-82 WL-52 HL-40 WL-16 DC-83 WL-5 DC-106 DC-149 DC-121 WL-46 WL-8 DC-35 DC-31 DC-62 WL-9 DC-46 DC-48 DC-139 HL-47 DC-98 DC-131 DC-84 DC-64 WL-15 WL-56 DC-27 DC-97 WL-13 WL-14 HL-7 DC-136 DC-78 DC-53 DC-72 WL-51 WL-53 HL-15 DC-43 DC-91 DC-102 DC-45 DC-124 DC-81 DC-151 DC-26 DC-115 DC-127 DC-51 DC-147 HL-18 WL-7 HL-30 DC-130 HL-50 HL-21 DC-146 DC-21 DC-40 HL-43 DC-9 DC-54 DC-148 DC-74 DC-114 HL-8WL-58 HL-45 DC-144 DC-116 DC-126 WL-28 WL-45 DC-112 DC-150 WL-39 HL-11 DC-15 DC-25 DC-65 DC-19 WL-55 WL-12 DC-73 WL-20 WL-27 DC-70 WL-43 DC-92 DC-103 DC-42 DC-39 DC-107 HL-39 DC-38 DC-11 WL-6 DC-95DC-108 DC-17 WL-34 DC-58 WL-47 WL-21 HL-14 HL-51 WL-17 HL-34 DC-41 HL-41 DC-110 HL-12 WL-19 DC-137 DC-44 DC-14 WL-44 WL-50 DC-56 WL-35 DC-143DC-142 DC-140 DC-145 HL-42 DC-117 DC-138 DC-122 DC-36 DC-152 DC-90 DC-109 WL-3 DC-153 DC-67 HL-48 DC-93 DC-69 HL-46 DC-128 DC-68 DC-141 Figure 6.2Watershed and Subbasin Delineation for PLOADStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LegendPLOAD Subbasin BoundaryExcluded From Study Area (Retention Basin)Modeled as Point Source in PLOADWatershedsGroundwater ReplenishmentBishop MontgomeryDel AmoOceanVista Del Parque Harbor LakesSurface Drainage237th St.Madrona MarshWalteriaDominguez ChannelSurface DrainageEldoradoMobilPioneer OtherBodies of WaterParcels City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-13 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) Figure 6.3 Percent Imperviousness Comparison To determine impervious cover in a subbasin, the average watershed/subbasin impervious cover was determined by digitally intersecting subbasins and impervious cover GIS data layers and then calculating an area-weighted average impervious cover percentage for each subbasin and for the overall watershed. Average impervious cover percentage is presented by watershed in Table 6.3 and graphically shown by subbasin on Figure 6.4. Table 6.3 Imperviousness Range by Watershed Watershed ID Description Percent Imperviousness Minimum Mean Maximum DA Del Amo 75 79 83 DC Dominguez Channel 32 67 91 HL Habor Lakes 31 59 86 WL Walteria Lake 26 55 83 PVE Palos Verdes Estates & Others 1 20 54 MB Mobil 50 65 80 MM Madrona Marsh 39 61 73 OC Ocean 50 65 84 PI Pioneer 76 81 87 PO 237th Street 69 69 69 RB Redondo Beach 59 67 84 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 WorldView Imagery measure % Impervious City's Aerial Photo Measured % impervious Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a c h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWalteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay Eldorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 6.4Percent Imaperviousness by SubbasinStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend Imperviousness (%)0-1011-2525-55 56-6666-7677-91 Others Freeway Major Roads Excluded From Study Area Bodies of Water Subbasin Dominguez Chann e l City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-15 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) The imperviousness derived from the satellite imagery represents the total impervious area in a subbasin. However, SWMM RUNOFF requires percent directly connected impervious area (DCIA) values to estimate the volume of runoff. DCIA refers to the impervious areas that are directly connected to stormwater conveyance systems, such as stream channels and storm sewers, with no opportunity for infiltration. The total imperviousness derived from the satellite imagery was converted to DCIA values using the equation developed by USGS. The equation is stated as follows: IDCIA43.06.3%+= (6.4) Where: I = percent total impervious area. 6.3.1.1 Width of SWMM Hydrologic Unit (SWMM Subbasin) The width of each SWMM subbasin was used by the model to estimate the flow from the furthest point in the drainage area to the outlet. Determining this physical width of overland flow is a difficult process as it depends on storage and shape effects of the subbasin. Therefore, it is commonly used as a calibration parameter to account for the impact of the drainage system within each subbasin on flow travel time. As a result of inadequate data for calibrating the runoff from each subbasin, the subbasin width was not considered as a calibration parameter in this analysis. As recommended in SWMM User’s Manual, the width was estimated first by determining the maximum length of overland flow and dividing the area by this length. 6.3.1.2 Ground Slope Ground slopes were determined using the DEM and ArcView GIS. An average overland flow path slope is required for each subbasin within SWMM RUNOFF. This value was automatically determined through intersection of subbasin areas with the DEM. The elevation grid was intersected with the subbasins and the slope of each grid cell within the subbasin was calculated. Using the number of cells within each subbasin, the average basin slope was calculated. To verify this procedure, subbasin slopes for selected subbasins were manually estimated using available ground contour elevations and following SWMM guidelines. The results proved to be very similar, with the automated GIS procedure being repeatable. 6.3.1.3 Storm Type and Volume of Rainfall As discussed in Chapter 4, total 24-hour rainfall volumes for each of the storm recurrence intervals (2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year) for the City were determined from the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (LACDPW, 2006). The 24-hour storm volumes for each of these events is listed in Table 4.1, and served as sizing criteria for the analyses of the respective drainage system components (pipes, open channels, and regional detention facilities). The maximum rainfall depth for the 100-year storm is 6.7 inches. The 10-year storm, with a rainfall depth of 4.3 inches, was used as the design storm for storm drains. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-16 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) The table depicts the volume of rainfall over a 24-hour period. How the volume is distributed over the 24-hour period is provided in the form of a rainfall distribution curve (hyetograph), which is a volume versus time graph of the storm. The shape of the hyetograph is very important in that it shows at what hour the peak(s) occur, as well as the peak intensities for the storm event. The shape of the hyetograph will influence the flow patterns of the rainfall after it hits the ground. The Soil Conservation Service or SCS (now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service or NRCS) has developed 24-hour hyetographs with shapes that are typical for various geographic locations within the United States. The SCS Type 1A curve was used. This SCS Type 1A portrays the anticipated distribution of rainfall over the 24-hour period for the Table 4.1 storms, with the area under the distribution curve totaling 100 percent of the storm volume. The hydraulics portion of XPSWMM was used to simulate the drainage systems, which consist of enclosed pipes and ditches. The conveyance system is comprised mostly of enclosed pipes and ditches. The input data for the SWMM model used to define these features includes pipe diameter, material, inverts, and lengths, channel inverts, channel cross sections, and overflow elevations. For the enclosed pipe, the overflow elevation was defined as the rim elevation, and for the ditches, the overflow was defined as the top of bank. The drainage network defined in the model is based on the City’s system, maps, GIS database and manhole inventory. 6.3.1.4 BMP Sizing The BMPs are sized separately for wet and dry flow events. For wet weather flows, BMPs are sized based on the 85th percentile rainfall event, consistent with LACDPW’s recommendation for BMP sizing. For dry weather flows, the BMPs are sized based on empirical data (i.e., typical dry weather flows within stormwater systems). For most of the City, dry weather flows are calculated based on factor of 15 gpm per acre. For higher density areas within the City, a factor of 50 gpm per acre was used. 6.3.1.5 Pipeline Network For most of the stormwater system, pipeline diameters and attribute information were developed from GIS data, stormwater atlas maps, and record drawings. Once the network was completed, the elements were populated with the necessary attribute information, such as pipeline diameters and conduit shapes. The model includes approximately 144 miles of pipeline, including 63 miles of pipeline owned by the City, 58 miles of pipeline owned by Los Angeles County, 19 miles of private storm drains, and about 4 miles of pipeline owned by other entities. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-17 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) 6.3.1.6 Model Nodes For most of the stormwater system, the City’s existing stormwater model was used to determine invert elevation. Invert elevation were applied to each model node based on the record drawings. Where record drawing information was not available, the City’s DEM was used to estimate the invert elevation. 6.3.1.7 Detention and Retention Basins As discussed in Chapter 5, the City has three active retention basins and nine active detention basins. The detention basins were modeled as reservoir elements based on their capacity, elevation, and layout. The retention basin watersheds were excluded from analyses, as they do not discharge to bodies of water and TMDLs are not applicable. 6.3.1.8 Pump Stations As discussed in Chapter 5, seven of the City’s twelve active basins use pump stations to discharge stormwater. These pump stations were modeled as a pump element and downstream force main within the hydraulic model. The pump elements are controlled based on level within the source basin. 6.3.2 Water Quality One common objective of this project is to be able to predict the impact of different point and nonpoint source loading under various planning scenarios on surface water resources. For this effort, PLAT was developed to estimate nonpoint source loading based on existing conditions in the watersheds in the study area. Because the main goal of this study is to investigate impacts on surface water quality, the three main parameters considered are TSS, TP, and Total Nitrogen (TN and TKN). 6.3.2.1 PLOAD Model Set Up PLOAD is used to establish the pollutant loading. Pollutant sources are generally grouped into two categories: (1) point sources, such as discharges from permitted dischargers; and (2) NPS, such as stormwater runoff from urban and rural areas. Point Source Load The PLOAD model accounts for the point source pollutant load directly in units of pounds per year (lb/yr) for each pollutant generated by a point source. For the City’s service area, most of the point source dischargers are industrial permitees. Stormwater effluent data obtained from industrial permitees (e.g., the ExxonMobil Refinery) only detail metal and hydrocarbon pollutants, which are beyond the scope of this study. EMCs were developed for each subwatershed based on the point source dischargers located within the subwatershed. The EMCs for these subwatersheds were developed using the Los Angeles County WMMS output. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 6-18 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) Nonpoint Source Load PLOAD calculates loading for nonpoint source pollution using various inputs. These inputs include:  Annual rainfall  Subwatershed boundaries  Land use category  EMC values (the event mean concentration for a storm event)  Pollutant loading rate  Amount of impervious area associated with each land use category. This information was derived from satellite imagery.  Point Source load (in Ib/yr) In the PLOAD model, annual nonpoint pollutant loads may be calculated for each subbasin using either the pollutant export coefficient or the USEPA’s simple method. The simple method is applied in PLAT. Resulting Pollutant Loading A summarized breakdown of the land use makeup of each watershed is provided in Table 6.4. Resulting pollutant EMC are shown for each land use type in Table 6.5. The City’s general plan layer is used to overlay the land uses shown in Table 6.5 onto the subbasins to allocate the NPS pollutant load. 6.3.2.2 P8 Model Set Up The main objective of using P8 a component of PLAT can be summarized as follows:  Continuous simulation with hourly output  Urban stormwater BMPs and wetland simulation  Data needs can be filled with available information  Requires moderate effort to set up, calibrate, and apply.  Easily incorporate field sampling data for assessing BMP effectiveness  Continuous water balance and mass balance The main input data required for P8 model set up include watershed data, climate, and stormwater devices such as BMPs. The watershed data include subbasin area, which were derived from the P8 subbasins (Appendix D), SCS curve number (CN), percent imperviousness, impervious coefficient and depression storage. The SCS CN numbers, which are used to convert excess rainfall to runoff, were computed from the City’s land use and soil coverage. The SCS CN for the study area ranges between 78 and 90. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-19 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) Table 6.4 Land Use Distribution by Watershed Watershed Residential Commercial Industrial Open Space, Public, and Quasi-Public Total Acreage Del Amo 1% 98% 0% 1% 116.8 Dominguez Channel 45% 10% 31% 14% 3,563.2 Harbor Lakes 52% 17% 6% 25% 1,735.5 Walteria 49% 25% 8% 17% 1,845.5 Mobil 0% 0% 100% 0% 440.8 Madrona Marsh 58% 23% 0% 19% 213.5 Ocean 51% 41% 0% 8% 360.9 Pioneer 0% 33% 64% 3% 123.3 237th Street 12% 6% 82% 0% 56.3 Total 3,563.2 Notes: Source: General Plan Land Use GIS Layer and Watershed Boundary. It should be noted that Amie, Bishop Montgomery, Henrietta, Santa Monica Bay, Entradero, Doris, El Dorado, and Vista del Parque were excluded from this analysis. Hourly precipitation data is required by the P8 model. In order to evaluate a normal annual pollutant load, a normal year of hourly precipitation data is necessary. The closest station with hourly climate data was in Long Beach. A 'normal year' of hourly data was created using the Long Beach hourly data as a basis. The Long Beach hourly rainfall data was first normalized to the Long Beach total annual rainfall. Hourly rainfall for Torrance was then derived by multiplying the normalized hourly rainfall by 13.66, which is the average annual rainfall in Torrance. Long Beach average monthly temperature was used in the evapotranspiration function in P8. All of the proposed field sampling locations for the Machado nutrient TMDL is represented in P8 as model nodes. This will make analysis of sampling data using P8 fairly straightforward. 6.3.2.3 SUSTAIN Model Set Up The main purpose of SUSTAIN as a component of PLAT is for determining the most cost effective options for the placements of BMPs. Input data to SUSTAIN was compiled from P8 output MODEL CALIBRATION . 6-20 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 6.5 Imperviousness and Pollutant EMC by Land Use Type Land use Imperviousness (%) Pollutant Event Mean Concentration (mg/L) DP TKN NH3-N NO3-N NO2-N TSS TP Mixed 48 0.20 2.70 0.58 0.71 0.10 69.06 0.26 Walteria Lake Park 23 0.06 0.81 0.08 1.11 0.05 164.68 0.11 Airport 55 0.36 1.81 0.23 0.75 0.09 75.35 0.44 Commercial 84 0.30 3.37 0.91 0.58 0.14 67.40 0.41 Single Family Residential 56 0.29 2.80 0.36 1.04 0.09 104.65 0.39 Limited Multi-Family 67 0.16 1.86 0.38 1.73 0.08 46.35 0.19 Heavy Industrial 83 0.28 3.07 0.48 0.86 0.09 229.37 0.44 Light Industrial 82 0.28 3.07 0.48 0.86 0.09 229.37 0.44 Light Manufacturing 81 0.28 3.07 0.48 0.86 0.09 229.37 0.44 Multi-Family Residential 68 0.16 1.86 0.38 1.73 0.08 46.35 0.19 Two Family Residential 63 0.29 2.80 0.36 1.04 0.09 104.65 0.39 Heavy Manufacturing 83 0.28 3.07 0.48 0.86 0.09 229.37 0.44 Hospital/Medical 76 0.27 1.62 0.26 0.63 0.08 103.02 0.31 Light Agricultural 26 0.06 0.81 0.08 1.11 0.05 170.45 0.11 Public Use/Open Space 37 0.06 0.81 0.08 1.11 0.05 164.68 0.11 Residential Townhouse 65 0.29 2.80 0.36 1.04 0.09 104.65 0.39 Restricted Multi-Family 73 0.16 1.86 0.38 1.73 0.08 46.35 0.19 Transportation 95 0.36 1.81 0.23 0.75 0.09 75.35 0.44 Notes: DP = Dissolved Phosphorus; TKN = Total Kejdahl Nitrogen, TSS = Total suspended Solids; TP = Total Phosphorus; NH3-N = Ammonia Nitrogen; NO3-N = Nitrate Nitrogen; NO2-N = Nitrite Nitrogen (1) Pollutant EMCs obtained for each land use category from were developed from Los Angeles County stormwater monitoring data or the NSQD . City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 6-21 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) 6.3.3 Methodology This City model was calibrated with data from the Los Angeles County WMMS model for both water quantity and quality. Two years of continuous simulation output from WMMS was received from the Los Angeles County for model calibration and comparison. 6.3.4 Calibration Data 6.3.4.1 Water Quantity The continuous rainfall data used in WMMS simulation was input to the XPSWMM stormwater quantity model to simulate the WMMS results. The subbasin widths were adjusted slightly in XPSWMM to more closely match the WMMS results. The effective imperviousness or percent DCIA values and subbasin areas were not adjusted. Four subbasins were selected from the WMMS model to use for comparison of model results between the two models. 6.3.4.2 Water Quality Los Angeles County stormwater monitoring data was used to calibrate the PLOAD model pollutant characteristics files to more closely approximate the pollutant runoff from similar land uses. Where data was missing, the National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD) values were used. Table 6.5 lists the stormwater concentrations by land use obtained from the Los Angeles County stormwater monitoring data and the NSQD and used for the calibration along with the average percent imperviousness associated with each land use category. The amount of imperviousness associated with each land use was derived by intersecting the City’s land-use coverage and the impervious information derived from the WorldView satellite imagery. The level of calibration performed under the current analysis is adequate for NPS characterization and BMP screening. 6.3.5 Calibration Results A comparison of model results from the XPSWMM stormwater quantity model and the WMMS model results is presented for the selected subbasins in Figure 6.5 through Figure 6.8. Since the subbasins within the WMMS model do not coincide with subbasins within the City’s model, the extents of the subbasins within the WMMS model are shown in Figure 6.9 along with the model subbasins selected for the calibration. The water quality calibration results are summarized in Table 6.6 for the P8 subbasins. Since WMMS subbasins in most cases do not match P8 subbasins, drainage area ratios were used to derive the results shown in Table 6.6. Water quality model calibration results are shown in Figures D.6 through D.11 of Appendix D. SUB-BASIN 2051 WATER QUANTITY CALIBRATION COMPARISON FIGURE 6.5 CITY OF TORRANCE 20-TORRANCE7-11F6.5-8419A00.AI 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5/1/2005 6/20/2005 8/9/2005 9/28/2005 11/17/2005 1/6/2006 2/25/2006 4/16/2006 Rainfall (inches)Flow (cfs)Day of Year LADPW Model (cfs) XP-SWMM Model (cfs) Rainfall (in.) SUB-BASIN 2021 WATER QUANTITY CALIBRATION COMPARISON FIGURE 6.6 CITY OF TORRANCE 20-TORRANCE7-11F6.6-8419A00.AI 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 5/1/2005 6/20/2005 8/9/2005 9/28/2005 11/17/2005 1/6/2006 2/25/2006 4/16/2006 Rainfall (inches)Flow (cfs)Day of YearLADPW Model (cfs) XP-SWMM Model (cfs) Rainfall (in.) SUB-BASIN 2090 WATER QUANTITY CALIBRATION COMPARISON FIGURE 6.7 CITY OF TORRANCE 20-TORRANCE7-11F6.7-8419A00.AI 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 5/1/2005 6/20/2005 8/9/2005 9/28/2005 11/17/2005 1/6/2006 2/25/2006 4/16/2006 Rainfall (inches)Flow (cfs)Day of Year LADPW Model (cfs) XP-SWMM Model (cfs) Rainfall (in.) SUB-BASIN 2099 WATER QUANTITY CALIBRATION COMPARISON FIGURE 6.8 CITY OF TORRANCE 20-TORRANCE7-11F6.8-8419A00.AI 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 5/1/2005 6/20/2005 8/9/2005 9/28/2005 11/17/2005 1/6/2006 2/25/2006 4/16/2006 Rainfall (inches)Flow (cfs)Day of Year LADPW Model (cfs) XP-SWMM Model (cfs) Rainfall (in.) Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AnglesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez C h a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw BlvdCll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B c h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne Blvd2019 2021 2090 2051 2099 2022 2100 20942103 2102 2093 2020 2042 2038 2096 2109 2104 2037 2023 2050 2101 2047 2046 2049 2087 2095 Figure 6.9Calibration Subbasin ComparisonStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LegendLos Angeles County WMMS Model Subbasins(Labeled by Subbasin ID)Subbasins Selected for CalibrationCity BoundaryFreewayMajor Roads TORRANCE December 2011 6-27 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 6.6 P8 Calibration Results County Basin ID County Basin Area (ac) City Basin Area (ac) TSS Load (lb/yr) TN Load (lb/yr) TP Load (lb/yr) County(1) City(2) County(1) City(2) County(1) City(2) 2019 1,451.02 978.88 44,440.00 46,850.85 1,493.50 1,125.92 1,050.19 873.69 2020 294.81 259.57 9,779.63 8,034.90 286.72 255.31 236.20 218.45 2021 971.37 1,002.45 62,373.67 74,113.35 1,207.16 1,247.20 1,090.60 1,102.51 2022 485.57 384.86 33,209.65 35,822.00 637.95 508.52 456.06 383.77 2037 158.18 165.49 2,560.07 2,728.70 113.06 120.55 94.04 103.11 2038 393.00 395.60 11,747.96 10,213.20 407.74 411.22 400.26 306.79 2042 337.24 246.69 8,083.38 9,453.98 313.18 230.35 253.09 165.86 2043 359.20 38.81 7,739.58 5,998.29 296.65 35.66 268.56 22.81 2044 75.06 11.69 5,143.94 3,462.89 73.33 12.32 68.38 13.30 2045 145.92 51.86 3,293.06 2,597.13 130.68 48.43 115.17 29.48 2046 143.13 78.91 2,854.70 2,618.26 108.90 68.85 106.03 49.16 2047 169.25 108.92 11,078.18 13,054.99 164.60 129.44 161.63 82.57 2049 66.30 68.28 2,895.37 3,088.87 52.23 55.54 43.35 49.89 2050 137.30 137.31 2,234.84 2,772.11 91.67 93.68 76.11 79.55 2051 834.58 834.20 40,036.78 46,007.44 674.38 678.11 528.17 564.46 2087 1,637.21 61.84 47,626.46 8,542.13 1,017.54 38.43 859.65 20.03 2090 1,118.59 886.74 52,029.91 41,987.40 1,139.42 910.62 966.60 896.80 2093 431.45 283.48 12,467.20 9,562.36 298.92 201.87 265.68 179.40 2094 734.43 405.60 34,418.78 32,921.60 683.84 380.73 654.20 312.92 2095 916.45 82.02 7,229.07 5,157.92 162.30 27.72 121.58 54.43 2096 271.88 263.97 9,440.00 11,890.00 217.02 211.67 188.55 176.98 2099 787.63 793.40 36,266.80 39,211.00 790.86 802.33 664.82 697.68 2100 448.43 434.82 31,864.02 40,911.30 590.14 575.45 516.86 492.67 2101 110.75 111.43 8,099.94 8,479.44 158.45 161.22 155.72 144.32 2102 343.41 263.54 12,766.92 13,253.55 287.50 221.31 262.61 188.57 2103 339.80 339.47 12,931.28 14,910.40 250.92 259.18 224.88 212.70 2104 192.04 109.29 7,256.91 9,251.33 175.09 103.73 151.27 105.43 Notes: TSS = Total suspended Solids; TP = Total Phosphorus; TN = Total Nitrogen (1) County refers to results from the Los Angeles County WMMS Model, while City refers to results from the City of Torrance PLAT Model. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 6-28 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch06.docx (I) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN This page left blank intentionally. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN January 2012 - DRAFT 7-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Chapter 7 WATER QUALITY EVALUATION 7.1 METHODOLOGY The water quality evaluation is conducted by applying pollutant loads, both point source (PS) and non-point source (NPS), to each of the delineated subbasins. Development of the different components of the water quality model is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. This chapter describes the findings of the pollutant load analysis and water quality evaluation results, and concludes with a discussion of Best Management Practice (BMP) treatment options and a recommended BMP siting plan. Within this chapter, various terminologies is used to describe delineation and hydrologic units. For reference, these terms are defined as follows:  Subbasin – drainage subareas were delineated from the City’s 2-foot elevation contours and existing watershed boundaries. For water quality analysis, the subbasins are the highest resolution in terms of area. They used to estimate pollutant sources using PLOAD.  Subarea – drainage areas were delineated using subbasins and existing watershed boundaries. Two or more subbasins were combined to create a subarea. The subareas were created for the purposes of detailed water quality modeling using P8.  Subregion – drainage areas treated at a BMP location; subregions were delineated using subarea, existing watershed boundaries, and BMP locations. Two or more subareas were combined to delineate subregions, which are used for BMPs effectiveness modeling using continuous simulation. The water quality evaluation presents the predicted pollutant loading, followed by prioritization of the subbasins and subareas and a comparison of modeling results from the various tools developed as a part of this project. The prioritization of subareas were used to locate and prioritize recommended BMPs. BMPs were recommended separately for reducing pollutant loading during dry weather conditions (low flow diversion) and reducing pollutant loading during wet weather conditions (which would include reducing pollutant loading during dry weather conditions). 7.2 WATER QUALITY EVALUATION As discussed in Chapter 6, tools were developed to estimate both PS and NPS pollutant loads of total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and zinc based on the existing land information. The tools estimated pollution loads to each subbasin from sources such as residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Pollutant load, as it applies to the model, refers to the amount of pollutant exiting the subbasin. Models were calibrated using procedures described in Chapter 6. These models can also be used to demonstrate the effect of pollutant loads on potential NPS management strategies. The predicted pollutant loading was used to develop ranking for each subbasin and subarea to locate and prioritize recommended BMPs. High priority subareas were prioritized in the CIP as BMPs which the City should implement first to maximize reductions in pollutant loading. 7.2.1 Impervious Cover Mapping Prior to detailed water quality modeling, preliminary identification of high-pollutant sources was conducted using the impervious information extracted from WorldView-2 satellite imagery and the “Impervious Cover Model” (ICM). This is a quick and cost effective approach to spatially characterize pollutant sources prior to detailed modeling efforts. The methodology used includes the following steps:  Watershed delineation. This step includes the delineation of each subbasin in the study area and development of a geographical interface system (GIS) data layer.  Impervious cover mapping. This step includes the development of watershed coverages for land cover and impervious cover within a GIS data layer.  Impervious cover determination. this step includes the determination of impervious cover magnitude for the for overall watershed and subbasins.  Classification. This step includes the classification of watershed imperviousness based on the ICM categories, which are discussed in more detail below. The hydrologic, physical, and ecological changes caused by development can have a dramatic impact on the natural function of waterways. Many studies are finding a direct relationship between the intensity of development in an area as indicated by the amount of impervious surfaces and the degree of degradation of its receiving waters. The Center for Watershed Protection developed the ICM, which has been supported by over 200 studies. The model is based on the average percentages of impervious cover at which receiving stream quality declines, and classifies those impacts into three categories, making management decisions clearer. The three categories are listed as follows:  Degraded.  Impacted.  Protected. The ICM with the three ICM categories is presented on Figure 7.1. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN January 2012 - DRAFT 7-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Figure 7.1 The Impervious Cover Model The model suggests that aquatic biological systems begin to degrade at impervious levels of 10 to 15 percent, or at even lower levels for particularly sensitive streams. As the percentage of imperviousness climbs above these levels, degradation tends to increase accordingly. The end result is a system changed for the worse. These ranges are part of a continuum, and there can be variation between individual streams. The model is most reliable when impervious cover exceeds 10 percent, which makes it applicable to the study area. The approach of extracting impervious cover from satellite imagery offers significantly improved levels of accuracy and types of end products. Extrapolating impervious cover from land use data provides a general understanding of the amount of impervious cover, but does not show where the impervious cover is located. Directly mapping impervious cover with high-resolution satellite imagery provides a more accurate assessment of impervious cover. Additionally, the high-resolution land cover map shows the location and different types of impervious cover. This level of accuracy and detail is critical for many types of planning and engineering studies. For example, watershed planners need to know where different impervious cover types are located to determine management options. Average watershed/subbasin impervious cover was determined by digitally intersecting subbasin and impervious cover GIS data layers and then calculating an area-weighed average impervious cover percentage for each subbasin and for the overall watershed. This information is presented in tabular format in Table 7.1. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Table 7.1 Imperviousness Range by Watershed Watershed ID Description Percent Imperviousness Minimum Mean Maximum DA Del Amo 75 79 83 DC Dominguez Channel 32 67 91 HL Habor Lakes 31 59 86 WL Walteria Lake 26 55 83 PVE Palos Verdes Estates & Others 1 20 54 MB Mobil 50 65 80 MM Madrona Marsh 39 61 73 OC Ocean 50 65 84 PI Pioneer 76 81 87 PO 237th Street 69 69 69 RB Redondo Beach 59 67 84 Average 55 84 According to the ICM, all the subbasins in the study area have the potential to degrade receiving water quality. The classification also reveals that the City is “ultra-urban,” a term used to describe metropolitan areas with imperviousness greater than 50 percent, and where space for stormwater BMP implementation is limited. As shown in Table 7.1, the mean imperviousness of the entire study area is 55 percent. 7.2.2 Pollutant Load Estimation As discussed in Chapter 6, two models were used for pollutant load modeling, PLOAD and P8. These pollutant load estimation process for each application is described in the following subsections. 7.2.2.1 PLOAD Application After developing the PLOAD model for the study area, the model was used to calculate pollutant loads from all relevant subbasins. Los Angeles County stormwater monitoring data was used to calibrate the PLOAD model pollutant characteristics files to more closely approximate the pollutant runoff from similar land uses. Where data was missing, the National Stormwater Quality Database values were used. The stormwater concentrations by land use were generated for the calibration and are presented in Chapter 6 along with the amount of imperviousness associated with each land use. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN January 2012 - DRAFT 7-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) The annual load generated from each watershed is summarized in Table 7.2, while a breakdown by subarea is presented later in this chapter in Table 7.3 and detailed pollutant distribution maps showing pollutant loading by subbasin are presented in Figure 7.2 through Figure 7.7. The allowable loads presented in Table 7.2 correspond to the WLA of the applicable total maximum daily load (TMDL). While requirements vary depending on the specific BPA associated with each TMDL, in many cases the baseline WLA is developed based on monitoring associated with initial phases of the TMDL implementation. Thus, for TMDLs not yet implemented, the WLA is not yet necessarily assigned. The Dominguez Channel Toxics and Machado Lake Toxics TMDLs do not specify a WLA for TSS, which is used as an indicator constituent for the various pollutants that are associated with sediment. It should be noted that the ExxonMobil Refinery, located within the ExxonMobil watershed, is treated as point source in the model but the load shown in the table was estimated based on impervious area and land use information. Similarly, the Pioneer, Madrona Marsh, and 237th watersheds were treated as point loads and are therefore included in the Dominguez Channel and Harbor Lakes watersheds, respectively. The pollutant loading presented in in Figure 7.2 through Figure 7.7 was used to rank the subbasins and to prioritize the placement of BMPs. The ranking of the PLOAD subbasins is presented in Figure 7.8 and Figure 7.9. Table 7.2 Pollutant Loads by Watershed Watershed Area (ac) Calculated Load (Ib/yr) Calculated Load (Ib/ac/yr) Allowable Load (lb/yr) TSS TP TN(2) TSS TP TN TP TN Walteria Lake 2,109 287,010 1,100 5,609 136 0.52 2.66 n/a(1) n/a(1) Harbor Lakes 2,067 252,719 1,082 5,397 122 0.52 2.61 664(2) 6,631(2) Dominguez Channel 4,708 707,763 2,218 11,355 150 0.47 2.41 n/a(3) n/a(3) Palos Verdes Estates 3,253 43,599 460 3,249 13 0.14 1.00 n/a(4) n/a(4) ExxonMobil 461 16,380 413 520 36 0.90 1.13 n/a(3) n/a(3) Notes: 1. The County is responsible for operations of Walteria Lake, which is considered a BMP that should remove all pollutants. 2. WLA shown represents Phase 2 (Final) of the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL. 3. TMDLs for nutrients in the Dominguez Channel or Santa Monica Bay have not been developed to date. Based on the list of assessment units in the consent decree, nutrient TMDLs are not anticipated for these bodies of water. 4. Palos Verdes Estates is the responsible party for treating loads from this watershed. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.2.2.2 P8 Application P8 is a simple model that requires moderate effort to set up, calibrate, and validate. Simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall and daily air temperature time series data. In order to evaluate a normal annual pollutant load, a normal year of hourly precipitation data is necessary. Most climate stations do not keep long periods or hourly records. The closest station with hourly climate data was in Long Beach. A 'normal year' of hourly data was created using the Long Beach hourly data as a basis. The Long Beach hourly rainfall data was first normalized to the Long Beach total annual rainfall. Hourly rainfall for Torrance was then derived by multiplying the normalized hourly rainfall by 12.55, which is the average annual rainfall in Torrance. Long Beach average monthly temperature was used in the evapotranspiration function in P8. As discussed in Chapter 6, each watershed was delineated into study reaches called subareas for the P8 simulations. The subareas were delineated based on the impervious cover model and PLOAD results. The subareas were further delineated into subregions based on land use for modeling. P8 hydrology was calibrated by performing minor adjustment to the estimated Soil Conservation Service’s (SCS) curve numbers and depression storage parameters. PLOAD loads were used to calibrate P8 loads from computed pervious and impervious surfaces Table 7.3 lists the estimated annual pollutant loads from the subareas for existing conditions in the three main watersheds. The table also compares Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) (PLOAD and P8) results with Nonpoint Source Pollutions and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) results. The PLOAD data in the table was obtained by summing the loads generated by all subbasins in that subarea. As shown, there is a good agreement between the PLAT and N-SPECT results. The comparison supports the structure and calibration of the hydrologic components of the P8 model for prediction and conveyance of stormwater quality in the study area. Table 7.3 also shows the WLA assigned to the City as discussed in Chapter 3. Only the WLA associated with the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL is shown since the WLAs within the remaining TMDLs are not modeled explicitly. Instead, TSS is used as an indicator for the various pollutants for which a WLA is assigned. It should be noted that pollutant loading of Machado Lake from the Walteria Lake sub-watershed is not compared to the WLA. Walteria Lake should act as a BMP. The lake is predicted to include sufficient volume to adequately treat the pollutant load. If the current effectiveness of Walteria Lake as a BMP is not adequate, the City will need to work with LACDPW to address the effectiveness of the lake as the County is responsible for the operations and maintenance of the lake. The P8 subareas were also prioritized using the two methods explained above. The subbasin priority index (SPI) maps generated for the subareas are presented in Figure 7.10 through Figure 7.12. Hawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd W Redondo B e ac h Blv d W 190th St E 182nd St S C a m R e a l Lomita B l v d Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy Cll De Arboles Crenshaw BlvdHawthorne BlvdW 182nd St Sepulve d a B l v d Plaza Del A m oTorrance BlvdS Western AveN Sepulveda BlvdArtesia Blvd Hawthorne BlvdSkypa r k D r Winloc k R dMadison StMadison StW 190th St Maricopa St 232nd St DC-141 DC-68 DC-128 HL-46 DC-69 DC-93 HL-48 DC-67 DC-153 WL-3 DC-109 DC-90 DC-152 DC-36 DC-122 DC-138 DC-117 HL-42 DC-145 DC-140 DC-142DC-143 WL-35 DC-56 WL-50 WL-44 DC-14 DC-44 DC-137 WL-19 HL-12 DC-110 HL-41 DC-41 HL-34 DC-126 WL-17 HL-51 HL-14 WL-21 WL-47 DC-58 WL-34 DC-17 DC-108 DC-95 HL-8 DC-74 WL-6 DC-11 DC-38 HL-39 DC-107 DC-39 DC-42 DC-103 DC-92 WL-43 DC-70 HL-50 WL-27 WL-20 DC-73 WL-12 WL-55 DC-19 DC-115 DC-65 DC-25 DC-15 WL-53 HL-11 WL-39 HL-47 DC-150 WL-8 DC-112 DC-101 WL-45 DC-30 WL-28 DC-116 DC-144 HL-45WL-58 DC-114 DC-148 DC-54 DC-9 HL-43 DC-40 DC-21 DC-146 HL-21 DC-130 HL-30 WL-7 HL-18 DC-147 DC-51 DC-127 DC-26 DC-151 DC-81 DC-124 DC-45 DC-102 DC-91 DC-43 HL-15 WL-51 DC-72 DC-53 DC-78 DC-136 HL-7 WL-14 WL-13 DC-97 DC-27 WL-56 WL-15 DC-64 DC-84 DC-131 DC-98 DC-139 DC-48DC-46 WL-9 DC-62 DC-31 DC-35 WL-46 DC-121 DC-149 DC-106 WL-5 DC-83 WL-16 HL-40 WL-52 DC-82 DC-118 DC-49 DC-85 WL-23 WL-4 WL-54 DC-75 DC-104 WL-29 HL-29 DC-20 WL-11 DC-76 WL-37 DC-87 WL-40 DC-89 DC-1 DC-13 HL-19 HL-22 WL-30 WL-24 HL-17WL-31 HL-53 DC-6 WL-36 DC-60 DC-59 DC-86 DC-79 DC-18 WL-22 HL-13 DC-22 DC-99 WL-10 WL-26 HL-36 HL-16 HL-32 DC-71 HL-4 HL-28 HL-3 DC-66 DC-100 WL-41 HL-31 DC-16 DC-29 DC-5 DC-111 DC-12 DC-77 DC-113 DC-94 HL-6 DC-55 DC-4 HL-23 WL-33 DC-52 DC-63 DC-105 HL-27 HL-44 WL-2 HL-35 HL-25 WL-57 HL-49 DC-28 HL-38 DC-3 WL-18 HL-20 DC-23 DC-8 DC-96 DC-57 HL-2 DC-80 DC-34 HL-37 HL-10 DC-32 DC-50 WL-1 DC-47 DC-24 HL-9 WL-48 HL-5 HL-33 WL-32 HL-1 WL-25 HL-24 WL-49 Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Walteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay El Dorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 7.2Average Annual TSS Load Stormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend by PLOAD Subbasin0-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-5000 >5000 Not Calculated FreewayMajor RoadsWatershed BoundarySub Drainage Area ID Mobil HL-25 Basin Name Predicted TSSPollutant Load (lb/yr) Hawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd W Redondo B e ac h Blv d W 190th St E 182nd St S C a m R e a l Lomita B l v d Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy Cll De Arboles Crenshaw BlvdHawthorne BlvdW 182nd St Sepulve d a B l v d Plaza Del A m oTorrance BlvdS Western AveN Sepulveda BlvdArtesia Blvd Hawthorne BlvdSkypa r k D r Winloc k R dMadison StMadison StW 190th St Maricopa St 232nd St DC-141 DC-68 DC-128 HL-46 DC-69 DC-93 HL-48 DC-67 DC-153 WL-3 DC-109 DC-90 DC-152 DC-36 DC-122 DC-138 DC-117 HL-42 DC-145 DC-140 DC-142DC-143 WL-35 DC-56 WL-50 WL-44 DC-14 DC-44 DC-137 WL-19 HL-12 DC-110 HL-41 DC-41 HL-34 DC-126 WL-17 HL-51 HL-14 WL-21 WL-47 DC-58 WL-34 DC-17 DC-108 DC-95 HL-8 DC-74 WL-6 DC-11 DC-38 HL-39 DC-107 DC-39 DC-42 DC-103 DC-92 WL-43 DC-70 HL-50 WL-27 WL-20 DC-73 WL-12 WL-55 DC-19 DC-115 DC-65 DC-25 DC-15 WL-53 HL-11 WL-39 HL-47 DC-150 WL-8 DC-112 DC-101 WL-45 DC-30 WL-28 DC-116 DC-144 HL-45WL-58 DC-114 DC-148 DC-54 DC-9 HL-43 DC-40 DC-21 DC-146 HL-21 DC-130 HL-30 WL-7 HL-18 DC-147 DC-51 DC-127 DC-26 DC-151 DC-81 DC-124 DC-45 DC-102 DC-91 DC-43 HL-15 WL-51 DC-72 DC-53 DC-78 DC-136 HL-7 WL-14 WL-13 DC-97 DC-27 WL-56 WL-15 DC-64 DC-84 DC-131 DC-98 DC-139 DC-48DC-46 WL-9 DC-62 DC-31 DC-35 WL-46 DC-121 DC-149 DC-106 WL-5 DC-83 WL-16 HL-40 WL-52 DC-82 DC-118 DC-49 DC-85 WL-23 WL-4 WL-54 DC-75 DC-104 WL-29 HL-29 DC-20 WL-11 DC-76 WL-37 DC-87 WL-40 DC-89 DC-1 DC-13 HL-19 HL-22 WL-30 WL-24 HL-17WL-31 HL-53 DC-6 WL-36 DC-60 DC-59 DC-86 DC-79 DC-18 WL-22 HL-13 DC-22 DC-99 WL-10 WL-26 HL-36 HL-16 HL-32 DC-71 HL-4 HL-28 HL-3 DC-66 DC-100 WL-41 HL-31 DC-16 DC-29 DC-5 DC-111 DC-12 DC-77 DC-113 DC-94 HL-6 DC-55 DC-4 HL-23 WL-33 DC-52 DC-63 DC-105 HL-27 HL-44 WL-2 HL-35 HL-25 WL-57 HL-49 DC-28 HL-38 DC-3 WL-18 HL-20 DC-23 DC-8 DC-96 DC-57 HL-2 DC-80 DC-34 HL-37 HL-10 DC-32 DC-50 WL-1 DC-47 DC-24 HL-9 WL-48 HL-5 HL-33 WL-32 HL-1 WL-25 HL-24 WL-49 Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Walteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay El Dorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 7.3Average Annual TP Load Stormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend by PLOAD Subbasin<15 15-3030-50 50-80 >80 Not Calculated FreewayMajor RoadsWatershed BoundarySub Drainage Area ID Mobil HL-25 Basin Name Predicted TPPollutant Load (lb/yr) DC-141 DC-68 DC-128 HL-46 DC-69 DC-93 HL-48 DC-67 DC-153 WL-3 DC-109 DC-90 DC-152 DC-36 DC-122 DC-138 DC-117 HL-42 DC-145 DC-140 DC-142DC-143 WL-35 DC-56 WL-50 WL-44 DC-14 DC-44 DC-137 WL-19 HL-12 DC-110 HL-41 DC-41 HL-34 DC-126 WL-17 HL-51 HL-14 WL-21 WL-47 DC-58 WL-34 DC-17 DC-108 DC-95 HL-8 DC-74 WL-6 DC-11 DC-38 HL-39 DC-107 DC-39 DC-42 DC-103 DC-92 WL-43 DC-70 HL-50 WL-27 WL-20 DC-73 WL-12 WL-55 DC-19 DC-115 DC-65 DC-25 DC-15 WL-53 HL-11 WL-39 HL-47 DC-150 WL-8 DC-112 DC-101 WL-45 DC-30 WL-28 DC-116 DC-144 HL-45WL-58 DC-114 DC-148 DC-54 DC-9 HL-43 DC-40 DC-21 DC-146 HL-21 DC-130 HL-30 WL-7 HL-18 DC-147 DC-51 DC-127 DC-26 DC-151 DC-81 DC-124 DC-45 DC-102 DC-91 DC-43 HL-15 WL-51 DC-72 DC-53 DC-78 DC-136 HL-7 WL-14 WL-13 DC-97 DC-27 WL-56 WL-15 DC-64 DC-84 DC-131 DC-98 DC-139 DC-48DC-46 WL-9 DC-62 DC-31 DC-35 WL-46 DC-121 DC-149 DC-106 WL-5 DC-83 WL-16 HL-40 WL-52 DC-82 DC-118 DC-49 DC-85 WL-23 WL-4 WL-54 DC-75 DC-104 WL-29 HL-29 DC-20 WL-11 DC-76 WL-37 DC-87 WL-40 DC-89 DC-1 DC-13 HL-19 HL-22 WL-30 WL-24 HL-17WL-31 HL-53 DC-6 WL-36 DC-60 DC-59 DC-86 DC-79 DC-18 WL-22 HL-13 DC-22 DC-99 WL-10 WL-26 HL-36 HL-16 HL-32 DC-71 HL-4 HL-28 HL-3 DC-66 DC-100 WL-41 HL-31 DC-16 DC-29 DC-5 DC-111 DC-12 DC-77 DC-113 DC-94 HL-6 DC-55 DC-4 HL-23 WL-33 DC-52 DC-63 DC-105 HL-27 HL-44 WL-2 HL-35 HL-25 WL-57 HL-49 DC-28 HL-38 DC-3 WL-18 HL-20 DC-23 DC-8 DC-96 DC-57 HL-2 DC-80 DC-34 HL-37 HL-10 DC-32 DC-50 WL-1 DC-47 DC-24 HL-9 WL-48 HL-5 HL-33 WL-32 HL-1 WL-25 HL-24 WL-49 Hawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd W Redondo B e ac h Blv d W 190th St E 182nd St S C a m R e a l Lomita B l v d Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy Cll De Arboles Crenshaw BlvdHawthorne BlvdW 182nd St Sepulve d a B l v d Plaza Del A m oTorrance BlvdS Western AveN Sepulveda BlvdArtesia Blvd Hawthorne BlvdSkypa r k D r Winloc k R dMadison StMadison StW 190th St Maricopa St 232nd St Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Walteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay El Dorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 7.4Average Annual TN Load Stormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend by PLOAD Subbasin<2525-45 45-70 70-110 >110 Not Calculated FreewayMajor RoadsWatershed BoundarySub Drainage Area ID Mobil HL-25 Basin Name Predicted TNPollutant Load (lb/yr) DC-141 DC-68 DC-128 HL-46 DC-69 DC-93 HL-48 DC-67 DC-153 WL-3 DC-109 DC-90 DC-152 DC-36 DC-122 DC-138 DC-117 HL-42 DC-145 DC-140 DC-142DC-143 WL-35 DC-56 WL-50 WL-44 DC-14 DC-44 DC-137 WL-19 HL-12 DC-110 HL-41 DC-41 HL-34 DC-126 WL-17 HL-51 HL-14 WL-21 WL-47 DC-58 WL-34 DC-17 DC-108 DC-95 HL-8 DC-74 WL-6 DC-11 DC-38 HL-39 DC-107 DC-39 DC-42 DC-103 DC-92 WL-43 DC-70 HL-50 WL-27 WL-20 DC-73 WL-12 WL-55 DC-19 DC-115 DC-65 DC-25 DC-15 WL-53 HL-11 WL-39 HL-47 DC-150 WL-8 DC-112 DC-101 WL-45 DC-30 WL-28 DC-116 DC-144 HL-45 WL-58 DC-114 DC-148 DC-54 DC-9 HL-43 DC-40 DC-21 DC-146 HL-21 DC-130 HL-30 WL-7 HL-18 DC-147 DC-51 DC-127 DC-26 DC-151 DC-81 DC-124 DC-45 DC-102 DC-91 DC-43 HL-15 WL-51 DC-72 DC-53 DC-78 DC-136 HL-7 WL-14 WL-13 DC-97 DC-27 WL-56 WL-15 DC-64 DC-84 DC-131 DC-98 DC-139 DC-48DC-46 WL-9 DC-62 DC-31 DC-35 WL-46 DC-121 DC-149 DC-106 WL-5 DC-83 WL-16 HL-40 WL-52 DC-82 DC-118 DC-49 DC-85 WL-23 WL-4 WL-54 DC-75 DC-104 WL-29 HL-29 DC-20 WL-11 DC-76 WL-37 DC-87 WL-40 DC-89 DC-1 DC-13 HL-19 HL-22 WL-30 WL-24 HL-17WL-31 HL-53 DC-6 WL-36 DC-60 DC-59 DC-86 DC-79 DC-18 WL-22 HL-13 DC-22 DC-99 WL-10 WL-26 HL-36 HL-16 HL-32 DC-71 HL-4 HL-28 HL-3 DC-66 DC-100 WL-41 HL-31 DC-16 DC-29 DC-5 DC-111 DC-12 DC-77 DC-113 DC-94 HL-6 DC-55 DC-4 HL-23 WL-33 DC-52 DC-63 DC-105 HL-27 HL-44 WL-2 HL-35 HL-25 WL-57 HL-49 DC-28 HL-38 DC-3 WL-18 HL-20 DC-23 DC-8 DC-96 DC-57 HL-2 DC-80 DC-34 HL-37 HL-10 DC-32 DC-50 WL-1 DC-47 DC-24 HL-9 WL-48 HL-5 HL-33 WL-32 HL-1 WL-25 HL-24 WL-49 Hawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd W Redondo B e ac h Bl v d W 190th St E 182nd St S C a m R e a l Lomita B l v d Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy Cll De Arboles Crenshaw BlvdHawthorne BlvdW 182nd St Sepulv e d a B l v d Plaza Del A m oTorrance BlvdS Western AveN Sepulveda BlvdArtesia Blvd Hawthorne BlvdSkypa r k D r Winloc k R dMadison StMadison StW 190th St Maricopa St 232nd St Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Walteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay El Dorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 7.5Average Annual TSS Load per Acre by SubbasinStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend by PLOAD Subbasin<3535-4040-4545-50>50 Not Calculated FreewayMajor RoadsWatershed BoundarySub Drainage Area ID Mobil HL-25 Basin Name Preidcted TSSPollutant Load (lb/yr/ac) DC-141 DC-68 DC-128 HL-46 DC-69 DC-93 HL-48 DC-67 DC-153 WL-3 DC-109 DC-90 DC-152 DC-36 DC-122 DC-138 DC-117 HL-42 DC-145 DC-140 DC-142DC-143 WL-35 DC-56 WL-50 WL-44 DC-14 DC-44 DC-137 WL-19 HL-12 DC-110 HL-41 DC-41 HL-34 DC-126 WL-17 HL-51 HL-14 WL-21 WL-47 DC-58 WL-34 DC-17 DC-108 DC-95 HL-8 DC-74 WL-6 DC-11 DC-38 HL-39 DC-107 DC-39 DC-42 DC-103 DC-92 WL-43 DC-70 HL-50 WL-27 WL-20 DC-73 WL-12 WL-55 DC-19 DC-115 DC-65 DC-25 DC-15 WL-53 HL-11 WL-39 HL-47 DC-150 WL-8 DC-112 DC-101 WL-45 DC-30 WL-28 DC-116 DC-144 HL-45WL-58 DC-114 DC-148 DC-54 DC-9 HL-43 DC-40 DC-21 DC-146 HL-21 DC-130 HL-30 WL-7 HL-18 DC-147 DC-51 DC-127 DC-26 DC-151 DC-81 DC-124 DC-45 DC-102 DC-91 DC-43 HL-15 WL-51 DC-72 DC-53 DC-78 DC-136 HL-7 WL-14 WL-13 DC-97 DC-27 WL-56 WL-15 DC-64 DC-84 DC-131 DC-98 DC-139 DC-48DC-46 WL-9 DC-62 DC-31 DC-35 WL-46 DC-121 DC-149 DC-106 WL-5 DC-83 WL-16 HL-40 WL-52 DC-82 DC-118 DC-49 DC-85 WL-23 WL-4 WL-54 DC-75 DC-104 WL-29 HL-29 DC-20 WL-11 DC-76 WL-37 DC-87 WL-40 DC-89 DC-1 DC-13 HL-19 HL-22 WL-30 WL-24 HL-17WL-31 HL-53 DC-6 WL-36 DC-60 DC-59 DC-86 DC-79 DC-18 WL-22 HL-13 DC-22 DC-99 WL-10 WL-26 HL-36 HL-16 HL-32 DC-71 HL-4 HL-28 HL-3 DC-66 DC-100 WL-41 HL-31 DC-16 DC-29 DC-5 DC-111 DC-12 DC-77 DC-113 DC-94 HL-6 DC-55 DC-4 HL-23 WL-33 DC-52 DC-63 DC-105 HL-27 HL-44 WL-2 HL-35 HL-25 WL-57 HL-49 DC-28 HL-38 DC-3 WL-18 HL-20 DC-23 DC-8 DC-96 DC-57 HL-2 DC-80 DC-34 HL-37 HL-10 DC-32 DC-50 WL-1 DC-47 DC-24 HL-9 WL-48 HL-5 HL-33 WL-32 HL-1 WL-25 HL-24 WL-49 Hawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd W Redondo Be a c h Blv d W 190th St E 182nd St S C a m R e a l Lomita B l v d Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy Cll De Arboles Crenshaw BlvdHawthorne BlvdW 182nd St Sepulv e d a B l v d Plaza Del A m oTorrance BlvdS Western AveN Sepulveda BlvdArtesia Blvd Hawthorne BlvdSkypa r k D r Winloc k R dMadison StMadison StW 190th St Maricopa St 232nd St Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Walteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay Eldorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 7.6Average Annual TP Load per Acre by SubbasinStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend by PLOAD Subbasin<0.30.30-0.400.40-0.450.50-0.55>0.55Not Calculated FreewayMajor RoadsWatershed BoundarySub Drainage Area ID Mobil HL-25 Basin Name Predicted TPPollutant Load (lb/yr/ac) DC-141 DC-68 DC-128 HL-46 DC-69 DC-93 HL-48 DC-67 DC-153 WL-3 DC-109 DC-90 DC-152 DC-36 DC-122 DC-138 DC-117 HL-42 DC-145 DC-140 DC-142DC-143 WL-35 DC-56 WL-50 WL-44 DC-14 DC-44 DC-137 WL-19 HL-12 DC-110 HL-41 DC-41 HL-34 DC-126 WL-17 HL-51 HL-14 WL-21 WL-47 DC-58 WL-34 DC-17 DC-108 DC-95 HL-8 DC-74 WL-6 DC-11 DC-38 HL-39 DC-107 DC-39 DC-42 DC-103 DC-92 WL-43 DC-70 HL-50 WL-27 WL-20 DC-73 WL-12 WL-55 DC-19 DC-115 DC-65 DC-25 DC-15 WL-53 HL-11 WL-39 HL-47 DC-150 WL-8 DC-112 DC-101 WL-45 DC-30 WL-28 DC-116 DC-144 HL-45 WL-58 DC-114 DC-148 DC-54 DC-9 HL-43 DC-40 DC-21 DC-146 HL-21 DC-130 HL-30 WL-7 HL-18 DC-147 DC-51 DC-127 DC-26 DC-151 DC-81 DC-124 DC-45 DC-102 DC-91 DC-43 HL-15 WL-51 DC-72 DC-53 DC-78 DC-136 HL-7 WL-14 WL-13 DC-97 DC-27 WL-56 WL-15 DC-64 DC-84 DC-131 DC-98 DC-139 DC-48DC-46 WL-9 DC-62 DC-31 DC-35 WL-46 DC-121 DC-149 DC-106 WL-5 DC-83 WL-16 HL-40 WL-52 DC-82 DC-118 DC-49 DC-85 WL-23 WL-4 WL-54 DC-75 DC-104 WL-29 HL-29 DC-20 WL-11 DC-76 WL-37 DC-87 WL-40 DC-89 DC-1 DC-13 HL-19 HL-22 WL-30 WL-24 HL-17WL-31 HL-53 DC-6 WL-36 DC-60 DC-59 DC-86 DC-79 DC-18 WL-22 HL-13 DC-22 DC-99 WL-10 WL-26 HL-36 HL-16 HL-32 DC-71 HL-4 HL-28 HL-3 DC-66 DC-100 WL-41 HL-31 DC-16 DC-29 DC-5 DC-111 DC-12 DC-77 DC-113 DC-94 HL-6 DC-55 DC-4 HL-23 WL-33 DC-52 DC-63 DC-105 HL-27 HL-44 WL-2 HL-35 HL-25 WL-57 HL-49 DC-28 HL-38 DC-3 WL-18 HL-20 DC-23 DC-8 DC-96 DC-57 HL-2 DC-80 DC-34 HL-37 HL-10 DC-32 DC-50 WL-1 DC-47 DC-24 HL-9 WL-48 HL-5 HL-33 WL-32 HL-1 WL-25 HL-24 WL-49 Hawthorne BlvdArtesia Blvd W Redondo B e ac h Bl v d W 190th St E 182nd St S C a m R e a l Lomita B l v d Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy Cll De Arboles Crenshaw BlvdHawthorne BlvdW 182nd St Sepulv e d a B l v d Plaza Del A m oTorrance BlvdS Western AveN Sepulveda BlvdArtesia Blvd Hawthorne BlvdSkypa r k D r Winlock R dMadison StMadison StW 190th St Maricopa St 232nd St Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Walteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay El Dorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque Figure 7.7Average Annual TN Load per Acre by Subbasin Stormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend by PLOAD Subbasin<0.700.70-0.750.75-0.800.80-0.85>0.85Not Calculated FreewayMajor RoadsWatershed BoundarySub Drainage Area ID Mobil HL-25 Basin Name Predicted TNPollutant Load (lb/yr/ac) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be a c h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWalteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay Eldorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque DC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 FIGURE 7.8PLOAD Subbasin Priority Index Ranking for TPStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles TP Ranking by Priority (Based on Pollutant Load)1 Prioritized Low (Relatively Low Pollutant Load) 2 3 4 5 Prioritized High (Relatively High Pollutant Load) Not Calculated Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWalteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay Eldorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque DC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 FIGURE 7.9PLOAD Subbasin Priority Index Ranking for TKNStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 1 Prioritized Low (Relatively Low Pollutant Load) 2 3 4 5 Prioritized High (Relatively High Pollutant Load) TKN Ranking by PLOAD Subbasin Not Calculated December 2011 7-23 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 7.3 Comparison of PLAT Results Water- shed Subarea Predicted Pollutant Load (Ib/yr) Allowable Pollutant Load (Ib/yr) P8 Model PLOAD Model N-SPECT TSS TP TN TSS TP TN TSS TP TN TP TN Dominguez Channel DC-S1 159,597 621 3,154 157,961 689 3,939 158,817 692 4,071 DC-S2 282,523 821 4,058 279,071 846 3,982 284,406 862 4,059 DC-S3 133,397 330 1,727 132,379 315 1,675 133,754 320 1,702 DC-S4 21,872 45 242 22,205 47 237 21,746 48 245 DC-S5 62,214 211 1,089 61,774 207 1,060 62,464 217 1,116 DC-S6 48,160 190 1,085 47,066 184 1,066 48,160 192 1,122 Total 707,763 2,218 11,355 700,457 2,288 11,960 709,346 2,332 12,316 n/a(1) Harbor Lakes HL-S1 76,854 349 1,655 75,319 339 1,608 76,070 348 1,608 HL-S2 7,419 17 98 7,272 19 95 7,362 19 101 HL-S3 30,590 141 607 29,983 162 584 30,682 137 557 HL-S4 117,270 502 2,680 115,009 493 2,622 117,433 515 2,567 HL-S5 20,586 73 357 20,238 85 348 21,697 89 342 Total 252,719 1,082 5,397 247,821 1,098 5,258 253,244 1,108 5,175 664 6,631 Walteria Lake WL-S1 57,821 234 1,249 56,672 241 1,298 60,103 252 1,389 WL-S2 121,966 430 2,059 120,158 412 2,183 122,007 386 2,235 WL-S3 107,223 436 2,301 105,899 425 2,277 104,677 433 2,255 Total 287,010 1,100 5,609 282,729 1,078 5,758 286,787 1,071 5,879 n/a\2) Notes: (1) TMDLs for nutrients in the Dominguez Channel or Santa Monica Bay have not been developed to date. (2) The County is responsible for pollutant removal from Walteria Lake. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure 7.10P8 Subarea Priority Index Ranking for TSSStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 1 Prioritized Low (Relatively Low Pollutant Load) 2 3 4 5 Prioritized High (Relatively High Pollutant Load) Not Calculated PLOAD Subbasin Boundaries TSS Ranking by P8 Subarea Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B ea c h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure 7.11P8 Subarea Priority Index Ranking for TPStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 1 Prioritized Low (Relatively Low Pollutant Load) 2 345 Prioritized High (Relatively High Pollutant Load)Not Calculated PLOAD Subbasin Boundaries TP Ranking by P8 Subarea Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure 7.12P8 Subarea 12 Priority Index Ranking for TKNStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles 1 Prioritized Low (Relatively Low Pollutant Load) 2 3 4 5 Prioritized High (Relatively High Pollutant Load) PLOAD Subbasin Boundaries TKN Ranking by P8 Subarea City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY M ASTER PLAN December 2011 7-27 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.2.3 Comparison of Pollutant Load Results The estimated annual pollutant loads from the subareas for existing conditions in the three main watersheds are summarized in Table 7.3. This table also compares PLAT (PLOAD and P8) results with N-SPECT results. The PLOAD data in the table was obtained by summing the loads generated by all subbasins in that subarea. A graphical presentation of the comparison of pollutant load estimates by the three tools for TSS, Total Nitrogen (TN), and TP are presented on Figure 7.13, Figure 7.14, and Figure 7.15, respectively. As shown on these figures, there is a good agreement between the PLAT and N-SPECT results. The comparison supports the structure and calibration of the hydrologic components of the P8 model for prediction and conveyance of stormwater quality in the study area. As shown in Figure 7.13 through Figure 7.15, in general, larger subbasins generate higher average annual pollutant than smaller subbasins due to the larger area. Therefore, subbasin prioritization should not be based on average annual pollutant load. There are various methods available for ranking subbasins. In this study, a systematic method was developed and applied. This method scores subbasins, resulting in a subbasin prioritization. The ranking method is explained in Section 7.2.5. Figure 7.2 through Figure 7.7 present detailed pollutant distribution maps showing total pollutant loading, concentration of pollutant loading, and density of pollutant loading, each by subbasin. Results for each of these is discussed below. Total Pollutant Loads by Subbasin The total pollutant load by subbasin is the annual load in pounds (lb/yr) generated by each subbasin. A review of the results in Figure 7.13 through Figure 7.15 illustrates that subbasins WL-49, WL-25, HL-24, HL-33, and WL-48 are the major contributors of TP to the City’s surface water discharge, in descending order. For TN, subbasins WL-48, HL-24, WL- 25, HL-33 and WL-48 are the major contributors in descending order. For TSS, subbasins DC-50, WL-49, DC-32, DC-23, and DC-28 are the major contributors in descending order. Event Mean Concentration by Subbasin The event mean concentration by subbasin is the average event mean concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/L) for each specific pollutant, weighted by the relevant land use types and associated areas. Reviewing the results presented in Figure 7.2 through Figure 7.4, it can be concluded that subbasins DC-117, DC -150, and DC -144 have the most significant average event mean concentration (EMC) values for TN, in descending order. For TP, subbasins DC -64, HL-14, and DC-52 have the largest EMC values. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 7-28 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Pollutant Loads per Unit Area by Subbasin The pollutant load per unit area by subbasin is the annual load of pollutant expressed in pounds per acre per year (lbs/ac/yr) generated per unit area of a subbasin, taking into account density of pollutant loading. The annual pollutant load per unit area is particularly important in the identification of high pollutant sources and, therefore, decision making regarding BMP placement as a pollutant mitigation effort. Reviewing the results in Figure 7.5 through Figure 7.7, it can be seen that subbasins WL-54, DC-117, WL-27, DC- 19 and DC-110 have the most significant TN load per unit subbasin area, in descending order. Subbasins, DC-9, DC-19, DC-43, WL-20 and WL-27 are the largest contributors in terms of generation of TP per unit of subbasin area. On load per unit acre basis, subbasins WL-54, DC-117, WL-27, DC-19, DC-43, WL-20, DC-110 and DC-9 have the highest potential of generating pollutant loads. Figure 7.13 Pollutant Load Comparison for TSS by Subarea 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 DC-S1 DC-S2 DC-S3 DC-S4 DC-S5 DC-S6 HL-S1 HL-S2 HL-S3 HL-S4 HL-S5 WL-S1 WL-S2 WL-S3Pollutant Load (lbs/yr)Subarea P8 Model PLOAD N-SPECT City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY M ASTER PLAN December 2011 7-29 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Figure 7.14 Pollutant Load Comparison for TN by Subarea Figure 7.15 Pollutant Load Comparison for TP by Subarea 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 DC-S1 DC-S2 DC-S3 DC-S4 DC-S5 DC-S6 HL-S1 HL-S2 HL-S3 HL-S4 HL-S5 WL-S1 WL-S2 WL-S3Pollutant Load (lbs/yr)Subarea P8 Model PLOAD N-SPECT 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 DC-S1 DC-S2 DC-S3 DC-S4 DC-S5 DC-S6 HL-S1 HL-S2 HL-S3 HL-S4 HL-S5 WL-S1 WL-S2 WL-S3Pollutant Load (lbs/yr)Subarea P8 Model PLOAD N-SPECT City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 7-30 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.2.4 Water Quality Evaluation Results Summary Based on the pollutant distribution maps presented on Figure 7.2 through Figure 7.7 two high pollutant areas can be identified in the east and south part of the study. These are:  The highest pollutant loads found in the southeast part of the City are located near the airport and are primarily located east of Hawthorne Boulevard and north and south of Lomita Avenue. This includes subareas PI-S1, WL-S2, and HL-S3.  The highest pollutant loads (both nutrients and sediments) found in the eastern part of the City are located between 190th Street and Maricopa Street. This includes subareas DC-S2, DC-S3, and DC-S4. The land use in this area is mainly heavy manufacturing and includes the ExxonMobil Refinery. As shown in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3, the calculated loading for areas of the City from which stormwater is discharged to Machado Lake is anticipated to exceed the allowable pollutant load for total phosphorous while total nitrogen is anticipated to be below the allowable pollutant load. It should be noted that the discharge from Walteria Lake is not assumed to contribute to the nutrient loading of Machado Lake. Potential TMDLs for the Dominguez Channel are not anticipated to include nutrients; thus, nutrients are not compared to an allowable load for the Dominguez Channel. For toxics, including metals and pesticides, TSS is used within the models as an indicator for the potential pollutant loading of the various constituents included in toxics TMDLs. Since TSS is used as an indicator and is itself not assigned a WLA within the TMDLs applicable to the City’s stormwater points of discharge, a numerical comparison of allowable pollutant loading with the predicted pollutant loading is not possible. Since predicted loading of trash was not evaluated with the models, a comparison of allowable pollutant loading with predicted pollutant loading for trash is not possible. Recommended BMPs will include components to capture trash and alternatives such as street sweeping, are discussed later in this chapter. 7.2.5 Ranking of Subareas In developing the final ranking of the hydrologic units or subbasins, a numeric ranking system was developed to determine subbasin priority index, a prioritization score on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest priority. The following steps were used to develop the subbasin priority index: 1. Calculate annual pollutant load for existing land use conditions. 2. Calculate theoretical maximum subbasin pollutant load (maxLoad). The theoretical maximum subbasin pollutant load is the land use condition in a subbasin that will generate maximum pollutant loads. In this analysis, commercial land use condition is identified to give the theoretical maximum TP and TKN loads. For TSS, the high- City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY M ASTER PLAN December 2011 7-31 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) density residential land use condition is used to calculate the theoretical maximum TSS load. 3. Normalize Step 1 values by Step 2 values. 4. Calculate subbasin score by multiplying Step 3 values by 5. 5. Determine SPI by rounding Step 4 values to next highest integer (e.g., report result of 1.1 as 2). 6. Generate SPI maps. The SPI maps generated for TP and TKN were presented earlier in the chapter with the discussion on the results of the PLOAD model on Figure 7.8 through Figure 7.9. It should be noted that the predictions from PLOAD strongly depend on the accuracy of the impervious values by land use type and the EMC data. Although the PLOAD model allows for the evaluation of the effects of BMPs, it does not consider the spatial location of these BMPs, and it relies on literature values of effectiveness to determine the sum of pollutant removal by all the BMPs within a watershed. The City may continue to use PLOAD as a screening tool, but a more sophisticated modeling tools such as P8 and SUSTAIN are needed to address the land use planning and stormwater management demands placed on the City. The P8 subareas were also prioritized using the two methods explained above. The SPI maps generated for the subareas are presented earlier in the chapter with the discussion on the results of the P8 model on Figure 7.10 through Figure 7.12. The subarea prioritization for all three evaluated NPS pollutants resulted in the following ranking depicted in Figure 7.16:  Subarea DC-S4.  Subarea DC-S3.  Subarea DC-S2.  Subarea HL-S3.  Subarea HL-S2. The highest ranked subbasins predicted by PLOAD are all located in these subareas. The screening procedure included in PLAT provides a technique to support the decision making process for City staff for a variety of stormwater program objectives. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates Los Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure 7.16High Priority SubareasStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles P8 Subareasby PriorityLow Priority High Priority PLOAD Subbasin City Boundary Ocean Local StreetStreetsby TypeFreeway Major Roads pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_7.16.mxd City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY M ASTER PLAN December 2011 7-33 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.3 BMP TREATMENT OPTIONS TMDLs and other regulatory requirements mandate that treatment controls address the pollutants of concern. Treatment options can generally be categorizes as non-structural BMPs and structural BMPs. Each category is described briefly below. 7.3.1 Structural BMPs The most common structural treatment BMPs along with the pollutants of concern addressed by each are listed in Table 7.4. This table provides a qualitative summary of the effectiveness of each BMP to address the various categories of pollutants of concern. Table 7.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection Matrix Pollutant of Concern Treatment Control BMP Categories(1) Catch Basin Inserts Bioretention Hydrodynamic Separators Infiltration Wet Ponds Wetlands Sediment M H M H H H Nutrients L M L H M H Trash M H M H H H Trace Metals L H M H H H Organics L H M H H H Bacteria L H M H H H Notes: (1) Efficiency: H =65% – 100%; M = 30% – 60% and L = <30% As currently planned, stormwater runoff from all high priority subareas within the City will be routed to structural treatment BMPs. These treatment BMPs, when combined with source control and non-structural BMPs are anticipated to address all of the pollutants of concern. The results of this study were used as a screening tool for selecting the most efficient placement of these structural BMPs. Based on the subarea ranking described in Section 7.2.5, it can be concluded that the middle portions of the Dominguez Channel watershed area are contributing the largest total amount of TN, TP, and TSS pollution. These high pollutant concentration areas are mainly due to the high imperviousness of these subbasins as a result of heavy manufacturing activity. In addition, there are subbasins with significant pollutant contribution per unit area in the Harbor Lakes watershed. There are several subbasins in subarea HL-S3 comprised mainly of business, commercial, and roadway land uses, which have much higher pollutant loads per unit area than the rest of the City. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 7-34 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Based on model results, subbasins in Walteria Lake watershed have the lowest annual pollutant load per unit area for TP, TN, and TSS. Therefore, when considering BMP placement, these subbasins would not be considered good candidates for BMPs as their annual pollutant loading rates per unit area are low. In addition, Walteria Lake provides treatment to pollutant loads generated from this watershed. It should be noted that sediment within Walteria Lake is a source of pollutants. BMPs located upstream of Walteria Lake would do little to reduce the pollutant load from sediment within Walteria Lake. Based on the high pollutant concentration areas as well as the subbasin and subarea ranking, the following subareas appear to be the top priority areas for treatment considerations, as presented in Figure 7.16. Thus, recommendations for BMP siting and placement will carefully consider these subareas.  Dominguez Channel Watershed: - Subbasin DC-S4. - Subbasin DC-S3. - Subbasin DC-S2.  Harbor Lakes Watershed: - Subbasin HL-S3. - Subbasin HL-S2. 7.3.2 Non-Structural and Source Control BMPs In addition to the many structural BMPs that may be used to reduce the pollutants found in stormwater, there are a large number of non-structural activities that are also effective. These are often referred to as "good housekeeping" measures. Most of these activities fall into categories such as preventing the exposure of materials to rain (covering), preventing spills from entering the conveyance system (containment), and general good housekeeping measures. Non-structural BMPs may be implemented in several ways. For example, ordinances may be used to control the application of pesticides and herbicides. Public education may teach proper use of household chemicals including fertilizers. Spill prevention planning can be used to reduce problems caused by large spills of chemicals. Most non-structural methods are not designed to decrease the rate of stormwater runoff, but to limit pollution. Their effectiveness varies widely and is difficult to quantify with any accuracy. 7.3.2.1 Street Sweeping Sweeping removes debris and particulates from paved surfaces; it does not decrease the peak or volume of stormwater runoff. Pollutants targeted by street sweeping include sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, bacteria, oil and grease, and organics. The pollutant removal effectiveness is dependent on the sweeper technology and frequency of cleaning, as well as posting and enforcement of “No Parking” signs. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY M ASTER PLAN December 2011 7-35 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Street sweepers usually have a rotating brush, but may also have a vacuum or jets for washing. The City uses jets and vacuum sweepers. However, the City has not installed signage in order to clear parked vehicles during street sweeping in about 90 percent of the City. This results in only being able to clean the center of the streets in many places, missing the sides of the streets where trash and debris collects. Sweeping is one of the best methods for removing stormwater pollutants in urban areas. This source control type of activity removes pollutants before the runoff enters the stormwater collection system or receiving waters. It is recommended that the City install signage throughout the City to maximize the pollutant reducing effectiveness of its street sweeping activities. Restrictions on street sweeper operation are primarily due to traffic patterns, posting of “No Parking” signs, and costs. For instance, state highway departments may be restricted by the amount of time that lanes can be blocked on highways for street sweeping. On residential streets, clearing the street of parked vehicles can also be difficult. Street sweepers require a high capital investment, thus limiting the number of sweepers available to a community. Figure 7.17 shows how sediment removal efficiency is related to the frequency of sweeping. Removal efficiency continues to improve with more frequent sweeping, with the maximum efficiency point lying between weekly and monthly sweeping. Increasing the frequency beyond once per week provides limited additional benefit. Source: (Sutherland, 1998) Figure 7.17 Impact of Street Sweeping Frequency on Sediment Removal City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 7-36 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.3.2.2 Catch Basins Catch basins may be designed with or without a bottom compartment that is designed to trap particulates. Without the trap, the catch basin does not remove any pollutants, and requires little maintenance. With the trap and regular cleaning, the catch basin will remove coarser particulates. Catch basins may also be constructed to trap oils and floatable trash. A drop inlet catch basin has a goose-necked outlet pipe that maintains a semi-permanent pool, trapping floatables, oils, and coarse solids. EPA estimates of unit costs for typical pre- cast catch basins are between $2,000 and $3,000 (EPA, 2006). Due to the built out nature of the City’s service area, it is not anticipated that many new catch basins will be built in the future. Thus, revising standard catch basin designs to incorporate a bottom compartment for trapping particulates is not anticipated to result in significant reductions in pollutant loading. 7.3.2.3 Inlet/Catch Basin Inserts Inlet/catch basin inserts are devices that are placed within a stormwater inlet or catch basin to trap pollutants. They are designed to improve pollutant removal by inserting a series of trays, absorbent material, or filters between the catch basin inlet and the outlet pipe. A number of catch basin inserts are available on the market, including BioClean Environmental’s Curb Inlet Basket, Kristar’s FloGard Plus, United Storm Water, Inc.’s DrainPac, and Contec’s Triton. The most common type is a fabric liner or sock. A more complex device is an arrangement of trays that have wells for sediment removal and high-flow bypass capability. Field testing of inserts has shown varying degrees of effectiveness. In general, rigid inserts allow the washing out of particulates after a few storms. Fabric inserts are more effective at trapping particulates, but are usually temporary in nature and require more frequent maintenance. It can be used with any standard configuration of inlet. EPA estimates for effectiveness of catch basin inserts for TSS removal ranges widely. One study estimated a removal rate of about 32 percent while another study evaluating small storms estimates a removal rate from 60 to 97 percent. Estimates for metals (copper, specifically) were about 3 to 4 percent based on annual cleaning (EPA, 2006). A related type of BMP to the catch basin insert are screen covers, which can either be installed on the outside of curb inlet openings as a fixed cover or as retractable covers inside the catch basin inlet that can be adjusted manually or automatically. Automatic retractable screen covers remain closed during dry weather and open during wet weather events based on stormwater flow levels. Manually retractable screen covers must be manually closed and opened (generally this would be done seasonally to prevent clogging during stormwater events). The primary advantage of screens is that debris and trash are effectively collected outside of the catch basin where they can be removed by street sweeping. Screen covers are intended to target trash and debris, and generally do not City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY M ASTER PLAN December 2011 7-37 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) capture fine sediment, metals, or oil and grease. However, screen covers can be combined with other catch basin inserts, reducing the frequency of cleaning the catch basin inserts. The cost per catch basin can be relatively low, but each catch basin treats only a small drainage area, so the capital cost of the entire drainage system may be high. Typical costs per catch basin can range from $400 for the simplest types, up to $10,000 for the more complex inserts (EPA, 2006). Based on the City’s experience during its catch basin insert pilot testing program, preliminary cost estimates for incorporating catch basins inserts into catch basins throughout the City was estimated as $2.5 million. The operational costs are largely dependent on the frequency of cleaning, but can be fairly intensive given the number of catch basins within the City. 7.3.2.4 Modular Wetlands Modular wetlands are a hybrid stormwater treatment system incorporating multiple treatment technologies into a single packaged system. Modular Wetlands Systems’ MWS- Linear model integrates screening, hydrodynamic separation, media filtration, and bioretention along with a high flow bypass into a pre-cast concrete structure, typically 5 feet by 22 feet. The module supports landscape vegetation, typically drought tolerant plants or native vegetation. Modular wetlands are designed to remove several pollutants, including TSS, hydrocarbons, dissolved metals, dissolved nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorous, and pathogens. Based on manufacturers bench scale testing, modular wetlands are fairly effective at removal of TSS, hydrocarbons, and turbidity, with removal rates between 93 and 100 percent. Removal of dissolved metals is also good, with removal rates between 80 and 93 percent for copper, lead, and zinc. Removal of phosphorous is estimated at 22 percent, and bacteria at about 60 percent. Modular Wetlands Systems’ MWS-Linear model is sized for a peak flow rate of 0.27 cfs, with a treatment volume of 4,000 ft3, and the modular system is sized to fit in a typical parking lot curb or street median. Maintenance of modular wetlands can be accomplished by hand or vacuum truck. Four stages within the hybrid system have individual cleaning requirements, each consecutive stage requires less frequent cleaning. The first two stages are screening and hydrodynamic separation, for which cleaning consists of removing debris. Cleaning of the third stage consists of replacing the filtration media, and is typically completed annually. The fourth stage, the vegetated media, is typically replaced after five to twenty years. Based on the City’s required treatment volumes, it is anticipated that use of modular wetlands would not be economically feasible if implemented on a City-wide basis, especially considering the ongoing costs of replacement of filtration media. However, these systems may be a good option for small catchment areas or individual sites. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 7-38 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.4 BMP SITING PLAN Modification of existing detention basins into BMPs represents a low cost approach to developing BMPs to reduce the City’s pollutant load. However, existing detention basins were designed based on water capacity considerations rather than water quality, thus the placement and potential use of existing detention basins is limited. Therefore, additional BMP sites to address water quality treatment needs were identified in this study. The existing detention basin sites are shown (in green) on Figure 7.18. The site selection process was expanded through a reconnaissance of study area for potential new BMP sites. Site evaluations included an initial feasibility investigation, followed by a more detailed site investigation. A feasibility investigation was performed to determine the locations of surplus areas owned by City in the study area. Potential sites from this initial investigation are shown on Figure 7.18. The feasibility investigation started by reviewing topographic maps to verify that identified sites were located at or near the low point of the associated subbasin drainage. Candidate sites from the feasibility phase were further investigated to determine available site area, estimated tributary watershed. Adequacy of the site was determined by estimating the required basin surface area (a function of tributary area, 0.5 percent was used). If these criteria were satisfied, further site investigation was completed, such as reviews of soil conditions and drainage plans. Finally, the site information was evaluated using a weighted decision matrix. Each site was evaluated and compared with respect to several different criteria. The criteria were weighted according to their importance and relevance to the site selection process. The most important criteria were:  Sufficient area (without substantial improvement).  Location away from building foundations and highway pavement.  Proximity to receiving waters.  Ease of maintenance access.  Availability of a perennial water source.  Treatment or inclusion of high priority subbasins Each site scored 1 to 10 with respect to each criterion. The site's total score was the sum of the individual scores, multiplied by the weighting factors associated with that criterion. Based on this scoring, the selected locations for wet weather BMPs and low flow diversion BMPs are depicted on Figure 7.19 and Figure 7.20, respectively. Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Ch a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdColumbia Park Wilson ParkMadrona Marsh Preserve Lomita Park De Portola Park Torrance Park Guenser Park Las Canchas Tennis Facility Sur la Brea Park Alta Loma Park Mc Master Park Walteria Park Park HL-11 Los Arboles "Rocketship" Park Descanso Park La Carretera Park Greenwood Park El Prado Park City Kids Child Care Center Figure 7.18Potential BMP Siting LocationsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LegendPotential BMP LocationDetention BasinsRetention BasinsBodies of WaterStorm DrainFreewayMajor Roads Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Cha n n e l Hawthorne Blvd Artesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWilson Park Guenser Park Sur la Brea Park McMasterPark Torrance Little League El Prado Park ColumbiaPark TorranceAirport Del Amo/Van Ness Crenshaw/Skypark De Portola Park HL SubRegion 1 DC SubRegion 3 HL SubRegion 4 HL SubRegion 5 HL SubRegion 2 DC SubRegion 1 HL SubRegion 6 DC SubRegion 7 DC SubRegion 5 DC SubRegion 6 DC SubRegion 2 DC SubRegion 4 HL SubRegion 3 HL SubRegion 5 DC SubRegion 1 DC SubRegion 7 54"54" Figure 7.19Selected Wet WeatherBMP SitesStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance00.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow Direction FreewayMajor RoadsStudy Area OthersRetention BasinDetention BasinBodies of Water Recommendations Pump Station Force Main Recommended BMP Locations pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_7.19.mxdTributary Area for each BMP or Diversion Indicated by Background Color BMP SubRegions (Tributary Areas) SubRegionID SubRegionID Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Channel Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdCrenshaw/Skypark Torrance Blvd Median El Camino College Parking Lot New Basin New DC Infiltration Basin Lincoln Elementary School SCE Yard Torrance Airport El Prado Park McMaster Park ExxonMobil Basin Guenser Park De Portola Park Wilson Park Well 8 Q12 Q11 Q07 Q10Q09 Q06 Q27 Q28 Q20Q19 Q21 12"18"30" 24"15"12"12"12"15" Q21 Q26 Q12 Q06 Q19 Q01Q27 Q18Q05 Q28 Q25 Q23 Q17 Q20Q13 Q02Q16 Q21 Q15 Q18 Q07 Q12 Q20 Q10 Q24 Q11 Q22 Q19 Q28 Q27 Q13 Q05 Q06 Q02 Q23 Q08 Q01 Q26 Q25 Q09 Q14 Q04 Q03 Figure 7.20Recommended Low FlowDiversion BMP SitesStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow Direction FreewayMajor Roads OthersDetention BasinsRetention BasinsBodies of Water Recommendations Pump Station Force Main Recommended BMP Locations Study Area Tributary Area for BMP or Diversion Indicated by Background Color BMP SubRegions SubRegionID SubRegionID City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-45 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.4.1 Regional and Distributed BMPs For the purposes of this analysis, BMPs have been divided into two categories:  Regional/subregional BMPs: centralized stormwater facilities, typically placed near the outlet of a catchment (a drainage area of approximately 40 acres) or subwatershed (a group of catchments with a common outlet) and designed to treat stormwater from a relatively large drainage area (order of magnitude, approximately 100 acres).  Distributed BMPs or source area practices: stormwater devices and landscaping practices dispersed throughout a catchment and typically serving relatively small drainage areas (order of magnitude, approximately 10 acres), such as a large single parcel, rooftop, or section of roadway Parcel data was used to identify and prioritize opportunities for implementation of both regional and distributed BMP types. Parcel data used to distinguishing public and private ownership and, if public, owner agency. The parcel data was quarried to include all public parcels and to exclude any private parcels below a minimum size. By overlaying the parcel dataset with the land-use data, parcels were classified as open space, residential, or other developed based on land use. Residential parcels were dropped from the analysis, as it was assumed that stormwater management for these parcels was best addressed through institutional BMPs. Maps and catchment scores for the two types of BMP opportunities were generated: Regional/sub-regional BMPs are defined here as structural treatment or volume mitigation BMPs implemented at the subwatershed or catchment scales. Distributed/onsite BMPs are defined here as structural treatment or volume mitigation BMPs implemented at the neighborhood, parcel or site scale. The following criteria were used:  Regional/Subregional BMP Opportunity Scoring: - Identify large (e.g., >1 acre) open space parcels located near storm drains or channels, assigning 0 to all areas not selected; - For selected parcels, assign individual regional opportunity scores: 5 for all City- or County-owned public parcels, 4 for all other-owned public parcels (schools/universities, state and federal facilities, utilities, and highway corridors), and 2 for all private commercial or industrial parcels; assign 0 for all others (e.g., residential). City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-46 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I)  Distributed/Onsite BMP Opportunity Scoring: - Identify large (i.e., >1 acre area) developed parcels, including all roadway areas; - For these parcels, assign individual distributed opportunity scores of 5 for all large City- or County-owned public parcels or “major” roadways, 4 for all other- owned public parcels (schools/universities, state and federal facilities, utilities, and “minor” roadways), and 2 for all private commercial or industrial parcels; assign 0 for all non-highlighted distributed opportunity parcels. Recommended Wet Weather BMP sites for the high priority areas are as follows:  Subbasin DC-S4: Wilson Park and Torrance Blvd. Median  Subbasin DC-S3: ExxonMobil Detention Basin (existing basin)  Subbasin DC-S2: Wilson Park, El Prado Park, and Torrance Blvd. Median  Subbasin HL-S3: Torrance Airport and intersection of Crenshaw/Skypark  Subbasin HL-S2: De Portola Park As listed above, existing detention basins (though privately owned) were found to be useable for one high priority subbasin (DC-S3). Public facilities, including Wilson Park, El Prado Park, Torrance Airport, and De Portola Park were identified for most of the remaining high-priority subbasins. One BMP was sited in the public right of way near the intersection of Crenshaw and Skypark. The remaining high priority BMP was sited on private property near Torrance Blvd. Subregional and source area practices are discussed in Section 7.6. 7.5 BMP DESIGN As described in the preceding chapters, storm water runoff has the potential of introducing pollutants (nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, suspended solids, metals, gasoline and other toxics) to the storm water conveyance system and, ultimately, the receiving water body. Pollutants of concern exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Current loadings or historic deposits of the pollutant are impacting the beneficial uses of receiving water bodies. 2. Elevated levels of the pollutant are found in sediments of receiving water body and/or have the potential to bioaccumulate in organisms therein. 3. The detectable inputs of the pollutant are at a concentrations or loads considered potentially toxic to humans and habitats. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-47 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) The overall objective of the SQMP is compliance with the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL. and Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. The primary objective, therefore, is to remove nutrients from the existing stormdrains. Additional objectives are to remove pollutants other than nutrients, such as suspended solids, trash, metals, particulates, and bacteria. It is anticipated that pollutant loading of pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and pathogens are reduced through the implementation of BMPs addressing suspended solids. In selection of BMP types, the City has emphasized its intent to maximize reuse of stormwater, focusing BMP efforts on retention and infiltration where possible. This emphasis is underscored by the City’s sustainability objectives and focus on LID within the General Plan. These objectives may in general be met by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) or a combination thereof. The main elements of BMPs proposed for the City of Torrance include:  Diversion of off-site stormwater from existing stormdrain system to the BMP project site.  Pretreatment of diverted stormwater through hydrodynamic separators or properly designed forebays.  Retention of pretreated stormwater in one underground detention tanks. Return of excess treated stormwater to the stormdrain during dry-weather conditions is another potential element of BMPs. However, this was not used within the City’s planned BMPs due to the City’s emphasis on sustainability and maximizing reuse of stormwater. The proposed BMPs may improve the beneficial and recreational uses of receiving water bodies, reduce potential risks for human safety and health, reduce beach closures, preserve aquatic marine and plant habitats, and benefit tourism industry. This project will also assist the City with meeting new requirements of the stormwater NPDES permit to reduce pollutant levels in the receiving waters. 7.5.1 BMP Sizing Unlike flood control measures that are designed to handle peak flow rates, stormwater treatment control BMPs are designed to treat the more frequent, lower-flow rate storm events, or the first flush portion of runoff from larger storm events. For the City’s service area, small, frequent storm events represent most of the total average annual rainfall. The flow rate and volume from such small events will need to be targeted for treatment. The primary control strategy for designing treatment control BMPs is to treat the stormwater quality design flow or the stormwater quality design volume of the stormwater runoff. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-48 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Flow based treatment BMPs treat water on a continuous flow basis. Examples include vegetated swales, hydrodynamic separators and screened systems. Sizing of a flow based treatment BMP is based on the stormwater quality flow. The stormwater quality flow is also used to size stormwater lift stations. Volumetric-based stormwater quality BMPs, such as infiltration systems and wetlands, are sized based on a stormwater quality design volume. The Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual (LAC, 2009) recommends use of an 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event as one of four options for calculation of the design storm to size LID BMPs. This SQMP has used this criterion for the sizing of the City‘s BMPs. The following two subsections explain how the stormwater quality design flow and the volume were calculated. 7.5.1.1 Stormwater Quality Design Flow Calculation The stormwater quality design flow can be estimated from one of three methods listed below.  Ten percent of the 50-year peak flow rate; or  The flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths;  The flow of runoff from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity Stormwater treatment BMPs designed using any of the three methods specified above, when properly applied, will be in compliance with the NPDES permit’s requirements. In this study, the 85th percent method was used to estimate stormwater quality flow. First, the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity was determined from Figure 7.21, which was developed for the City. From the figure, the 85th percentile intensity is 0.123 inches per hour. The stormwater quality flow was then calculated using the rational method: 𝑄𝑤𝑞=𝐶 ∗ 𝐼 ∗ 𝐴 Where: C = runoff coefficient obtained from Table 7.5 I = rainfall intensity (2 x 0.123 in/hr) A = area of the site or sub-drainage area in acres. Qwq = stormwater quality flow in cfs City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-49 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Table 7.5 Runoff Coefficients Based on Impervious/Pervious Area Ratios Percent Impervious Percent Pervious Runoff Coefficient “C” 0 100 0.15 5 95 0.19 10 90 0.23 15 85 0.26 20 80 0.30 25 75 0.34 30 70 0.38 35 65 0.41 40 60 0.45 45 55 0.49 50 50 0.53 55 45 0.56 60 40 0.60 65 35 0.64 70 30 0.68 75 25 0.71 80 20 0.75 85 15 0.79 90 10 0.83 95 5 0.86 100 0 0.90 The calculation is presented in Table 7.6, with high priority subareas highlighted and listed first. Figure 7.21 Rainfall Intensity 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00Rainfall (inches)Time of Day City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-50 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Table 7.6 Calculation of Stormwater Quality Design Flow Subarea Area (ac) Percent Impervious Runoff Coefficient Stormwater Quality Design Flow (cfs) DC-S2 492 64% 0.63 76.3 DC-S3 689 67% 0.66 111.2 DC-S4 114 44% 0.48 13.5 HL-S2 247 62% 0.62 37.6 HL-S3 99 40% 0.45 11.0 DC-S1 1,506 66% 0.65 240.1 DC-S5 233 57% 0.58 33.0 DC-S6 319 64% 0.63 49.6 DC-S7 1,399 74% 0.70 242.3 HL-S1 297 61% 0.61 44.4 HL-S4 348 58% 0.59 50.3 HL-S5 921 62% 0.62 140.2 HL-S6 155 64% 0.63 24.1 Note: 1. High priority subareas are shaded in grey. 7.5.1.2 Stormwater Quality Design Volume Calculation Hydrologic calculation for design of volumetric-based stormwater quality BMPs was based on Los Angeles County procedures. The calculation procedure consists of the following four steps: 1. Review the area draining to the proposed BMP and determine the percentages of drainage area that is considered impervious. 2. Use Table 7.5 to determine the runoff coefficient for the drainage area. 3. Use runoff coefficient and Figure 7.22 to estimate the Unit Storage Volume required for 80% annual capture of runoff. 4. The basin volume or basic volume of the BMP is then calculated by multiplying the Unit Basin Volume by the BMP’s drainage area. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-51 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Figure 7.22 Volumetric BMP Sizing Curve The results of the stormwater design volume calculations are summarized in Table 7.7. The high priority subareas are listed first and shaded in grey. Table 7.7 Calculation of Stormwater Quality Design Volume Subarea Area (ac) Percent Impervious Runoff Coefficient Unit Storage Volume (in) Stormwater Quality Design Volume (MG) DC-S2 492 64% 0.63 0.66 8.9 DC-S3 689 67% 0.66 0.69 12.9 DC-S4 114 44% 0.48 0.51 1.6 HL-S2 247 62% 0.62 0.65 4.4 HL-S3 99 40% 0.45 0.48 1.3 DC-S1 1,506 66% 0.65 0.68 27.9 DC-S5 233 57% 0.58 0.61 3.8 DC-S6 319 64% 0.63 0.67 5.8 DC-S7 1,399 74% 0.70 0.74 28.1 HL-S1 297 61% 0.61 0.64 5.2 HL-S4 348 58% 0.59 0.62 5.8 HL-S5 921 62% 0.62 0.65 16.3 HL-S6 155 64% 0.63 0.67 2.8 Note: 1. High priority subareas are shaded in grey. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-52 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.6 RECOMMENDED STORMWATER TREATMENT PRACTICES Recommendations for stormwater treatment practices are made separately for wet weather and low flow diversion approaches. For each of the recommended BMPs, tributary areas were delineated that are also referred to as Sub Regions. The Sub Regions for wet weather BMPs and low flow diversion BMPs are depicted on Figure 7.19 and Figure 7.20, respectively. 7.6.1 Selection of Wet Weather Stormwater Treatment Practices Subregional BMPs were selected to achieve the water quality goals for this project. Several types of source area practices (distributed BMPs) cover each of the types of source areas. A number of source area practices include both proprietary and non-proprietary practices with a range of nutrient and TSS removal. These represent a number of treatment processes, such as infiltration, bio-retention cells, retention, and hydrodynamic separators. The criteria for selecting subregional and source practices included the availability of good data to verify effectiveness of practices, preliminary cost information, and some experience with practices in Los Angeles County. Subregional Practices Infiltration systems were selected as the first option for subregional practices as they met all the criteria for the selection of treatment practices. Many infiltration systems have been successfully installed in Los Angeles County and infiltration systems have been used by many cities in the region, including the City of Los Angeles, as a way to meet goals for TMDL, MS4 permit requirements, and flood control. It is anticipated that infiltration systems will meet future MS4 permit requirements regarding LID. Source Area Source area practices selected for this project include bio-retention cells and hydrodynamic separators. The nutrient reduction capabilities of bio-retention cells have been verified by a number studies based on modeling and field data. Potential general locations generally used to implement source area practices are large parking lots, industrial parcels, and business areas. Because such properties are generally private in nature, the City would need to negotiate with the property owners in order to implement source area practices. Because of the uncertainty associated with negotiating with private entities, and the requirements to meet TMDL and MS4 permit requirements discussed in Chapter 3, only subregional practices are discussed in the following sections. If the City is able to successfully implement source area controls, the overall capital cost needed to implement subregional practices is anticipated to decrease. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-53 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.6.1.1 Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Plan Based on the stormwater system layout and the prioritization of subareas discussed in Section 7.2.5, the Dominguez Channel watershed is divided into seven subregions, or tributary areas, for BMP treatment. Stormwater runoff from each of the subregions will be diverted to an offline facility for treatment. The selected BMP locations for the Dominguez Channel watershed are displayed on Figure 7.19 along with the subregion for each BMP. In all, six locations were selected for subregional BMP implementation for the seven subregions. Table 7.8 provides a summary of the recommended BMP for each sub-region, along with the major project elements of each BMP. Subregions 3, 5, 6, and 7 fall within high priority subareas and are shaded in grey. Table 7.8 Identified BMPs in Dominguez Channel Watershed Project Area Type of BMP Project Elements Sub Region 1 Infiltration • Stormwater lift station. • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping • 54-inch diameter pipeline Sub Region 2 Infiltration • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 3 None (Diverted along with Sub Region 7) • n/a Sub Region 4 Detention/Infiltration • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 5 Infiltration Trench • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 6 Detention/Infiltration • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 7 Detention/Infiltration • Stormwater lift station. • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping • 54-inch diameter pipeline Note: 1. Sub regions that fall within high priority subareas are shaded in grey. The following sections describe the general concept of each subregional BMP. However, detailed information on the specific layout of each site will need to be developed during the preliminary design phase of each project. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-54 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Sub Region 1 – Infiltration BMP at Guenser Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 1,506 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with average imperviousness of about 66 percent. The runoff coefficient is about 0.65. Much of the stormwater from this subregion is conveyed by the Dominguez Channel. The upstream sections of Sub Region 1 drainage area discharging into Dominguez Channel prior to the proposed diversion structure and lift station location may present construction challenges. BMP placement and BMP siting analyses show that the selected location provides optimum results. However, since diversion of stormwater from the Dominguez Channel would represent a significant design and construction challenge, three alternatives have been developed to reduce pollutant loading from Sub Region 1. Alternative 1 - Diversion from Dominguez Channel to Guenser Park This project alternative proposes the installation of:  Stormwater lift station.  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping  Conveyance Piping to route water quality flow to Guenser Park. Off-site surface runoff will be pumped from both the Dominguez Channel and the existing 54-inch diameter pipeline south of Western Avenue and Artesia intersection to the stormwater lift station. The raw stormwater will be conveyed in a 54-inch diameter pipe to Guenser Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration basin. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 1 is about 240 cfs, which would require a a large stormwater lift station. To reduce the size of the lift station, Alternative 1 would split Sub Region 1 into two subareas to be served by two smaller lift stations. In this case, one pump station will serve only flow diverted from Dominguez Channel and the other lift station will serve diverted flow from the 54-inch diameter pipeline along Western Avenue. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-55 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Alternative 2 – Small scale Bioretention Projects This project alternative focuses on smaller bioretention projects distributed around Sub Region 1. Stormwater would be diverted from the major stormdrains within Sub Region 1 and routed to the individual bioretention sites. Implementation of source area BMPs, especially bioretention cells, in this area is anticipated to require expensive and prolonged process of property acquisition as there is insufficient open space in the area for optimal BMP placement. Alternative 3 – Catch Basin Inserts This alternative consists of catch basin inserts as an alternative for components of BMPs to treat pollutants from this sub-region. While installation of catch basin inserts is anticipated to decrease the design and construction challenges significantly, the operations and maintenance costs for cleaning the catch basin inserts could be significant (based on results of the City’s catch basin insert pilot program). However, these efforts may be more amenable if focused on the smaller sub region rather than the City’s entire service area and may represent a more economical alternative. The pollutant reducing performance of the catch basin inserts should be compared with the various WLAs assigned to the City in the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL during the preparations for the implementation phase of the TMDL to verify that the catch basin inserts adequately address pollutant loading associated with the WLAs. The wet weather capital improvement program presented in Chapter 9 is based on the implementation of Alternative 1. Sub Region 2 – Infiltration BMP at McMaster Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 492 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with an average imperviousness of about 64 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.63. The Sub Region 2 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping Stormwater will be diverted at McMaster Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration basin. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 2 is estimated to be 76 cfs. It is anticipated that flow diversion will be sufficient to convey flow into the infiltration basin. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-56 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Sub Region 3 – Del Amo / Van Ness The total drainage of this sub-region is about 689 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with an average imperviousness of about 67 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.66. A hydrodynamic separator is recommended to discharge to a proposed wetlands at the identified location near the intersection of Del Amo and Van Ness. Sub Region 4 – Retention BMP at Columbia Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 114 acres. This sub-region is less impervious with an average imperviousness of about 44 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.48. The Sub Region 4 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Retention basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping Stormwater will be diverted at Columbia Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the retention basin. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 4 is estimated to be 13 cfs. It is anticipated that flow diversion will be sufficient to convey flow into the retention basin. Sub Region 5 – Infiltration Trench BMP at El Prado Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 233 acres. This sub-region is fairly impervious with an average imperviousness of about 57 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.58. The Sub Region 4 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration trench.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping Figure 7.23 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-57 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Stormwater will be diverted at El Prado Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration trench. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 5 is estimated to be 33 cfs. It is anticipated that flow diversion will be sufficient to convey flow into the infiltration trench. Sub Region 6 – Infiltration BMP at Wilson Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 319 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with an average imperviousness of about 64 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.63. The Sub Region 6 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping Stormwater will be diverted at Wilson Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration basin. Flow from Sub Region 7 will also be diverted to this site. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 6 is estimated to be 50 cfs. It is anticipated that flow diversion will be sufficient to convey flow into the infiltration basin. Sub Region 7 – Infiltration BMP at Wilson Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 1,399 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with average imperviousness of about 74 percent. The runoff coefficient is about 0.70. The Sub Region 7 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Stormwater lift station.  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping  Conveyance Piping to route water quality flow to Wilson Park Off-site surface runoff will be pumped from the existing 75-inch pipe in Torrance Boulevard to the stormwater lift station. The raw stormwater will be conveyed in a 54-inch pipe to Wilson Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration basin. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-58 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) The total water quality flow from Sub Region 7 is about 242 cfs, requiring a large stormwater lift station. Walteria Lake Watershed All of Walteria Lake Watershed drains to Walteria Lake, which is about 1,005 acre-feet. The total surface area of the lake is about 25.4 acres with a total cumulative tributary area of approximately 2,533 acres. The composite runoff coefficient of the drainage area is about 0.6 with the corresponding water quality capture volume of about 0.61 inches. Therefore, the water quality volume required for all the tributary area of Walteria Lake is about 129 acre-feet. This demonstrates that there is adequate capacity in the Lake to treat runoff from all the tributary areas, and therefore no new BMPs are needed in this watershed. 7.6.1.2 Harbor Lakes Watershed The selected BMP locations for the Harbor Lakes watershed are displayed on Figure 7.19 along with tributary areas for each BMP. Table 7.8 provides a summary of the recommended BMP for each sub-region, along with the major project elements of each BMP. Subregion 4 falls within high priority subareas and is shaded in grey. In all, five locations were selected for subregional BMP implementation. Table 7.9 Identified BMPs in Harbor Lakes Watershed Project Area Type of BMP Project Elements Sub Region 1 Underground Infiltration • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping • Hydrodynamic separator Sub Region 2 Underground Infiltration • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 3 Wetland • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 4 Retention • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping Sub Region 5 Infiltration • Stormwater lift station. • Flow diversion facility. • Overflow piping • 54-inch diameter pipeline Sub Region 6 Hydrodynamic Separator • Stormwater lift station. • Flow diversion facility. • Hydrodynamic separator. • Overflow piping • 24-inch diameter pipeline Note: 1. Sub regions that fall within high priority subareas are shaded in grey. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-59 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) The following sections describe the general concept of each subregional BMP. However, detailed information on the specific layout of each site will need to be developed during the preliminary design phase of each project. Sub Regions 1 and 2 – Infiltration BMP at Torrance Airport The total drainage of these sub-regions is about 544 acres. These sub-regions are highly impervious with an average imperviousness of around 62 percent. The Sub Region 1 and 2 Stormwater BMP projects propose the installation of:  Two flow diversion facilities.  Underground infiltration basin.  Hydrodynamic separator (for pretreatment)  Overflow Piping Stormwater will be diverted to the Torrance Airport for underground infiltration. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the by a hydrodynamic separator before discharging into the infiltration basin. Figure 7.24 Torrance Airport Figure 7.25 Plastic Infill Underground Detention System Figure 7.26 Underground Infiltration System Figure 7.27 Diversion in Crenshaw Boulevard City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-60 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Underground infiltration is required at the airport to minimize the congregation of birds, which would be a danger to the aircraft. Underground detention and infiltration systems come in many configurations. Plastic infill underground detention systems include a free- form structure encased in a plastic liner. Major vendors of these systems include Rainstore, StormCell®, ADS (StormTech), and Infiltrator. The flow diversion structure for Sub Region 1 will need to be constructed underneath Crenshaw Boulevard. The flow diversion structure for Sub Region 2 can be constructed within Torrance Airport, as the existing storm drain crosses the airport. The total water quality flow from Sub Regions 1 and 2 is estimated to be 82 cfs. It is anticipated that flow diversion will be sufficient to convey flow into the infiltration basin. Sub Region 3 – Wetland BMP at De Portola Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 99 acres. This sub-region is less impervious with an average imperviousness of about 40 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.45. The Sub Region 3 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping Stormwater will be diverted at De Portola Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration basin. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 3 is estimated to be 11 cfs. It is anticipated that flow diversion will be sufficient to convey flow into the infiltration basin. Sub Region 4 – Hydrodynamic Separator BMP at Crenshaw and Skypark The total drainage of this sub-region is about 348 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with an average imperviousness of about 58 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.59. The Sub Region 4 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Hydrodynamic separator  Compact treatment  Overflow Piping Stormwater will be diverted by the hydrodynamic separator and treated at the location, within the sidewalk median. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-61 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) The total water quality flow from Sub Region 4 is estimated to be 50 cfs. Two 30 cfs hydrodynamic separators are recommended for this BMP. Sub Region 5 – Infiltration BMP at Sur la Brea Park The total drainage of this sub-region is about 921 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with average imperviousness of about 62 percent. The runoff coefficient is about 0.62. The Sub Region 5 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Stormwater lift station.  Flow diversion facility.  Infiltration basin.  Sediment forebay  Overflow Piping  Conveyance Piping to route water quality flow to Sur la Brea Park. Off-site surface runoff will be pumped from the existing pipeline in Western Avenue to the stormwater lift station. The raw stormwater will be conveyed in a 54-inch pipe to Sur la Brea Park for pretreatment in the forebay. Heavy sediments, oil, grease and floatable wastes will be removed in the forebay before discharging into the infiltration basin. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 5 is about 140 cfs. Sub Region 6 – Hydrodynamic Separator BMP at Torrance Little League Fields The total drainage of this sub-region is about 155 acres. This sub-region is highly impervious with an average imperviousness of about 64 percent and a runoff coefficient of about 0.63. The Sub Region 6 Stormwater BMP project proposes the installation of:  Flow diversion facility.  Hydrodynamic separator  Compact treatment  Overflow Piping Figure 7.28 Sur la Brea Park Figure 7.29 Diversion in Western Avenue City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-62 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Stormwater will be diverted by the hydrodynamic separator and treated at the location, within the sidewalk median. The total water quality flow from Sub Region 6 is estimated to be 24 cfs. One 30 cfs hydrodynamic separator is recommended for this BMP. 7.6.1.3 BMP Performance For the selected BMPs, P8 and SUSTAIN models were able to predict TSS, nutrient and other pollutant reduction of street sweeping, bio-retention and infiltration systems. Iterations of the models were used to optimize the size of the treatment systems. Reported removal values of hydrodynamic separators were inserted directly into the model. The model evaluated each BMP alone and in series, targeting volume, TSS, nutrients and other pollutants. Effectiveness was based on load reduction, event mean concentrations, and frequency of exceedances of relevant water quality standards. Model predictions of annual average pollutant loading before and after treatment is shown in Table 7.10. Table 7.10 Predicted Wet Weather BMP Efficiency Table Watershed Sub Region Pollutant Load (Ib/yr) Upstream or Pre-treatment Post-treatment TSS TN TP TSS TN TP Dominguez Channel 1 166,178 3,462 653 8,309 35 10 2 86,449 1,978 700 4,322 20 11 3 135,908 1,755 335 27,182 351 67 4 16,835 191 36 3,367 57 9 5 17,095 353 72 855 4 1 6 45,736 596 120 2,287 6 2 7 230,324 3,076 616 11,516 31 9 Total 698,525 11,411 2,532 57,838 503 109 Harbor Lakes 1 31,822 673 145 1,591 7 2 2 29,734 657 138 1,487 7 2 3 13,310 286 54 2,662 57 8 4 30,590 607 141 10,707 212 42 5 117,270 2,681 502 5,864 27 8 6 20,586 357 72 4,117 71 15 Total 243,312 5,261 1,052 26,427 381 77 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-63 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) As shown in Table 7.10, the model predicted over 95% reduction in the load discharged to surface waters for most conditions simulated; however, effectiveness was reduced slightly, to about 92%, during large storms and wet years. Although performance was similar based on load reduction and water quality standard exceedances, the latter was most sensitive to storm size. The model shows a reduction of about 70 percent in the nutrient load discharged to groundwater. The removal efficiency is predicted to increase to about 85 percent when vegetation is incorporated into the BMP design. PLAT includes all potential field sampling locations and therefore the model parameters can be easily refined or calibrated with field data. PLAT can be used by the city to understand expected BMP performance over a range of storms, time periods, and design parameters, and, perhaps more significantly, evaluate BMPs in series. 7.6.2 Selection of Low Flow Stormwater Treatment Practices Based on the significant capital cost and large capital projects associated with wet weather stormwater treatment practices discussed in Section 7.6.1, subregional BMPs were downsized to achieve the water quality goals under low flow conditions. Several types of source area practices cover each of the types of source areas. A number of source area practices include both proprietary and non-proprietary practices with a range of nutrient and TSS removal. These represent a number of treatment processes, such as infiltration, bio-retention cells, retention, and hydrodynamic separators. The criteria for selecting subregional and source practices included the availability of good data to verify effectiveness of practices, preliminary cost information, and some experience with practices in Los Angeles County. Subregional Practices Infiltration systems were selected as the first option for subregional practices as they met all the criteria for the selection of treatment practices. Many infiltration systems have been successfully installed in Los Angeles County and infiltration systems have been used by many cities in the region, including the City of Los Angeles, as a way to meet goals for TMDL, MS4 permit requirements, and flood control. It is anticipated that infiltration systems will meet future MS4 permit requirements regarding LID. Source Area Source area practices selected for this project include bio-retention cells and hydrodynamic separators. The nutrient reduction capabilities of bio-retention cells have been verified by a number studies based on modeling and field data. Potential general locations generally used to implement source area practices are large parking lots, industrial parcels, and City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-64 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) business areas. Because such properties are generally private in nature, the City would need to negotiate with the property owners in order to implement source area practices. Because of the uncertainty associated with negotiating with private entities, and the requirements to meet TMDL and MS4 permit requirements discussed in Chapter 3, only subregional practices are discussed in the following sections. If the City is able to successfully implement source area controls, the overall capital cost needed to implement subregional practices is anticipated to decrease. 7.6.2.1 Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Plan Based on the stormwater system layout and the prioritization of subareas discussed in Section 7.2.5, the Dominguez Channel watershed is divided into sixteen subregions, or tributary areas, for BMP treatment. Stormwater runoff from each of the subregions will be diverted to an offline facility for treatment. The selected BMP locations for the Dominguez Channel watershed are displayed on Figure 7.30 along with the subregion (tributary area) for each BMP. In all, twelve locations were selected for subregional BMP implementation for the sixteen subregions. Table 7.11 provides a summary of the recommended BMP for each sub-region, along with the major project elements of each BMP. Projects are identified by Map ID. Recommended BMPs Q04, Q05, Q06, Q08, Q09, Q10, Q11, and Q12, highlighted in grey, fall within high priority subareas identified earlier in this chapter. Table 7.11 Identified BMPs in Dominguez Channel Watershed Map ID Type of BMP BMP Site Project Elements Q04 Infiltration El Prado Park Diversion Structure Infiltration Q05 Detention ExxonMobil Detention Basin Diversion Structure Pipeline Q06 Detention ExxonMobil Detention Basin Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Pipeline Q07 Infiltration El Prado Park Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Pipeline Infiltration Q08 Infiltration Wilson Park Diversion Structure Infiltration Q09 Infiltration Torrance Blvd. Median Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Infiltration City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-65 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) Table 7.11 Identified BMPs in Dominguez Channel Watershed Map ID Type of BMP BMP Site Project Elements Q10 Infiltration Wilson Park Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Pipeline Infiltration Q11 Infiltration Wilson Park Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Infiltration Q12 Infiltration Wilson Park Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Pipeline Infiltration Q22 Infiltration New Infiltration Basin Diversion Structure Infiltration Basin Q23 Infiltration El Camino College Diversion Structure Pipeline Infiltration Q24 Infiltration SCE Yard Diversion Structure Infiltration Basin Q25 Infiltration Lincoln School Diversion Structure Pipeline Underground Infiltration Q26 Detention Artesia and Dominguez Channel Diversion Structure Pipeline Retention Basin Q27 Infiltration Guenser Park Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Pipeline Infiltration Q28 Infiltration McMaster Park Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station Pipeline Infiltration Note: 1. BMPs that fall within high priority subareas are shaded in grey. As shown in Table 7.11, 16 BMPs are recommended based on low flow diversion. Specific sizing of each component is included in Chapter 9. Detailed information on the specific layout of each site will need to be developed during the preliminary design phase of each project. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-66 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) 7.6.2.2 Harbor Lakes Watershed The selected BMP locations for the Harbor Lakes watershed are displayed on Figure 7.20 along with tributary areas for each BMP. Table 7.12 provides a summary of the recommended BMP for each sub-region, along with the major project elements of each BMP. In all, eight locations were selected for subregional BMP implementation for the twelve subregions. Recommended BMPs Q01, Q02, and Q03, highlighted in grey, fall within high priority subareas identified earlier in this chapter. Table 7.12 Identified BMPs in Harbor Lakes Watershed Map ID Type of BMP BMP Site Project Elements Q21 Detention / Infiltration Airport Pond Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion PS Pipeline Infiltration Site Piping and Valves Q15 Wetlands De Portola Park Diversion Structure Wetlands Q14 Infiltration Torrance Airport Diversion Structure Q16 Wetlands Torrance Airport Diversion Structure Wetlands Q01 Infiltration Torrance Airport Diversion Structure Pipeline Q02 Infiltration Torrance Airport Diversion Structure Pipeline Q03 CDS / HDS Sidewalk at Crenshaw and Skypark Diversion Structure Hydrodynamic Separator Q19 Detention 237th Street Detention Basin Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion PS Pipeline Q18 Detention Sur la Brea Detention Basin Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion PS Pipeline Infiltration Q13 Infiltration Vine Avenue Detention Basin Diversion Structure Infiltration Q20 Detention Walnut Street Detention Basin Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion PS Pipeline Q17 Detention Well 8 Diversion Structure Pipeline Note: 1. BMPs that fall within high priority subareas are shaded in grey. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Do m i n g u e z Ch a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdQ16 Q21 Q15 Q18 Q07 Q12 Q20 Q10 Q24 Q11 Q22 Q19 Q28 Q04 Q27 Q13 Q05 Q06 Q02 Q23 Q08 Q01 Q26 Q25 Q09 Q14 Q03 Ocean Bishop Montgomery Q18Q13 Q12 Q08 Q04 Q22 Q24 Q16 Q15 Q14 Q05 Q03 Q21 Q19 Q20 Q09 Q10 Q11Q07 Q06 Q27 Q25 Q26Q23Q28 Q17 Q02 Q01 10" 18"69"24"36"78"51 66"30"27 " 48" 42" 51"81"21"6"63" 57"8"54"45"33" 12" 60" 72"16"4'X4'84"39" 15" 5' 36"X 5 8 " 2-6"54"42"69"27"18"42"36"48"24"27"12" 30" 6" 24"24"42"24"42" 6"27"45"18"24"18"18"15"8"30"8"24"42"15"51"18"24"15"30"24"27" 60" 12"24"33"15" 24" 36"21"18"30"48"24"18"36"42"30" 8"36"66" 45" 54" 27"51"48"84"63"72" 30" 15" 33" 42" 57" 10" 24" 33"27"30" 42"54"36" 30" 24"72"54"24"36"24" 42"36"66"54"36" 72" Figure 7.30Prioritization of Recommended Low Flow Diversion BMP ProjectsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Existing Pump Stationsby Owner LACDPWExisting BMPsby TypeContinuous Deflective Separator Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor RoadsBodies of Water Recommended BMP Diversion Point High Priority Subareas Additional BMP Locations Retention Basin (No TMDL Requirements) City Boundary Study Area Tributary Area for BMP or Diversion Indicated by Background Color pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_7.30.mxdSubRegionID SubRegionID City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 7-69 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) As shown in Table 7.12, 12 BMPs are recommended at eight BMP sites based on low flow diversion. Specific sizing of each component is included in Chapter 9. Detailed information on the specific layout of each site will need to be developed during the preliminary design phase of each project. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 7-70 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch07.docx (I) This page left blank intentionally. December 2011 8-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) Chapter 8 WATER CAPACITY EVALUATION 8.1 METHODOLOGY The water capacity evaluation is conducted using a combined hydrologic and hydraulic model, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The hydrologic component of the model addresses stormwater runoff generated from the rainfall events outlined in Chapter 4. For each of the delineated subbasins, the hydrologic component of the model identified a peak runoff rate and the volume of runoff from a storm event; this data was then used to drive the hydraulic model. The hydraulic model estimates water surface elevations along the storm drain network, which is used to identify portions of the network that are predicted to experience flooding under each design storm. 8.2 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic model components were constructed to evaluate existing flooding problems for a majority of the drainage systems in the study area. The problems were compared with historical flooding problems identified by local residents to help validate the modeling results. The results of these analyses are summarized in this section. Flooding problems are typically evaluated in terms of how often a particular problem is likely to occur. For example, flooding problems that occur an average of once every 2 years are defined as having a 2-year return period while problems that only occur an average of once every 100 years are defined as having a 100-year return period. In this analysis, flooding problems were evaluated along drainage conveyance systems for a variety of return periods, including 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year return periods. For pipe segments and roadway crossings, surcharging was considered acceptable and flooding problems were identified only if the model showed water getting out of the system and into streets. For open waterways, deficiencies were identified when the depth of the design flow exceeded the top of the channel banks. The hydraulic capacity evaluation consisted of the following steps: 1. A hydrologic analysis of the storm sewer system was performed to estimate flows through each pipe segment for the 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storms under existing land use conditions. The 10-year storm was used as the design storm for storm drains. 2. A hydraulic analysis of the storm sewer system was performed to determine the flow capacity of each pipe segment. 3. Simulation runs were performed for storm sewers with insufficient capacity to meet the design storm flows to determine the pipe size required to accommodate the design flow. 4. Culverts in the study area were analyzed separately. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 8-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) 8.2.1 Criteria for Identifying Hydraulic Bottlenecks The Los Angeles County (County) Department of Public Works Hydrology and Sedimentation Manual (LACDPW, 2006) provides agency policy on levels of flood protection. The manual advises that all facilities in developed areas be designed to protect against the Urban Flood, which is referred as runoff from a 25-year return interval design storm falling on a saturated watershed (fourth day storm). Under these criteria, street flows are not allowed above the private property line. In addition, the County recommends that any conduit be designed to convey the runoff from at least the 10-year frequency design storm. The County criteria also require that natural watercourses, floodways, depressions, sumps, and culverts under primary and secondary roadways, be designed to withstand the 50-year design storm. Finally, the manual notes that drain size may be increased to reduce street surface flows that could impede vehicular traffic. In this deficiency analysis, the allowed upstream node or junction runoff flow for street conveyance systems was selected to be zero cubic feet per second for the 10-year design storm. Thus, whenever a drainage system consisted of street and conduit conveyances, the system was identified as deficient unless it could convey the entire runoff from the 10-year storm; thus, no street overtopping is allowed. The street conveyance capacity for the 25- year return interval design storm was calculated assuming flow depth of 8 inches on curbs using the typical street cross-section criteria. The street conveyance for the 50-year design storm was modeled to allow flows to the property line (right of way or back of walk) based on an additional depth of 2.4 inches (0.2 feet) between the curb top and property line. The deficiency criteria used in this analysis is based on Los Angeles County’s criteria, which is consistent with American Public Works Association (APWA) standards, and can be summarized as: 1. Conveyance systems unable to convey the 10-year storm are characterized as deficient. For piped segments and roadway crossings, surcharging was considered acceptable and flooding problems were identified only if the model showed water getting out of the system and into streets during the 10-year storm. 2. Flows from the 25-year storm only allowed to top of curb rather than property line. 3. Maximum street overtopping for the 50-year storm is 10.4 inches. 8.2.2 Analysis Results The ability of the existing system to meet the above criteria was evaluated through computer modeling and the identified deficiencies are presented on Figure 8.1. Within this analysis, the simulated flooding problems are grouped into two main categories of flooding events. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Ch a n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWalteria Dominguez Channel Harbor Lakes Mobil Ocean Amie Harbor Lakes Henrietta Entradero Santa Monica Bay Doris Del Amo Pioneer Harbor Lakes 237th St. Madrona Marsh Bishop Montgomery Santa Monica Bay Eldorado Harbor Lakes Santa Monica Bay Vista Del Parque 7'W 4'X3'36"78"51 66"81"54"45"8"27"16"51"21"48 "69"4"5' 2-66"6'X1'36"X 5 8 " 3'X3 '3'X5'2'29"63"5'W 2-6"11'X10'72"30"3'W18"15"33"42"60" 12"39"57" 11'W 6"10"2'W 24"4'X4'18"30"39"30"36" 33"51"30"42"36"12"4"39" 27"30"6"15"15" 39" 18" 24"24"24"30"15"18" 15"24"24"12"33"57"18"33"30"36"24 "24"27 " 24" 45"24"24"24"15" 36"15"60"18"12"12"30"30" 57"24"30" 57"15"15" 6" 48" 60"54"42"18"33"24"30"18"72"36" 51"27"8"12"33"18"48"24"33"30"27"45"24"24"30"6"18"36"24"18"24"54"18"18"18" 60" 42" 24"8"24"27"18"30" 48"27"24"18"24"8"51"24"30"51"30"24"10"30"30" 72"8"33" 30" 36"42"30" 36"15"24" 18" Figure 8.1Water Capacity Hydraulic DeficienciesStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGENDWatershedsGroundwater ReplenishmentBishop MontgomeryDel AmoOceanVista Del ParqueDominguez ChannelSurface DrainageEldoradoMobilPioneer TORRANCE Santa Monica BaySurface DrainageAmieDorisEntraderoHenriettaHarbor LakesSurface Drainage237th St.Madrona MarshWalteria Capacity DeficienciesDeficiency During Minor Event (<10 yr) Deficiency During Major Event (>50yr)Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor RoadsBodies of Water City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 8-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) As shown on Figure 8.1, these two categories are: • Frequent flooding problems, which are deficiencies that occur during minor storm events (< every 10 yrs). Frequent flooding is typically characterized by localized ponding and street flooding of less than or equal to 8 inches of flood depth. These problems are due to under-capacity or unmet maintenance requirements of the existing system. Backwater and surcharging of storm sewers are also commonly observed due to low outfall elevations. Storm drains with these deficiencies are shown in yellow. • Major flooding problems, which are deficiencies that occur during major storm events (> 50 yrs). Since major storm events are greater in intensity than minor storm events, the major flooding problems include all frequent flooding problems. Under a major storm event, deficiencies related to frequent flooding problems will increase in magnitude and portions of the drainage system that have sufficient capacity under a minor storm event may be incapable of meeting the capacity requirements of larger design storms. Storm drains with these deficiencies are shown in red. 8.3 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Evaluating flood hazard management alternatives requires an understanding of the flooding issues, and a clear community vision for basin development. This section focuses on the task of developing cost-effective solutions for the identified flooding problems. The recommended solutions are developed into capital improvement projects. The development of cost-effective solutions entails various steps for evaluating the appropriateness and effectiveness of solution alternatives. The process is broken down into four general steps:  Inventorying Solution Types: Documenting the range of available solution types and their general levels of effectiveness, cost and other implementation considerations.  Identifying Preferred Solutions: Procedures for identifying the "preferred" solution type for a given problem area. Also includes planning level estimates of the general benefits and costs for site-specific preliminary solutions for each of the identified problems.  Estimating Goal Attainment: Comparing the benefits provided by proposed solutions to drainage management goals and objectives.  Planning Implementation Activities: Describing the steps to implement capital projects, programs, and regulations. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 8-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) Selecting the most appropriate capital solution alternative(s) for a specific problem area is heavily influenced by the development conditions of the watershed in which the target problem area is located. There are four basic approaches to stormwater management applicable to the City: no action; upgrades to the existing system; runoff detention; and infiltration ponds. These basic approaches may be implemented singly within a basin or in combination to manage present and expected future stormwater problems. The drainage systems recommended for improvements are shown on Figure 8.2. 8.3.1 No Action The no action approach implies that no improvements whatsoever will be made to the existing drain system. For comparison purposes, it will be included in the analyses for all eight basins. It is always possible not to improve the system, at the cost of continued damage and inconveniences where drainage facilities are inadequate or non-existent. To ensure that system improvements are justified, it is necessary to compare the costs and advantages of those improvements to the no action alternative. 8.3.2 Upgrading the Existing System This approach would involve constructing replacement or parallel pipes and upgrading or piping existing ditches to provide adequate capacity for the design flow. Upgrading of existing ditches may consist of vegetation and debris removal, regrading, shaping, and channel enlargement. This is often the most obvious alternative since it involves the existing drainage system and easements. 8.3.3 Low Impact Development Low impact development (LID) is an alternative approach to managing stormwater runoff. LID design practices focus on reducing quantities of stormwater runoff by recharging and infiltrating runoff near the site of development. LID focuses on distributing facilities to manage stormwater rather than concentrating stormwater runoff and discharging it to other water bodies. LID can consist of many different technologies and design practices, including porous pavement, routing of downspouts to infiltration or vegetation, or incorporation of dry wells to infiltrate rainwater. General principles guiding LID include minimizing disturbance to natural drainage, minimizing soil compaction, maintaining natural vegetation and soils, and minimizing impervious surfaces. Los Angeles County requires LID design practices for development in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The City may consider adopting a similar ordinance requiring LID development. The Los Angeles County MS4 permit reissuance is planning to incorporate LID planning to “complement” local LID efforts. Due to the built out nature of the City’s service area and lack of vacant areas for future development, it is not anticipated that requiring new development to incorporate LID practices will significantly reduce the quantity of water entering the City’s stormwater system unless significant redevelopment were to occur. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Cha n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWilson Park Guenser Park Sur la Brea Park McMasterPark Torrance Little League El Prado Park ColumbiaPark TorranceAirport Del Amo/Van Ness Crenshaw/Skypark De Portola Park H3H1H4H2H6H5D9 D7 D2 D5 W12W2W4W7W3 W11W6W1 W9W8 D1D11 D6 D12D10D8D4 D3 48" 42" 57" 36" 54" 42"36"48"66"36"30 "36"36"78"66"81"75"45"54" 8" 27"16"69"51"21"48"60"84"4"80"22"63" 6" 72" 30" 18"102"15"33"42" 12"39"57"10"24" 45"24"15"30" 42"60"33"54"36"42" 51" 54" 30"48"36"18"24"18"18"30" 42" 24" 45" 48"54"24"36"36"36"36"45"60" 48" 33" 24"15"30"54"15"63"42" 60"72"36"24" 6" 24" 42"24"48" 57"48"24"54"36" 30" 48"18"72" 15"42"54"33" 24"30"10" 24" 24"6"30"24" 36"42"33"78"33" 63" 30" 66" 33" 42" 42" 42"15"78"60"24"24"27"6"54"48"42"48"66"30"33"24" 48" 30"8"72" 18"36"60"69"30" 54"30"18"18"42" 36" 36"84"48"27 "66"30"18"36"27"66"24 " 24" 51"57"48"57"78"84"84"30"8"42"18"30"84"24"54"36" 6" Figure 8.2Recommended CapacityDeficiencies ImprovementsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor RoadsOthersRetention BasinDetention BasinBodies of Water Minor EventWater Quantity Deficiencies RecommendationDivert to BMP Upstream Diversion Resolves Deficiency No Action Replace, Parallel, or New Construction Recommended BMP Locations Study Area City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 8-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) 8.3.4 Runoff Detention The concept of runoff detention is simple: hold back the excess upstream runoff that would cause flooding problems downstream. This excess water is released later at a rate the downstream drainage structures are capable of handling. The rate of release from the detention site may be based on the capacity of existing downstream drainage structures. Alternatively, the rate of flow release may be a reduction to a lesser design storm flow (e.g., the system design storm may have a 10-year recurrence interval, and the detention facility outlet may be sized to release only 5-year storm flows). Runoff detention facilities can be on-site or regional. On-site detention is defined as runoff detention installed with each development to reduce peak runoff to a certain mandated value. On-site detention may be accomplished using small detention ponds, underground pipe storage, or rooftop and parking lot detention. Regional detention basins are defined as basins that receive runoff from a large drainage area, usually tens to hundreds of acres, and are large enough to attenuate the peak in that runoff. A policy requiring on-site detention in residential areas results in several small detention facilities throughout the community. These are difficult to maintain and often do not function properly. For this reason, on-site detention in residential areas was not considered. On-site detention in commercial and industrial areas generally consists of parking lot and rooftop detention. This can be a feasible option where large parking lots or structures are available and will be well maintained. Regional detention basins are small enough in number that they can be maintained properly. Often, regional detention basins can have multiple uses (e.g., parks). When these other uses also require regular maintenance, the basin is more likely to be maintained and function properly when needed. 8.3.5 Infiltration Ponds (Retention Basins) A concept similar to detention ponds is infiltration ponds. Flow is routed into a pond, as with detention; however, the runoff is not released, rather, the stormwater infiltrates into the soil. This option would only be feasible in a location that has soils with high infiltration rates (hydrologic soil types A and B), and an overflow route should be included in design of infiltration facilities. Such a facility would dispose of stormwater without taxing existing storm drains with runoff from existing or new development areas. 8.4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS As discussed in the earlier sections of this chapter, stormwater infrastructure deficiencies were identified within each watershed. A series of project alternatives were developed to address these inadequacies. The selected projects for each watershed are discussed below. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 8-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) 8.4.1 Dominguez Channel Watershed Within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, a total of 41,792 feet of pipelines, culverts, and open channels were predicted as deficient, representing about 49 percent of the storm drain system. Of the deficient segments, approximately 44 percent is identified as frequent flooding. Table 8.1 summarizes the deficiencies identified by the model in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Table 8.1 Frequent and Major Floodings in Dominguez Watershed Flooding Type Pipe/Culvert Size (in) Number of Segments(1) Total Length (ft) Storm Event Threshold Frequent(2) 84 1 66 10-year event 63 6 873 51 - 54 13 1,566 30 - 48 27 7,548 < 30 42 7,101 Culvert 10 1,039 Open Channel 15 3,188 Major(3) 81 5 2,228 > 10-year event 72 - 75 4 1,939 60 - 66 14 3,998 54 3 599 30 - 42 26 4,119 < 30 53 7,528 Notes: 1. The model contains 4,338 segments in total. 2. Frequent flooding problems are those deficiencies predicted under storms less than or equal to the 10-year storm event. 3. Major flooding problems are those deficiencies predicted under storms greater than the 10-year storm event. As shown in Table 8.1, the frequent flooding pipe segments include one segment of double 84-inch diameter pipe culvert of about 66 feet in length, six segments of 60-inch diameter pipes totaling 873 feet in length, and 82 segments of pipeline less than 54-inches in diameter totaling 16,215 feet in length. In addition, 1,039 feet of culvert and 3,188 feet of open channel is also predicted to be deficient during minor storm events. Under a major storm event, the major flooding pipe segments are predicted to also include five segments of 81-inch diameter pipes totaling 2,228 feet in length, 18 segments between 60 and 75-inches in diameter totaling about 6,000 feet in length, and 82 segments of pipeline 54-inches in diameter or less in diameter totaling 12,246 feet in length. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN January 2012 - DRAFT 8-11 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) Improvements were not evaluated for double 84-inch diameter pipe and the box culverts. The double 84-inch pipe is an offline storage facility. The inlet conditions of these structures need to be carefully evaluated to consider field conditions before any improvements are recommended. The box culverts deficiencies are due low outfall elevations. In addition, in some cases where flow is diverted to water quality BMP, improvements were not recommended for deficient pipes downstream of BMPs. Most of the improvements identified in this watershed are recommended for pipe replacement. However, parallel pipelines should be evaluated during preliminary design for these improvements. 8.4.2 Walteria Lake Watershed Within the Walteria Lake Watershed, a total of 25,303 feet of pipelines were predicted as deficient, representing about 63 percent (by length) of the storm drain system. Of the deficient segments, approximately 34 percent is identified as frequent flooding. Table 8.2 summarizes the deficiencies identified by the model in this watershed. The recommended pipe improvement projects included all the 48 pipe segments totaling 8,592 feet. The improvements, which are mainly pipe replacements, are detailed in Chapter 9 of this report. No improvements are recommended for the major flooding areas. Flooding in these areas is anticipated to reduce significantly with the improvements to the 10-year deficient pipes. Table 8.2 Frequent and Major Floodings in Walteria Lake Watershed Flooding Type Pipe/Culvert Size (in) No. of Segments Total Length (ft) Storm Event Threshold Frequent 30 - 48 22 5,347 10-year event < 30 26 3,245 Major 63 8 1.258 > 10-year event 51 - 57 10 3,736 30 - 48 43 9,237 < 30 49 3,737 8.4.3 Harbor Lakes Watershed Within the Harbor Lakes Watershed, a total of 20,310 feet of pipelines were predicted as deficient, representing about 50 percent (by length) of the storm drain system. Of the deficient segments, approximately 80 percent is identified as frequent flooding. Table 8.3 summarizes the deficiencies identified by the model in this watershed. The improvements, which are mainly pipe replacements, are detailed in Chapter 9 of this report. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 8-12 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch08.docx (A) It should be noted that the Harbor Lakes Watershed includes significant portions of several Palos Verdes Peninsula communities and the drainage systems from these communities were not evaluated. Table 8.3 Frequent and Major Floodings in Harbor Lakes Watershed Flooding Type Pipe/Culvert Size (in) No. of Segments Total Length (ft) Storm Event Threshold Frequent 60 - 63 8 1,024 10-year event 57 2 23 30 - 42 32 7,739 < 30 58 5,245 Culverts 8 882 Open Channel 2 1,289 Major 57 18 1,037 > 10-year event 30 - 48 24 1,850 < 30 17 1,221 About 48 percent of the 10-year deficient pipes are between 30- and 42-inch in diameter. Of these, improvements were not evaluated for 10 segments because these segments are located downstream of proposed water quality flow diversion structures. The diverted flow will help to reduce the HGL in these areas. Nine out of the 58 pipe segments with diameters less than 30 inches are also located downstream of proposed water quality diversion structures. The diverted flow is anticipated to reduce the HGL in these segments and therefore no improvements are recommended. December 2011 9-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Chapter 9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The purpose of this chapter is to provide the City of Torrance (City) with a capital improvement program (CIP) that will guide the City with implementing the recommendations made in Chapters 7 and 8 in order to resolve hydraulic deficiencies in the stormwater system, treat stormwater pollutants, meet regulatory compliance requirements opportunities, and express the City’s renewed commitment to the use of environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and sustainable solutions. The previous two chapters proposed recommended improvements to the stormwater system. In this chapter, cost assumptions are presented, followed by planning level cost estimates for the proposed improvements, and the proposed project phasing. This chapter is concluded with an estimate of the recommended CIP costs and a discussion on funding for implementing the CIP. 9.1 COST ASSUMPTIONS The cost for each recommended improvement is a combination of construction costs and project costs. Construction costs account for the budget required for a contractor to install the proposed infrastructure. Project costs account for project contingencies, construction management, engineering, planning, and legal fees. The cost assumptions used in this report are discussed in the following sections. 9.1.1 Level of Accuracy The level of accuracy for cost estimates varies depending on the level of detail to which the project has been defined. Feasibility studies and master plans represent the lowest level of accuracy, while pre-bid estimates represent a much higher level of accuracy. The American Association of Cost Engineers has developed guidelines, which are shown in Table 9.1, for developing project cost estimates: Table 9.1 Project Estimate Guidelines(1) Type of Estimate Anticipated Accuracy Order-of-Magnitude (Master Plans) +50% to -30% Budget Estimate (Pre-design Report) +30% to -15% Budget Estimate (Design Report) +15% to -5% Note: 1. Developed by the American Association of Cost Engineers. The cost opinions in this report should be considered order-of-magnitude estimates, with an anticipated accuracy level of +50 to -30 percent. Cost opinions herein represent July 2011 dollars consistent with the Los Angeles metropolitan area Engineering News Record (ENR) value of 10,063. Future cost estimate adjustments can be calculated by increasing the estimated capital cost by the ratio of the future ENR to 10,063. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) 9.1.2 Construction Costs The construction costs can include a combination of the following cost items:  Storm Drains.  Force Mains.  Pump Stations.  Detention Basins.  Jack and Bore Crossings.  Structural best management practices (BMPs): - Infiltration Systems. - Wetlands. - Retention Basins. Each element is discussed below and unit costs for each element are summarized in Table 9.2. Unit costs for each element are based on previous project experience and the values presented in Table 9.2 include the equipment supply cost, installation, and general contractor overhead and markup costs. Construction contingency and markups for engineering, construction management, administration, and legal consultation are discussed in Section 9.1.3. Where unit costs were adapted from national averages, location was adjusted using the RS Means City Cost Index of 1.08 for the Los Angeles area. Pipeline installation costs assume open cut excavation in typical coarse-grained soil with minimal rock. 9.1.2.1 Storm Drains Storm drain construction costs are estimated based on the length of the recommended improvement (rounded to the nearest 100 feet). Storm drain improvements recommended in this master plan range from 24 to 60 inches in diameter. Water quantity improvements less than 24 inches in diameter are not included. 9.1.2.2 Force Mains Force main construction costs are estimated based on the length of the recommended improvement (rounded to the nearest 100 feet). Recommended force main improvements for the City’s stormwater system range in diameter from 12 to 30 inches. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.2 Construction Cost Assumptions Category Unit Cost Storm Drains $/linear ft 24-inch diameter $567 30-inch diameter $709 36-inch diameter $851 39-inch diameter $922 42-inch diameter $992 48-inch diameter $1,135 54-inch diameter $1,276 57-inch diameter $1,347 66-inch diameter $1,560 Force Mains $/linear ft 12-inch diameter $205 16-inch diameter $273 20-inch diameter $409 24-inch diameter $512 30-inch diameter $614 Pump Stations $ 20 to 30 feet TDH �13,143 × 𝑄mgd�+65,573 Diversion Structures $/site Diversion Structure $50,000 Retention/Detention Basins $/ft3 Basins $1.70 Jack and Bore Crossings $/linear ft Railroad/Highway Crossings $250 BMPs - Infiltration Systems $3.12 per ft3 treated Hydrodynamic Separator – Two 60 cfs Units $1,025,000 per site Hydrodynamic Separator – Single 30 cfs Unit $270,000 per site Wetlands $1.91 per ft3 treated 9.1.2.3 Pump Stations Pump station construction costs are estimated based on capacity according to the following equation: Cost =�13,143 × 𝑄mgd�+65,573 This equation is considered applicable for pump stations with a total dynamic head (TDH) between 20 and 30 feet. This cost estimate includes spare pumps and associated equipment, but does not specify the number of pumps or configuration. Note that this City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) equation is adapted to the City’s location using the RS Means City Cost Index of 1.08 for the Los Angeles area. 9.1.2.4 Detention/Retention Basins Construction costs for detention and retention basins are estimated based on the volume of the proposed detention or retention basin. As shown in Table 9.2, the estimated unit cost is $1.70 per cubic foot. While it is assumed that unit costs for significantly larger detention and retention basins would be less, this unit cost is assumed to be applicable for basins of the size recommended in this CIP. Note that land acquisition costs are not included in the estimated construction costs. This unit cost is adapted to the City’s location using the RS Means City Cost Index of 1.08 for the Los Angeles area. 9.1.2.5 Jack and Bore Crossings An additional cost of $250 per linear foot will be required for the length of any proposed pipeline crossing a highway or railroad. 9.1.2.6 BMPs Construction costs for structural BMPs recommended in Chapter 7 are based on unit costs of capacity of treated volume. It should be noted that the estimates are made without consideration of area and land acquisition costs, which are not included. Structural BMPs recommended in Chapter 7 include Infiltration Systems and Wetlands; thus, estimated unit construction costs are included for these two BMPs. This unit cost is adapted to the City’s location using the RS Means City Cost Index of 1.08 for the Los Angeles area. Based on information provided by the City, the cost for installation of street sweeping signs was estimated to be $1,000,000 for the remaining areas in the City that do not currently have any street sweeping signs. The cost for implementation in each subregion was calculated based on the proportional street length in each subregion compared to the total length of City streets. 9.1.3 Project Costs Once construction costs were estimated for each segment, the following project costs were added to the estimate to develop the total project cost, which is also referred to as the capital cost:  Contingency Cost.  Construction Management Cost.  Engineering, Administration, Planning, and Legal Cost. The assumptions used in this Stormwater Quality Master Plan (SQMP) to estimate capital cost are listed in Table 9.3. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-5 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.3 Capital Project Cost Assumptions Description Value Contingency 30% of the CC(1) Engineering, Construction Management, Administration, and Legal 30% of the CC(1) plus contingency(2) Capital Cost(3) 169% of the CC(1) Notes: 1. CC=construction cost; it is the cost of materials, installation, and general contractor overhead and markup only. 2. Includes direct construction cost and contingency cost. 3. Capital Cost includes the construction cost, contingency, engineering, administration, legal, and construction management cost. 9.1.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs For each BMP, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs were also developed. The following items were considered:  Storm Drain System Cleaning.  General Administration.  Full-Time Employee (FTE) Costs. These O&M costs are used in the financial feasibility analysis discussed in Section 0. A brief description of each O&M cost is given in the following sections. 9.1.4.1 Assumed Costs Operations and maintenance costs for future BMPs is estimated based on the BMPs drainage area according to the following equation: Cost = $9,938 × (𝐴acres)0.269 Cost in this equation is the present worth of 20 years of annual operations and maintenance costs. This equation is based on a national database of BMP operations and maintenance costs and is adapted to the City’s location using the RS Means City Cost Index of 1.08 for the Los Angeles area. City staff projected capital costs to comply with the Machado Lake Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) at $1,400,000. City staff provided projected costs for monitoring of the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL at $100,000 annually. The monitoring requirements to comply with future TMDLs will not be known until the monitoring reporting plans associated with each TMDL are prepared. Some City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-6 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) of these future monitoring plans include the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL, Domingez Channel Toxics TMDL, or the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL. These monitoring reporting plans will define the number of monitoring sites, frequency, and sampling and testing details. For the purpose of this CIP, its is estimated that the monitoring cost for future TMDLs is the same as the estimated cost of the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL at $100,000 per year. This is most likely a conservative estimates as some economies of scale are anticipated when conduction monitoring for multiple TMDLs. 9.2 PROJECT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES Based on the water quality recommendations from Chapter 7, capital costs are estimated separately for wet weather flows and low flow diversion. As discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, implementing water quality projects associated with wet weather flow would incorporate the pollutant load reductions resulting from the water quality projects associated with low flow diversion. Thus, the capital costs for the two are not additive. Capital costs for stormwater capacity related improvements are therefore summarized separately. Based on discussions with City staff, the recommended CIP is limited to the low flow diversion stormwater quality project (see 9.2.1), capacity improvement projects (see 9.2.3), and miscellaneous stormwater improvement projects (see 9.2.4). Hence, the wet weather stormwater quality projects (see 9.2.2) are included for information purposes only. 9.2.1 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Projects Table 9.4 presents the phasing and detailed capital cost estimates for each component of the recommended wet weather flow stormwater quality projects as discussed in Chapter 7 and the unit costs presented in Table 9.2. As shown in Table 9.4, the total estimated construction cost of all identified projects is $28,060,000, and the corresponding capital cost with the additional markups and contingencies from Table 9.2 is $47,100,000. 9.2.2 Wet Weather Flow Stormwater Quality Projects Table 9.5 presents the phasing and detailed capital cost estimate for each component of the recommended wet weather flow stormwater quality projects as discussed in Chapter 7 and the unit costs presented in Table 9.2. As shown in Table 9.5, the total estimated construction cost of all identified projects is $71,105,000, and the corresponding capital cost with the additional markups and contingencies from Table 9.2 is $120,235,000. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-7 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) 9.2.3 Stormwater Capacity Projects Table 9.6 presents the phasing and detailed capital cost estimate for each component of the recommended wet weather flow stormwater quantity projects recommended in Chapter 8 and the unit costs presented in Table 9.2. As shown in Table 9.6, the total estimated construction cost of all identified projects is $32,140,000, and the corresponding capital cost with the additional markups and contingencies from Table 9.2 is $54,420,000. 9.2.4 Miscellaneous Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Table 9.7 presents the detailed capital cost estimate for stormwater quality recommendations from previous studies for the Santa Monica Basin (Carollo, 2011). In addition, installation of street sweeping signs for the areas of the City falling within the Santa Monica Bay watershed are included here. As shown in Table 9.7, the total estimated construction cost of all identified projects is $6,269,019, and the corresponding capital cost is $10,385,000. 9.3 PROJECT PHASING METHOD As the City has indicated it plans to implement low flow diversion stormwater quality recommendations, the phasing of projects in the CIP was focused on implementation of the low flow diversion stormwater quality recommendations. Implementation of BMPs will depend largely on timing of required regulatory compliance. Since the City’s TMDLs are assigned by watershed, timing of BMPs within specific watersheds may need to be prioritized to meet compliance deadlines. The phasing of the recommended improvements presented in this CIP is based on the anticipated timeline of TMDL requirements. As discussed in Chapter 3, compliance with the Machado Lake Trash TMDL and Nutrients TMDL are the first anticipated regulatory deadlines. The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDLs includes compliance targets which have already occurred; however, the City has initiated projects to comply with these TMDLs. Compliance with the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL and the potential future TMDLs related to the Dominguez Channel are anticipated to become effective later. Phasing has been coordinated to these assumptions regarding the regulatory timeline. 9.3.1 Phase 1 Improvements included in Phase 1 are recommended to implement critical water quality related improvements for watersheds discharging to Machado Lake. Phase 1 focuses on the high priority Harbor Lakes subareas HL-S2 (Torrance Airport) and HL-S3 (De Portala Park). The prioritization of subareas is described in detail in Chapter 7. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-8 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) As discussed in Chapter 3, compliance is phased with two targets in March 2014 and September 2018. Model predictions for one of the two constituents associated with this TMDL indicate that the City will not meet the five year target without reductions in pollutant loading. Thus, implementation of this phase will need to be implemented prior to 2014. Compliance deadlines for the Machado Lake Trash TMDL begin in 2012, with annual targets and full compliance in 2016. Note that trash was not modeled as a part of this study, but the recommended BMPs are anticipated to reduce the quantity of trash conveyed by the stormwater system. Based on discussions with City staff, the City has decided to maximize its implementation of street sweeping in order to comply with the Trash TMDL. Installation of street sweeping signs for all areas of the City draining to Harbor Lakes is therefore also included in Phase 1. Phase 1 also includes two projects for the Santa Monica Bay watershed that were recommended from previous studies. These projects include a trash interceptor for Ocean Basin and the Bishop Montgomery Athletic Field project. 9.3.2 Phase 2 Improvements included in Phase 2 are recommended to implement water quality related improvements for watersheds discharging to Dominguez Channel. Phase 2 focuses on the high priority Dominguez Channel subareas DC-S2 (Wilson Park), DC-S3 (ExxonMobil Detention Basin), and DC-S4 (Wilson Park). The prioritization of subareas is described in detail in Chapter 7. The first compliance deadline for the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is in 2017, thus Phase 2 should be implemented prior to 2017. Prediction of the pollutant levels for each constituent in the Toxics TMDL was not evaluated within the model, as TSS was used as an indicator for the various toxic constituents. While timelines for potential regulatory deadlines are difficult to estimate, previous TMDLs required about a year for approval after being adopted by the regional board, and include a timeline of 10 years for compliance. Thus, it is anticipated that development of a nutrient TMDL for the Dominguez Channel would be implemented between 2015 and 2025. 9.3.3 Phase 3 Improvements included in Phase 3 are recommended to implement the remaining Harbor Lakes water quality related improvements. Phase 3 focuses on the remaining Harbor Lakes subareas (non-high priority areas) described in Chapter 7. Phase 3 also includes the street sweeping signs for the Santa Monica Bay watershed, as this is anticipated to be required as a part of implementation of the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL. The final compliance deadline for the Machado Lakes Nutrients TMDL is 2018. However, the final compliance deadline for the Machado Lake Trash TMDL is 2016, thus BMPs will City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-9 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) need to be implemented prior to this date if the BMPs are to be relied upon for the required reduction in pollutant loading for trash. Compliance with the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL is phased between 2016 and 2020. However, the City has already implemented some BMPs in the Santa Monica Bay watershed; timing on when the increased street sweeping efforts will be necessary for compliance will be need to be defined in the trash monitoring report for the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL, anticipated to be developed in 2012. 9.3.4 Phase 4 Improvements included in Phase 4 include the remaining Dominguez Channel water quality related improvements. Phase 4 focuses on the remaining Dominguez Channel subareas (non-high priority areas) described in Chapter 7. The last two compliance deadlines for the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is 2027 and 2032. It is anticipated that development of a nutrient TMDL for the Dominguez Channel would be implemented between 2015 and 2025. 9.3.5 Phase 5 Improvements included in Phase 5 are recommended to implement remaining water capacity related improvements. While water capacity recommendations are significant in nature, it is anticipated that funding of stormwater related improvements will be limited. And since water quality related improvements are tied to regulatory deadlines, water quality improvements will need to take priority in the CIP. 9-10 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN Table 9.4 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost Q01 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q01 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Divert to Airport pond HL 1 1,200 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $250,000 $425,000 Q01 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Divert to Airport pond HL 1 1,900 ft 15 inch diam. 273 $/ft $520,000 $880,000 Q02 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q02 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Divert to Airport pond HL 1 400 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $85,000 $145,000 Q03 B Hydrodynamic Separator HL 1 1 HDS 270,000 $/site $270,000 $460,000 Q03 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 SS1 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in High Priority Subarea HL-S3 HL 1 2 mi 3,187 $/mi $10,000 $10,000 SS2 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in High Priority Subarea DC-S2 DC 2 45 mi 3,187 $/mi $145,000 $145,000 SS3 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in High Priority Subarea DC-S3 DC 2 9 mi 3,187 $/mi $30,000 $30,000 SS4 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in High Priority Subarea DC-S4 DC 2 mi 3,187 $/mi $5,000 $5,000 Q04 B El Prado Park for Infiltration DC 2 77,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $240,000 $410,000 Q04 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q05 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow to ExxonMobil DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q05 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to ExxonMobil DC 2 1,000 ft 18 inch diam. 341 $/ft $345,000 $585,000 Q06 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q06 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 2 2,100 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $435,000 $740,000 Q06 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 2 2 mgd 25 hp $95,000 $165,000 Q07 B El Prado Park for Infiltration DC 2 310,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $970,000 $1,640,000 Q07 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q07 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 2 2,100 ft 18 inch diam. 341 $/ft $720,000 $1,220,000 Q07 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 2 13 mgd 75 hp $240,000 $410,000 Q08 B Divert to Wilson Park for Infiltration DC 2 144,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $450,000 $765,000 Q08 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q09 B Divert to Median for Infiltration DC 2 45,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $145,000 $250,000 Q09 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-11 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.4 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost Q09 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 2 2 mgd 25 hp $95,000 $165,000 Q10 B Divert to Wilson Park for Infiltration DC 2 440,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $1,375,000 $2,325,000 Q10 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q10 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 2 4,800 ft 24 inch diam. 512 $/ft $2,460,000 $4,160,000 Q10 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 2 19 mgd 125 hp $320,000 $545,000 Q11 B Divert to Wilson Park for Infiltration DC 2 60,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $190,000 $325,000 Q11 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q11 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 2 2 mgd 25 hp $95,000 $165,000 Q12 B Divert to Wilson Park for Infiltration DC 4 120,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $375,000 $635,000 Q12 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q12 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 1,200 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $250,000 $425,000 Q12 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 4,800 ft 30 inch diam. 614 $/ft $2,950,000 $4,990,000 Q12 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 4 5 mgd 25 hp $135,000 $230,000 SS5 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in Remaining Subareas of HL HL 3 51 mi 3,187 $/mi $165,000 $165,000 SS6 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in Remaining Subareas of DC DC 4 107 mi 3,187 $/mi $330,000 $330,000 Q13 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q14 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q15 B Retention and Storage at Wetlands HL 3 52,200 ft3 Wetlands 2 $/ft3 $100,000 $170,000 Q15 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q16 B Treat and Storage at Wetlands HL 3 156,600 ft3 Wetlands 2 $/ft3 $300,000 $510,000 Q16 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q17 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q17 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Divert to Well 8 HL 3 1,300 ft 15 inch diam. 273 $/ft $355,000 $600,000 Q18 B Divert flow to Sur la Brea Sump HL 3 427,091 ft3 Retention 2 $/ft3 $730,000 $1,235,000 Q18 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q19 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q19 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Divert to Sump HL 3 2,400 ft 15 inch diam. 273 $/ft $660,000 $1,120,000 Q19 U Pump Station to Divert Flow HL 3 7 mgd 50 hp $160,000 $275,000 Q20 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q20 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Divert to Sur la Brea Sump HL 3 3,000 ft 15 inch diam. 273 $/ft $820,000 $1,390,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 9-12 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.4 Low Flow Diversion Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost Q20 U Pump Station to Divert Flow HL 3 7 mgd 50 hp $160,000 $275,000 Q21 B Detention/infiltration HL 3 87,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $275,000 $465,000 Q21 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow HL 3 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q21 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Detention/infiltration HL 3 5,100 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $1,050,000 $1,775,000 Q21 U Pump Station to Divert Flow HL 3 4 mgd 25 hp $120,000 $205,000 Q21 V Site Piping and Valves HL 3 $50,000 $85,000 Q22 B New Infiltration Basin near DC DC 4 55,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $175,000 $300,000 Q22 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow to SCE DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q23 B New Infiltration BMP DC 4 105,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $330,000 $560,000 Q23 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q23 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 1,700 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $350,000 $595,000 Q24 B New Infiltration Basin at SCE DC 4 250,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $780,000 $1,320,000 Q24 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow to SCE DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q25 B Underground Infiltration BMP at Lincoln School DC 4 120,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $375,000 $635,000 Q25 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow to Lincoln School DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q25 P Pipeline to Divert Flow to Lincoln School DC 4 2,000 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $410,000 $695,000 Q26 B Divert to New Retention Basin DC 4 125,000 ft3 Retention 2 $/ft3 $215,000 $365,000 Q26 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q26 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 4,100 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $845,000 $1,430,000 Q27 B Infiltration BMP at Guenser Park DC 4 190,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $595,000 $1,010,000 Q27 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q27 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 1,900 ft 18 inch diam. 341 $/ft $650,000 $1,100,000 Q27 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 4 8 mgd 50 hp $175,000 $300,000 Q28 B Infiltration BMP DC 4 220,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $690,000 $1,170,000 Q28 D Diversion Structure to Divert Flow DC 4 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Q28 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 1,500 ft 12 inch diam. 205 $/ft $310,000 $525,000 Q28 P Pipeline to Divert Flow DC 4 6,100 ft 18 inch diam. 341 $/ft $2,085,000 $3,525,000 Q28 U Pump Station to Divert Flow DC 4 10 mgd 75 hp $200,000 $340,000 Total $28,060,000 $47,100,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-13 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.5 Wet Weather Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost DC1-1 BMP Infiltration BMP at Guenser Park DC 2 3,730,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $11,625,000 $19,650,000 DC1-2 PS Pump Station for DC1-1 BMP DC 2 156 mgd 975 hp $2,120,000 $3,585,000 DC1-3 FM Force Main from DC1-2 Pump Station to DC1-1 BMP DC 2 2,100 ft 54 inch diam. 1,080 $/ft $2,270,000 $3,840,000 DC1-4 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 DC2-1 BMP Infiltration BMP at McMaster Park DC 2 1,185,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $3,695,000 $6,245,000 DC2-2 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 DC3-1 BMP Wetland BMP at Del Amo / Van Ness DC 2 1,730,000 ft3 Wetlands 2 $/ft3 $3,315,000 $5,605,000 DC3-2 BMP HDS BMP at Del Amo / Van Ness DC 2 1 site HDS 1,030,000 $/site $1,030,000 $1,745,000 DC4-1 BMP Retention BMP at Columbia Park DC 2 210,000 ft3 Retention 2 $/ft3 $360,000 $610,000 DC4-2 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 DC4-3 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 DC5-1 BMP Infiltration Trench BMP at El Prado Park DC 2 515,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $1,605,000 $2,715,000 DC5-2 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 DC6-1 BMP Infiltration BMP at Wilson Park DC 2 775,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $2,415,000 $4,085,000 DC6-2 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 DC7-1 BMP Infiltration BMP at Wilson Park DC 2 3,765,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $11,735,000 $19,835,000 DC7-2 PS Pump Station for DC7-1 BMP DC 2 158 mgd 1,000 hp $2,145,000 $3,630,000 DC7-3 FM Force Main from DC7-2 Pump Station to DC7-1 BMP DC 2 9,200 ft 54 inch diam. 1,080 $/ft $9,940,000 $16,800,000 DC7-4 BMP Diversion Structure DC 2 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 HL2-1 BMP Infiltration BMP at Torrance Airport HL 1 1,275,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $3,975,000 $6,720,000 HL2-2 BMP Diversion Structure HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 HL2-3 BMP HDS BMP at Torrance Airport (for pretreatment) HL 1 1 site HDS 270,000 $/site $270,000 $460,000 HL3-1 BMP Wetland BMP at De Portola Park HL 1 175,000 ft3 Wetlands 2 $/ft3 $340,000 $575,000 HL3-2 BMP Diversion Structure HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 HL4-1 BMP Retention BMP at Crenshaw Blvd. and Skypark Dr. HL 1 785,000 ft3 Retention 2 $/ft3 $1,335,000 $2,260,000 HL4-2 BMP Diversion Structure HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 HL4-3 BMP HDS BMP at Crenshaw Blvd. and Skypark Dr. HL 1 1 site HDS 1,030,000 $/site $1,030,000 $1,745,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 9-14 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.5 Wet Weather Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost HL5-1 BMP Infiltration BMP at Sur La Brea Park HL 1 2,180,000 ft3 Infiltration 3 $/ft3 $6,795,000 $11,485,000 HL5-2 BMP Diversion Structure HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 HL5-3 PS Pump Station for HL5-1 BMP HL 1 91 mgd 575 hp $1,265,000 $2,140,000 HL5-4 FM Force Main from HL5-3 Pump Station to HL5-1 BMP HL 1 2,200 ft 54 inch diam. 1,080 $/ft $2,380,000 $4,025,000 HL6-1 BMP HDS BMP at Torrance Little League Fields HL 1 1 site HDS 270,000 $/site $270,000 $460,000 HL6-2 PS Pump Station for HL6-1 BMP HL 1 16 mgd 100 hp $280,000 $475,000 HL6-3 FM Force Main from HL6-2 Pump Station to HL6-1 BMP HL 1 600 ft 24 inch diam. 512 $/ft $310,000 $525,000 HL6-4 BMP Diversion Structure HL 1 1 structure 50,000 $/site $50,000 $85,000 Total $71,105,000 $120,235,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-15 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.6 Stormwater Capacity Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost C01 P Replace 24" to 30" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline WL 5 600 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $515,000 $875,000 C02 P Replace 36" existing pipeline with 48" pipeline WL 5 1,600 ft 48 inch diam. 1,135 $/ft $1,820,000 $3,080,000 C03 P Replace 18" existing pipeline with 30" pipeline WL 5 600 ft 30 inch diam. 709 $/ft $430,000 $730,000 C04 P Replace 24" to 30" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline WL 5 900 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $770,000 $1,305,000 C05 P Replace 24" to 30" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline WL 5 600 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $515,000 $875,000 C06 P Construct new 36" pipeline WL 5 900 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $770,000 $1,305,000 C07 P Replace 24" existing pipeline with 30" pipeline WL 5 500 ft 30 inch diam. 709 $/ft $355,000 $600,000 C08 P Replace 24" existing pipeline with 30" pipeline WL 5 800 ft 30 inch diam. 709 $/ft $570,000 $965,000 C09 P Construct new 42" pipeline WL 5 700 ft 42 inch diam. 992 $/ft $695,000 $1,175,000 C10 P Construct new 66" pipeline WL 5 1,500 ft 66 inch diam. 1,560 $/ft $2,340,000 $3,955,000 C11 P Replace 36" existing pipeline with 51" pipeline HL 5 800 ft 51 inch diam. 1,206 $/ft $965,000 $1,635,000 C12 P Replace 39" to 42" existing pipeline with 54" pipeline HL 5 1,100 ft 54 inch diam. 1,276 $/ft $1,405,000 $2,375,000 C13 P Replace 30" to 36" existing pipeline with 48" pipeline HL 5 2,500 ft 48 inch diam. 1,135 $/ft $2,840,000 $4,800,000 C14 P Parallel 63" existing pipeline with 24" pipeline HL 5 900 ft 24 inch diam. 567 $/ft $515,000 $875,000 C15 P Construct new 42" pipeline HL 5 400 ft 42 inch diam. 992 $/ft $400,000 $680,000 C16 P Replace 33" existing pipeline with 42" pipeline HL 5 700 ft 42 inch diam. 992 $/ft $695,000 $1,175,000 C17 P Replace 45" existing pipeline with 54" pipeline DC 5 200 ft 54 inch diam. 1,276 $/ft $260,000 $440,000 C18 P Construct new 36" pipeline DC 5 700 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $600,000 $1,015,000 C19 P Construct new 42" pipeline DC 5 1,400 ft 42 inch diam. 992 $/ft $1,390,000 $2,350,000 C20 P Construct new 57" pipeline DC 5 1,500 ft 57 inch diam. 1,347 $/ft $2,025,000 $3,425,000 C21 P Replace 30" to 36" existing pipeline with 48" pipeline DC 5 1,900 ft 48 inch diam. 1,135 $/ft $2,160,000 $3,655,000 C22 P Construct new 54" pipeline DC 5 1,700 ft 54 inch diam. 1,276 $/ft $2,170,000 $3,670,000 C23 P Construct new 36" pipeline DC 5 1,400 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $1,195,000 $2,020,000 C24 P Replace 24" existing pipeline with 30" pipeline DC 5 400 ft 30 inch diam. 709 $/ft $285,000 $485,000 C25 P Construct new 24" pipeline DC 5 1,100 ft 24 inch diam. 567 $/ft $625,000 $1,060,000 C26 P Replace 39" existing pipeline with 42" pipeline DC 5 700 ft 42 inch diam. 992 $/ft $695,000 $1,175,000 C27 P Replace 15" to 18" existing pipeline with 27" pipeline DC 5 400 ft 27 inch diam. 638 $/ft $260,000 $440,000 C28 P Replace 24" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline DC 5 400 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $345,000 $585,000 C29 P Construct new 36" pipeline DC 5 200 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $175,000 $300,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN 9-16 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.6 Stormwater Capacity Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost C30 P Replace 24" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline DC 5 1,200 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $1,025,000 $1,735,000 C31 P Construct new 36" pipeline DC 5 600 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $515,000 $875,000 C32 P Replace 30" existing pipeline with 51" pipeline DC 5 600 ft 51 inch diam. 1,206 $/ft $725,000 $1,230,000 C33 P Construct new 51" pipeline DC 5 100 ft 51 inch diam. 1,206 $/ft $125,000 $215,000 C34 P Replace 24" existing pipeline with 30" pipeline DC 5 1,100 ft 30 inch diam. 709 $/ft $780,000 $1,320,000 C35 P Replace 18" to 24" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline DC 5 200 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $175,000 $300,000 C36 P Construct new 36" pipeline DC 5 100 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $90,000 $155,000 C37 P Replace 15" existing pipeline with 24" pipeline DC 5 400 ft 24 inch diam. 567 $/ft $230,000 $390,000 C38 P Replace 24" to 30" existing pipeline with 36" pipeline DC 5 600 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $515,000 $875,000 C39 P Construct new 36" pipeline DC 5 200 ft 36 inch diam. 851 $/ft $175,000 $300,000 Total $32,140,000 $54,420,000 Table 9.7 Miscellaneous Stormwater Quality Improvement Projects Project ID Category Description Watershed Phase Size Capacity or Type Unit Cost Construction Cost Capital Cost OC B Ocean Basin Enhancements (Trash Interceptor) SMB 1 $1,506,436 $2,550,000 BM B Bishop Montgomery Multi-Use Althletic Field (Below Grade Chamber System and NetPave Parking System) SMB 1 $4,447,583 $7,520,000 S Installation of Street Sweeping Signs in Remainder of City (Outside Study Area) SMB 3 99 mi 3,187 $/mi $315,000 $315,000 Total $6,269,019 $10,385,000 City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-17 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) 9.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM As described above, the recommended CIP is based on low flow diversion stormwater quality improvements, capacity improvements, and miscellaneous improvements. The cost of wet weather stormwater quality improvements is presented herein for information purposes. As shown in Table 9.8, but not included in the total cost of the recommended CIP. Table 9.8 Recommended CIP Summary Improvement Type Capital Cost ($ million) Source Low Flow Diversion Water Quality Projects $47.1 Table 9.4 Capacity Improvement Projects $54.4 Table 9.6 Miscellaneous Improvement Projects $10.4 Table 9.7 Total Cost of Recommended Dry Weather CIP $111.9 n/a Wet Weather Water Quality Projects $120.2 Table 9.5 Total Cost of Wet Weather CIP(1) $185.0 n/a Notes: (1) Does not include Low Flow Diversion Improvement Projects to avoid double counting. 9.4.1 CIP by Planning Phase As previously discussed, the CIP is divided into five phases. Table 9.9 summarizes the breakdown of costs for each of the phases (shown in million dollars). Table 9.9 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Project Type Category Phase 1 ($M) Phase 2 ($M) Phase 3 ($M) Phase 4 ($M) Phase 5 ($M) Total ($M) BMPs $10.5 $5.7 $2.4 $6.0 $0.0 $24.6 Diversion Structures $0.3 $0.7 $0.8 $0.7 $0.0 $2.4 Storm Drains and Force Mains $1.5 $6.7 $4.9 $13.3 $54.4 $80.7 Street Sweeping $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 $1.0 Pump Stations $0.0 $1.5 $0.8 $0.9 $0.0 $3.1 Valves and Site Piping $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 Total $12.4 $14.7 $9.2 $21.2 $54.4 $111.9 Notes: 1. Capital Costs are based on the cost assumptions discussed in Section 9.1. Detailed information for each project can be found in Table 9.5. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-18 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) As shown in Table 9.9, total capital cost is estimated at $112 million, which is divided into five phases. Figure 9.1 presents the capital costs for each identified phase. Figure 9.1 Capital Cost by Phase Locations for improvements included in the CIP are shown on Figure 9.2. $12.4 $14.7 $9.2 $21.2 $54.4 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5Capital Cost($ million) Gardena Redondo Beach Lomita Palos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Do m i n g u e z Ch a n n e l Q17Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulv e d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a c h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWell 8 Walnut St.Sump 237th St.Sump Vine Av.Sump Airport Pond Wilson Park De Portola Park Guenser Park ExxonMobil Basin McMaster Park El Prado Park Torrance Airport SCE Yard Lincoln Elementary School New DC Infiltration Basin New Basin El Camino College Parking Lot Torrance Blvd Median Crenshaw/Skypark Q08 Q15 Q27 Q05 Q21 Q04 Q14 Q25 Q22 Q16 Q18 Q24 Q23 Q26 Q17 Q19 Q09 Q13 Q03 Q23 Q28 Q28 Q26 Q27 Q06 Q08, Q10, Q11, Q12 Q01 Q02 Q10 (Diverted to Wilson Park)Q11 (Diverted to Wilson Park) Q10 Q16 Q07 Q24 Q18 Q05 Q28 Q27 Q08 Q11 Q26 Q12 Q25 Q19 Q20 Q23 Q21 Q01 Q02 Q04 Q22 Q15 Q14 Q06 Q09 Q13 Q03 OC BM Q18 Q24 Q05 12"18"30" 24"15"18"12"15"12"12" 18" Q21 Q12Q20Q20 36"78"66"81"75"45"54" 8" 27" 16"69"51"21"48" 60" 84"4"63" 6" 72" 30"18"102"15" 33" 42" 39" 57" 10"24"10" 42"66"24"72"30"6" 30" 42"63"6"30"66"42"21"8"72"66"6"63"48" 24" 42" 69"36"51"24"42" 42" 33"36"54" 48"15"45" 75"36"42"30"69"18"78" 30"15"30"54"18"30" 45" 24" 51"45"51"6"42"84"48" Figure 9.2Low Flow DiversionStormwater Quality CIP ProjectsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Existing Pump Stationsby Owner LACDPW Existing BMPsby TypeContinuous Deflective SeparatorBodies of Water Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor Roads CIP Projects Diversion Structure Low Flow Diversion Pump Station BMP Tributary Area (ID in Italics) Diversion Pipelines City Boundary Additional BMP Locations Retention and Detention BasinsTypeDetention Basin Retention Basin Recommended BMP Locationsby TypeInfiltration Wetlands Retention HDS None (Use Existing Facility) High Priority Subareas Study Area Note: Not all proposed diversion structures and site piping shown due to scale of map.pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_9.2-Low_Flow_Diversion_Stormwater_Quality_Projects.mxd Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Cha n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdWilson Park Guenser Park Sur la Brea Park McMasterPark Torrance Little League El Prado Park ColumbiaPark TorranceAirport Del Amo/Van Ness Crenshaw/Skypark De Portola Park 54"54" 54"54"DC7-3 HL5-4 DC1-3 HL6-3 DC4-1 DC6-1DC7-1 HL3-1 HL5-1 DC1-1 HL1-1 DC3-1 DC5-1 HL4-1 DC2-1 HL6-1 HL5-2 DC1-2 DC7-2 HL6-2 36"78"66"81"75"45"54"8" 27" 16"69"51"21"48" 60"84"4"22"63" 6" 72" 30"18"102"15"33"42"12"39"57" 10" 2 4 " 42" 42" 54" 24 " 45"24"18"51" 60" 42" 48" 54"48"24"42" 30"78"51"72"24" 18" 18"81"72"78"48"21"36"45" 42"15"63" 75" 54" 36"54"30"24"36" 24"24"78"42"33"48" 42" 36"63"30"24"54"39" 48" 66" 33" 30"84"30"27"45" 54" 51" 24"36"72"42" 6" 24"39"66"72"8"45"30"18"18"45"24"30"18"30" 42"57"42"24"72"81"54"27"30"8"33"66"24"75"36"24" 6"42"33" 36"48"27 "18"66"51"30"6"36"72"24"21"24"36"54" 27" 30" 24"33"54" 24"36"78"51"60"8"21" Figure 9.3Wet Weather Stormwater Quality CIP ProjectsStormwater Quality Management PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor RoadsOthersRetention BasinDetention BasinBodies of Water Pump Station Force MainRecommended BMP Locationsby Type Infiltration Wetlands Retention HDS None (Use Existing Facility) Study Area Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling HillsEstates Los Angeles County(Unincorperated) Machado Lake Dominguez Cha n n e l Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl vd Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdC30 C25 C22 C18 C23 C34C37C27C17C35 C24 C21 42"48"48"C14 C16C15C11C13C1251"C10C06C05 C03C09C04C01 C07 C 0 8C0248"66"42"36"30"3 0 " 36"36"42"36"30" 48" 42" 36" 48"24"36"36"51"51"27"36"30" 36"54"54" 42"24"36"78"66"81"75"45"54"8" 27" 16"69"51"21"48"60"84"4"22"63" 6" 72" 30"18"102"15"33"42" 12"39"57" 10"24"42"54"42"48" 24"24"27" 36" 51" 42"78"33"63"72" 24" 42"24"36"18"66"18" 42" 6"66"24" 30" 63" 54"36"36"27"54" 48"33"54" 54" 75" 66"30"48" 78" 30" 48"36"6"15" 33" 60"45"30"24"36"15"8"30" 42"72"78"54"69"30"72"42" 24 "6"54"24" 54"30"39"24" 6" 54" 54"57"27" 51"42"42"81"18"36"24"51"33"48"33"24"24"15"66"30 " 36"84"24"42" 66" 42"12"33" 45" 48"24"54" 24" 24" 33" 69" 57"84"24"60"18"42" 51"8"Figure 9.4Stormwater CapacityCIP ProjectsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles LEGEND TORRANCE Storm DrainsCity's Stormwater SystemLACDPW SystemFlow DirectionFreewayMajor RoadsOthersRetention BasinDetention BasinBodies of Water Minor EventWater Quantity Deficiencies Replace, Parallel, or New Construction Study Area pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Data\GIS\SQMP_Figure_9.4-Stormwater_Capacity_CIP_Projects.mxd City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-25 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) 9.4.2 CIP by Watershed The breakdown of capital costs for the improvements included in the CIP by watershed are included in Table 9.10. Table 9.10 Capital Cost by Planning Phase and Watershed Watershed Phase 1 ($M) Phase 2 ($M) Phase 3 ($M) Phase 4 ($M) Phase 5 ($M) Total ($M) Dominguez Channel $0.0 $14.7 $0.0 $21.2 $28.0 $63.9 Harbor Lakes $2.3 $0.0 $8.9 $0.0 $11.5 $22.8 Walteria Lake $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.9 $14.9 Santa Monica Bay $10.1 $0.0 $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $10.4 Total $12.4 $14.7 $9.2 $21.2 $54.4 $111.9 Note: 1. Capital Costs are based on the cost assumptions discussed in Section 9.1. Detailed information for each project can be found in Table 9.5. As shown in Table 9.10, the Dominguez Channel watershed includes the majority of the recommended improvements at $63.9 million, with the Harbor Lakes and Walteria Lake watersheds including $22.8 million and $14.9 million, respectively. The Santa Monica Bay watershed includes about $10.4 million. However, the City has already invested in BMPs within Santa Monica Bay since some applicable TMDLs are already in place. Improvements included in the CIP are shown by improvement type on Figure 9.2. As shown on Figure 9.5, pipelines represent the most significant component of the CIP, accounting for about 72 percent of the total CIP cost. BMPs account for about 22 percent. Pump stations, street sweeping, diversion structures, and valves and site piping are the smallest categories, representing a total of 6 percent. Figure 9.6 shows the cost breakdown between improvements recommended for water quality and water capacity. As shown, water capacity improvements represent the bulk of the CIP, with about 68 percent of the total CIP cost. Water quantity improvements represent the remaining 32 percent of the CIP. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-26 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Figure 9.5 Capital Cost by Phase Figure 9.6 Capital Cost by Category BMPs, $24.6, 22% Diversion Structures, $2.4, 2% Storm Drains and Force Mains, $80.7, 72% Street Sweeping $1.0, 1% Pump Stations, $3.1, 3%Valves and Site Piping, $0.1, <1% Total CIP$111.9 million Water Quality Improvements $57.5M 51% Stormwater Capacity Improvements $54.449% Total CIP $111.9 million City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-27 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) 9.5 MONITORING COSTS As discussed in Chapter 3, the monitoring is a component for most of the TMDLs applicable to the City’s discharges. Table 9.11 summarizes the TMDLs discussed in Chapter 3, and shows when baseline monitoring is scheduled and when compliance monitoring would initiate. Table 9.11 Monitoring Components of TMDLs Body of Water Name Status Baseline Monitoring Initiate Compliance Monitoring Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Effective - 2004(4) PCBs + DDT In Development(1) 2013 2016 Debris (Trash + Plastic Pellets) Adopted 2013 (Trash) 2014 (Plastic) 2016 Dominguez Channel(2) Bacteria In Development(2) 2013 - 2015 2016 Toxics Adopted 2013 - 2014 2015 Nutrients Anticipated 2013 - 2015 2016 Machado Lake Nutrients Effective 2012 2013 Toxics Effective 2011 - 2013 2014 Trash(3) Effective 2009 - 2010 - Notes: Dates in italics are assumed since the actual dates are not yet established. It was assumed that potential TMDLs would take at least 2 years for development and 1 year for approval, with 2 years for baseline monitoring followed by compliance monitoring. 1. The EPA released a draft TMDL for this pollutant on December, 9, 2011 (EPA, 2011). 2. Dominguez Channel discharges into the Los Angeles Harbor; thus TMDLs may apply to dischargers to the Dominguez Channel even though the Body of Water is listed as Los Angeles Harbor (Los Angeles River and Machado Lake also discharge into the Los Angeles Harbor). 3. The Machado Lake Trash TMDL did not include an explicit compliance monitoring program. However, it is assumed that compliance monitoring will be required through the approval of the monitoring reporting plan. 4. It is not believed this is conducted by the City. As shown in Table 9.11, approximately seven baseline monitoring programs are anticipated to be required in 2013. For some TMDLs, less effort is associated with compliance monitoring when compared to baseline monitoring. After 2016, nine compliance monitoring programs are anticipated to be simultaneously required. While details such as sampling frequency, sample types, and number of samples will be developed in the various monitoring reports established early in the monitoring process, effort associated with City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-28 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) monitoring was approximated using the City’s estimate of $100,000 annually for monitoring of the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL. While sampling costs for some TMDLs, such as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL are anticipated to be significantly higher than the efforts associated with the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL, sampling costs for others are anticipated to be significantly lower, such as the trash TMDLs without costs for chemical testing or the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL, which only requires sampling every two years. At this level of planning, insufficient detail on the monitoring programs has been developed in order to predict monitoring costs to any level of detail. Thus, Table 9.12 presents approximate potential costs for monitoring assuming the monitoring efforts associated with the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL is assumed to be representative of the average level of effort for all of the monitoring plans. Since the monitoring efforts primarily consist of staff costs, an annual increase of 5 percent is incorporated into the potential annual cost. Table 9.12 Projected Monitoring Costs Year Number of Monitoring Programs Annual Cost ($M) Escalated Annual Cost ($M) 2009 – 2010 1 $0.1 $0.1 2011 – 2012 2 $0.2 $0.2 2013 7 $0.8 $0.8 2014 8 $0.8 $0.9 2015 8 $0.8 $1.0 2016 8 $0.8 $1.0 2017 8 $0.8 $1.1 2018 8 $0.8 $1.1 2019 8 $0.8 $1.2 2020 8 $0.8 $1.2 2021 8 $0.8 $1.3 As shown in Table 9.12, the City’s costs associated with monitoring are anticipated to increase dramatically after 2013. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER PLAN December 2011 9-29 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) 9.6 FINANCIAL PLAN 9.6.1 Water Quality Fee Initiative The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is planning to implement a program to clean up polluted water in Los Angeles County. This water quality fee initiative (WQFI), also called the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Initiative, is in the planning stages of implementing a clean water fee. The purpose of the fee is to clean waterways within Los Angeles County. The fee could also provide the City with funding to implement some of the projects within the recommended CIP. The fee will be parcel based, and requires the approval of landowners within the LACFCD. It should be noted that it is currently planned for fee to apply to all property, government as well as private. The proceeds from the fee will be split into three categories:  40 percent will be provided directly to the cities within which the parcels fall  50 percent will be provided to Watershed Authority Groups to create regional projects  10 percent will be provided to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to administer the program As a part of the WQFI, Watershed Authority Groups (WAGs) are formed regionally by watershed. According to preliminary maps, the City’s service area will fall within two WAGs, the Santa Monica Bay, and Dominguez Channel WAGs. While the details of the fee are not yet available, based on a preliminary estimate from the County of about $54 per single-family residential lot and 30,000 single family residences within the City, the total collected fee from residences would be approximately $1.6M per year. In addition, the City would collect fees from other land uses. Based on the City’s land use distribution, it is assumed that non-residential parcels would add another 35 percent of the residential fee, or about $0.56 million per year. The estimated water quality fee from the City is therefore $2.2 million per year. This would equate to $875,000 annually for City projects (40%) and $1,100,000 annually available for regional projects (50%). 9.6.2 Annual Costs Based on a useful life of 75 years for storm drains and force mains and 30 years for BMPs and force mains, annual costs were developed for each of the recommended phases. Operations and maintenance costs were estimated based on national averages for operations and maintenance of BMPs. City of Torrance STORMWATER QUALITY MASTER P LAN 9-30 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/Ch09.docx (I) Table 9.13 Annual Cost by Planning Phase Category Phase 1 ($M) Phase 2 ($M) Phase 3 ($M) Phase 4 ($M) Phase 5 ($M) Total ($M) Annual Capital Cost(1) $0.89 $0.99 $0.61 $1.38 $3.31 $7.16 Annual O&M $0.03 $0.27 $0.17 $0.36 $0.00 $0.82 Total $0.91 $1.25 $0.78 $1.73 $3.31 $7.98 Note: 1. Annual costs estimated based on 6 percent interest and useful life of 75 years for storm drains and force mains and 30 years for BMPs and force mains.. As shown, estimated annual costs for implementation of the complete CIP are about $8 million. Excluding water capacity improvements, the estimated annual costs for implementation of the water quality related recommendations is $4.7 million. Note that operations and maintenance costs are predicted only for the BMPs, not for the storm drain system. 9.6.3 Potential Funding When comparing the available funding associated with the WQFI to the annual capital costs, the City’s anticipated costs to implement the CIP anticipated revenue from the WQFI, even if the City is able to fund some of the BMPs as regional projects. Assuming the City is able to fully utilize its share of the fee associated with regional projects, the City will still need to fund about $0.5 million annually for the water quality improvements associated with Machado Lake, and $6.8 million to implement the remaining water quality related improvements. If the City were to implement a fee on parcels within its service area in addition to the WQFI, the resulting annual fee associated with implementation of the remaining water quality improvements would be $168, or about $14 per month. This estimation is based on 30,000 single-family parcels and 135 percent of the single-family cost applied to other land uses. If such a fee were implemented, it is recommended that the fee incorporate considerations of land use and parcel size. December 2011 A-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix A.doc Appendix A REFERENCES (LACDPW, 2000) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 1994 – 2000 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report. 31 July 2000. (LACDPW, 2000) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Stormwater Quality Monitoring Report.. 1999-2000. (LACDPW, 2005) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Dominguez Watershed Management Master Plan. (LACDPW, 2006) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. Updated 2006. (LAWQCB, 2008) Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board. “Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL.” Adopted 1 May 2008. (LAWQCB, 2010) Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board. “Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region to Incorporate a Total Maximum Daily Load for Pesticides and PCBs for Machado Lake.” Resolution R10-008. Adopted 2 September 2010. (LAC, 2009) Los Angeles County. Low Impact Development Standards Manual. January 2009. [http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/LA_County_LID_Manual.pdf] (NCDC, 2010) National Climactic Data Center. Monthly Precipitation Data for Station 03122. Period of Record from 01 January 1946 to Present. (Carollo, 2008) Carollo Engineers. “Predesign of BMPs for Detention Basins Tributary to Santa Monica Bay CIP No. I-102: Task 7 Conceptual Report.” Prepared for City of Torrance. December 2008. (Carollo, 2010) Carollo Engineers. “Predesign of BMPs for Ocean Avenue Retention Basin: Conceptual Report.” Prepared for City of Torrance. June 2010. (Carollo, 2010b) Carollo Engineers. “Predesign of BMPs for Bishop Montgomery Retention Basin: Conceptual Report.” Prepared for City of Torrance. June 2010. (EPA, 2011) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Total Maximum Daily Loads for DDTs and PCBs in Santa Monica Bay. 9 December 2011. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/santamonica/santamonicaba y-draft-tmdl.pdf] A-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix A.doc (EPA, 2011b) States Environmental Protection Agency. “Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic Environment.” Updated 29 September 2011. Accessed 20 December 2011. [http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/marinedebris/plasticpellets_index.cfm] (CSUS, 2005) Office of Water Programs, California State University, Sacramento. NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey. Prepared for California State Water Resources Control Board. January 2005. (HTB, 2010) Heal the Bay. “Marine Debris: The Plastic Plague”. Updated 7 July 2010. Accessed 20 December 2011. [http://sites.healthebay.org/currentissues/marinedebris_plasticplague/ default.asp] (Paulsen and List, 2003) Paulsen, Susan C., and List, E. John. Environmental Defense Services. “A Review of the Los Angeles Basin Plan Administrative Record.” February 2003. (LAWQCB, 2008b) State of California California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region. “Economic Considerations of the Proposed Order.” 25 February 2008. (SWQCB, 2002) State Water Quality Control Board. “Final 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments”. Los Angeles Region. [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/ 2002reg4303dlist.pdf] (Torrance, 2010) City of Torrance. General Plan. Adopted April 2010. (USCB, 2010) United States Census Bureau. “2010 Census Redistricting Data Summary File.” Accessed June 2011. (WRCC, 2010) Western Regional Climate Center, “Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary”. Station 048973 - Torrance. January 1932 to December 2010. [http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8973]. December 2011 A-3 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix A.doc References: GIS Layers Layer Name (Reference, if applicable) Description Date Modified (or Received) Source A-4 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix A.doc This page left blank intentionally. December 2011 B-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix B.doc Appendix B REGULATIONS AND MONITORING PLANS This appendix contains the following regulations: • Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Basin Plan Amendment • Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Resolution • Machado Lake Trash TMDL Basin Plan Amendment • Machado Lake Trash TMDL Resolution • Machado Lake PCBs and Toxics TMDL Basin Plan Amendment • Machado Lake PCBs and Toxics TMDL Resolution • Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL Modeling Study • Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL Resolution (referred to in the text of this report as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL) • Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL Basin Plan Amendment (referred to in the text of this report as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL) • Ventura County MS4 Permit • Los Angeles County MS4 Permit • Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDL Resolution (3) • Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDL Basin Plan Amendment (2) • Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL Resolution • Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL Basin Plan Amendment In addition, this appendix contains the following monitoring plans: • Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring Study • Machado Lake PCBs and Toxics Monitoring Study B-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix B.doc This page left blank intentionally. Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors and San Pedro Bay Hydrodynamic and Sediment-Contaminant Transport Model Calibration DRAFT February 2009 Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 i Table of Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................1 2. Modeling Framework...................................................................................2 3. Observational Data for Model Configuration and Calibration..................3 4. Model Configuration....................................................................................6 4.1. Model Grid System.................................................................................6 4.2. Bathymetry and Topography ..................................................................6 4.3. Selection of Temporal Simulation Period................................................7 4.4. Open Boundary Hydrodynamic Forcing..................................................8 4.5. Salinity and Temperature Open Boundary Conditions............................9 4.6. Wind and Atmospheric Forcing...............................................................9 4.7. Fresh Water Inflow ...............................................................................10 5. Hydrodynamic Calibration........................................................................11 5.1. Tidal Frequency Water Surface Elevation ............................................11 5.2. Low Frequency Water Surface Elevation..............................................11 5.3. Tidal Frequency Currents.....................................................................14 6. Transport Calibration ................................................................................17 6.1. Salinity Calibration................................................................................18 7. Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model Configuration.................22 7.1. Sediment Bed Initial Conditions............................................................23 7.2. Sediment Settling, Deposition and Erosion Parameters.......................38 7.3. Equilibrium Partition Coefficients..........................................................39 7.4. External Loads and Open Boundary Conditions...................................49 8. Sediment and Contaminant Transport Calibration.................................51 8.1. Sediment Transport Calibration............................................................52 8.2. Contaminant Transport Calibration.......................................................52 8.3. Dry Season Sensitivity Analysis ...........................................................53 8.4. Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions...........................................54 9. Summary and Recommendations...............................................................61 References ........................................................................................................62 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Calibration Plots Appendix B: Model Performance Measures Appendix C: Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model Dry Season Sensitivity Analysis Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 ii Appendix D: Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions Appendix E: Analysis of Additional Water Column Metals and Suspended Solids Data List of Figures Figure 1. Greater harbors and San Pedro Bay grid..............................................7 Figure 2. Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor area bathymetry...............................8 Figure 3. Location of Tide Gauge (blue) and Current Meters (black).................10 Figure 4. Low frequency sea level comparison at NOAA tide gauge in Los Angels Harbor..............................................................................................13 Figure 5. Location of salinity stations having significant variability.....................19 Figure 6. Location of Bight 03 salinity sampling stations....................................20 Figure 7. Comparison of predicted and observed salinity at 20 stations during seven monitoring times over upper (surface) and lower (bottom) fractions of the water column.......................................................................21 Figure 8. Station numbers associated with the comparison of predicted and observed salinity at 20 stations during seven monitoring times over upper (surface) and lower (bottom) fractions of the water column...............22 Figure 9. Location of 200 data sites used to initialize sediment bed physical properties.....................................................................................................25 Figure 10. Most recent sediment bed physical data sites inside the breakwater...................................................................................................26 Figure 11. Porosity as a function of fine sediment fraction.................................27 Figure 12. Fraction of fine sediment (< 0.063 mm) in the sediment bed used for model initialization ..................................................................................28 Figure 13. Sediment bed porosity used for model initialization..........................29 Figure 14. All sites used to initialize sediment bed metals, and organics concentrations .............................................................................................30 Figure 15. Fall 2006 bed and overlying water column sample sites...................31 Figure 16. Initial bed solid phase copper concentration.....................................32 Figure 17. Initial bed solid phase lead concentration.........................................33 Figure 18. Initial bed phase zinc concentration..................................................34 Figure 19. Initial bed solid phase DDT concentration.........................................35 Figure 20. Initial bed solid phase PAH concentration.........................................36 Figure 21. Initial bed solid phase PCB concentration.........................................37 Figure 22. Erosion velocity predicted by equation (3) versus erosion velocity observed during sedflume erosion potential measurements........................39 Figure 23. Total organic carbon fraction as a function of total solids concentration, based on 2006 sediment bed data.......................................41 Figure 24. Equilibrium partition coefficients for copper, lead, and zinc based on bed total solids concentration. ................................................................42 Figure 25. Mid-water column sample sites used for metals calibration..............43 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 iii Figure 26. Particulate to dissolved concentration ratio (equal to product of partition coefficient and adsorption site particle concentration) for mid- water column metals concentrations............................................................44 Figure 27. Equilibrium partition coefficient for DDT based on total solids (top panel) and total organic carbon (bottom panel) based on data collected in 2006.........................................................................................................46 Figure 28. Equilibrium partition coefficient for PAH based on total solids (top panel) and total organic carbon (bottom panel) based on data collected in 2006.........................................................................................................47 Figure 29. Equilibrium partition coefficient for PCB based on total solids (top panel) and total organic carbon (bottom panel) based on data collected in 2006.........................................................................................................48 Figure 30. Fraction of organic carbon as function of total suspended solids concentration based on fall 2006 overlying water site data .........................49 Figure 31. Examples of flow and inflowing sediment and copper concentration for the Los Angeles River......................................................50 Figure 32. Comparison of model predicted and single observed sediment........55 Figure 33. Comparison of model predicted and observed sediment concentration at the 2006 overlying water sites and 2007 mid-water column sites.................................................................................................56 Figure 34. Comparison of model predicted and observed copper concentration at the overlying water and mid-water column sites................57 Figure 35. Comparison of model predicted and observed lead concentrations at the overlying water and mid-water column sites..............58 Figure 36. Comparison of model predicted and observed zinc concentration at the 2006 overlying water and mid-water column sites.............................59 Figure 37. Comparison of model predicted and observed DDT concentration at the 2006 overlying water column sites.....................................................60 Figure 38. Comparison of model predicted and observed PAH concentration at the 2006 overlying water sites .................................................................60 List of Tables Table 1. Data Used for Hydrodynamic Model Configuration and Calibration.......4 Table 2. Data Used for Sediment and Contaminant Model Configuration and Calibration......................................................................................................5 Table 3. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at NOAA Gauge..........................................................................................................12 Table 4. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at 206B Gauge..........................................................................................................12 Table 5. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at 173 (Data File Borx) Gauge................................................................................12 Table 6. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at 200G (Data file Barg) Gauge.................................................................................12 Table 7. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at DC Pacific Avenue Gauge .................................................................................13 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 iv Table 8. Instantaneous and Low Frequency Water Surface Elevation Statistical Comparison at NOAA Gauge ......................................................13 Table 9. Horizontal Current M2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations.............................14 Table 10. Horizontal Current S2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations..................15 Table 11. Horizontal Current N2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations..................15 Table 12. Horizontal Current K1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations..................15 Table 13. Horizontal Current O1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations..................16 Table 14. Horizontal Current P1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations..................16 Table 15. Horizontal Current M2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations....16 Table 16. Horizontal Current S2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations....16 Table 17. Horizontal Current N2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations....17 Table 18. Horizontal Current K1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations....17 Table 19. Horizontal Current O1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations....17 Table 20. Horizontal Current P1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations....17 Table 21. Sediment Bed and Water Column Equilibrium Partition Coefficients and Particulate to Dissolved Concentration Ratios for Metals..41 Table 22. Sediment Bed Equilibrium Partition Coefficients for Organics............45 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 1 1. Introduction This report summarizes the development and calibration of the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model components of a coupled hydrodynamic and water quality modeling system under development to support TMDLs in the greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, including the Los Angeles River estuary and San Pedro Bay. The report presents the overall modeling framework to support TMDL development, observational data to support the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model configuration and calibration, and calibration results. Areas of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors and San Pedro Bay, including their tributaries, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Dominguez Channel, are currently on the State of California’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. A variety of toxic inorganic and organic contaminants contribute to benthic effects and sediment toxicity impairments. Specific inorganic metal contaminants on the list include cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. Organic contaminants listed include chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, PAHs, PCBs, and toxaphene. The fate and transport of metals and organic contaminants in surface water systems is strongly coupled with the fate and transport of organic and inorganic sediments and dissolved organic material due to their affinity to adsorb to sediment particles and bond with dissolved organic carbon to form complexes. Hydrodynamic and water quality models provide an important tool to evaluate existing conditions, including identifying non-point source load contributions, source controls, and TMDL allocation alternatives. A modeling system that includes hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate is necessary to assess current conditions and potential load reduction scenarios for the listed waterbodies. This report provides an update on the status of the development of the hydrodynamic component of this modeling system, including calibration results (Section 5, Section 6, and Appendix A), and describes the sediment transport and contaminant transport and fate components. The report is organized as follows: · Modeling Framework. Summarizes the overall modeling framework including model selection and the sequence of steps leading to the decision support modeling system for TMDL development. · Observational Data for Model Configuration and Calibration. Summarizes available observational data for configuration and calibration of the hydrodynamic model component. · Hydrodynamic Model Configuration. Describes general and hydrodynamic configuration of the model for the greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors system. · Hydrodynamic Calibration. Outlines the approach used and presents results for the hydrodynamic and transport calibration. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 2 · Sediment and Contaminant Transport Configuration. Describes the configuration of the sediment and contaminant transport and fate components of the modeling including analysis of field observations. · Sediment and Contaminant Transport Calibration. Outlines the approach used and presents calibration results. · Summary and Recommendations. Summarizes the status of the calibration and makes recommendations for use of the model for TMDL development. · Appendix A. Provides time series plots of the salinity calibration. · Appendix B. Describes the model performance measures used to compare model output and observed data during model calibration. · Appendix C. Presents dry season model sensitivity analyses. · Appendix D. Presents model sensitivity to long-term load reductions. · Appendix E. Provides analyses of additional water column data. 2. Modeling Framework A modeling system to support TMDL development for metals and hydrophobic organic compounds in the greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors system requires three primary components: hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has conducted numerous hydrodynamic and eutrophication modeling studies in the greater harbors area (Seabergh and Outlaw, 1984; Seabergh, 1985; CERC, 1990; Hall, 1990; Hall, 1995; Wang et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1998; Bunch, et al., 2000, 2002, 2003) using the proprietary CH3D hydrodynamic and CE-QAUL-IC water quality models. No previous modeling efforts have addressed the fate and transport of sediment adsorbed toxic metals and organic compounds in the greater harbor waters. The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) (Hamrick, 1992; Hamrick and Wu; 1997; Park et al., 1995) was selected for this study for a number of reasons. The EFDC model includes all required model components (hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate) and is in the public domain, as well as being supported by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EFDC model has been used for more than 100 surface water modeling applications including nutrient TMDL development (Wool et al., 2003; Zou et al., 2006) and metals and organic contaminant fate and transport at conventional (Ji et al., 2002; King County, 1999) and superfund sites (U. S. EPA, Region 1, 2006; U. S. EPA Region 10, 2006). An EFDC model was developed by the Port of Los Angeles for the Dominguez Channel estuary and the Consolidated Slips. The EFDC modeling framework to support TMDL development in the greater harbors systems was undertaken in a sequence of steps. The first step was configuration and calibration of the model hydrodynamic component, including Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 3 salinity and temperature transport. This step was followed by the configuration and calibration of the sediment transport and contaminant fate and transport components. Both of these steps utilized results from two complimentary studies. Fresh water inflow and associated sediment and contaminant loads were provided by LSPC models of the near shore watersheds and the three larger watersheds (Dominguez Channel, Los Angeles River, and San Gabriel River watersheds) (Tetra Tech, 2006). The EFDC model had previously been applied to simulate sediment and metals transport in the tidal region of Dominguez Channel (Everest, 2006). The model grid used in the Dominguez study was adopted for this study. Field observations collected during that study were also used for model calibration and validation in this current effort. This report summarizes the configuration and calibration of the hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate components of this modeling system. 3. Observational Data for Model Configuration and Calibration Observational data for the hydrodynamic model falls within two general classes: data used for model configuration and data used for model calibration. Model configuration data includes the water body shoreline, bathymetry, data used for specifying hydrodynamic and salinity and temperature boundary conditions, atmospheric wind and thermal forcing, and inflows. Calibration data includes observations of hydrodynamic variables predicted by the modeling including water surface elevation, horizontal currents, salinity, temperature, and dye tracer concentration. Table 1 summarizes the observational data currently used for hydrodynamic model configuration and calibration. Data listed in Table 1 and used for the hydrodynamic model configuration and calibration are discussed later in this report. It is useful to summarize that the available observational data for hydrodynamic model configuration are very adequate, while the data for model calibration could be judged as less adequate. The available data being used for calibration are limited to two tide gauges, four current meters within the breakwater, six current meters outside the breakwater in San Pedro Bay, and approximately 120 salinity and temperature monitoring stations. The adequacy of the data for calibration relates strongly to the hydrodynamic characteristics of the greater harbors system. Previous modeling studies by the ACOE indicated that water surface elevation amplitude and phase vary insignificantly in the system and that the long-term NOAA tide gauge record is representative of the entire system. Recent current meter observations within the breakwater (POLA Prop 13, Table 1) have been confined to the inner regions of Los Angeles Harbor. Current meter observations outside the breakwater (LSCSD Palos Verde Shelf, Table 1) were useful in developing boundary conditions, but are far removed from the primary area of interest. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 4 Table 1. Data Used for Hydrodynamic Model Configuration and Calibration Data Type Use Source Shoreline, Breakwaters and Fairways Model Grid Generation NOAA Electronic Navigation Charts Bathymetry Primary Model Bathymetry Configuration NOAA High Resolution Coastal Relief Bathymetric Data Set Bathymetry Local Model Bathymetry Configuration NOAA Electronic Navigation Charts Bathymetry Local Model Bathymetry Configuration Port of Los Angeles Tide Gauge Record at Port of Los Angeles Development of Tidal Boundary Conditions and Tidal Elevation Calibration NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services Port of Los Angeles Prop 13 Current Meter Record Tidal Elevation Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor LSCSD Palo Verde Shelf Study Current Meter and CTD Records Development of Tidal and Temperature Boundary Conditions and Tidal Current Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor (SAIC, 2004) Port of Los Angeles Prop 13 Current Meter Record Tidal Current Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor Stream Flow Records Dominguez Channel Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Inflows County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works WWTP Discharge Record Terminal Island Treatment Plant Discharge City of Los Angeles Wind Speed and Direction Records Wind Forcing NOAA National Climate Data Center LAX Airport Station Wind Speed and Direction Records Wind Forcing California Irrigation Management System, Long Beach and Santa Monica Station Wind Speed and Direction Records Wind Forcing NOAA National Data Buoy Center Stations 46025, 46086 Atmospheric Temperature, Relative Humidity, Solar Radiation and Cloud Cover Records Atmospheric Thermal Forcing NOAA National Climate Data Center LAX Airport Station Atmospheric Temperature, Relative Humidity, Solar Radiation and Cloud Cover Records Atmospheric Thermal Forcing California Irrigation Management System, Long Beach and Santa Monica Stations Salinity and Temperature Monitoring Data Transport Calibration and Temperature Calibration City of Los Angeles Salinity and Temperature Monitoring Data Transport Calibration and Temperature Calibration Harbor Generating Station Salinity and Temperature Monitoring Data Transport Calibration and Temperature Calibration Port of Los Angeles Salinity and Temperature Monitoring Data Transport Calibration and Temperature Calibration Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach Biological Baseline Study Port of Los Angeles Prop 13 Salinity, Temperature and Dye Data Transport Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor Port of Long Beach Tide Gauge and Current Meter Data Tidal Elevation Horizontal ADCP Monitoring Pier J Basin Winter Monitoring Report (Moffatt & Nichol, 2004) Salinity and Temperature Monitoring Data (Bight 03 data on stormwater runoff and dispersion) Transport Calibration and Temperature Calibration SCCWRP and others Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 5 Table 1 lists a number of discrete salinity and temperature monitoring studies, representing approximately 120 stations. With respect to temperature, these data are very adequate. However because temperature variability is primarily temporal, model temperature prediction is more of a measure of correctness of atmospheric thermal forcing rather than hydrodynamic transport. The adequacy of the salinity observations in these monitoring data sets is very limited. This is due to the climate and hydrology of the area that results in significant salinity variability being associated with episodic freshwater inflow events. Of the 120 monitoring stations, only 20 have observations corresponding to times when the salinity is significantly less than the 32 to 33 ppt level characteristic of the greater harbors system. Further, at these 20 stations, there are only three observations per station showing depressed salinity. Table 2 summarizes data used for sediment transport and contaminant fate and transport configuration and calibration. These data are described in detail throughout sections 7 and 8 and their associated appendices. Table 2. Data Used for Sediment and Contaminant Model Configuration and Calibration Data Description Use Source POLA/POLB – Sediment bed physical data (2006) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor Bight 03 – Sediment bed physical data (2003) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided by SCCWRP Bight 94 – Sediment bed physical data (1994) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Contaminated Sediments Task Force Database Bight 98 – Sediment bed physical data (1998) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Contaminated Sediments Task Force Database POLA/POLB Biological Baseline Study – Sediment bed physical data (2000) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Electronic Reports Provided to US EPA Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup – Sediment bed physical data (1997) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Contaminated Sediments Task Force Database Western EMAP – Sediment bed physical data (1999) Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Contaminated Sediments Task Force Database POLA/POLB Special Studies (1998- 2001) POLA Berth 100 Final Report POLA Berth 121, 122-124 Final Rprt 2/2 POLA Berth 240B Final Report POLA Berths 148-151 Sed Test POLA Berths 167-169 Sed Tests POLA Berths 212-215 Sed Tests POLA Berths 263-264 Sed Tests POLA Slip 5 Sed Tests POLA West Ch B40-44 Sed Testing POLB Contract HD5951 POLB Pier J, East Channel Dredge POLB Pier S Dredging, Final Report POLB West Basin, 8/98 Sed Testing Sediment Bed Physical Model Initialization Contaminated Sediments Task Force Database Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 6 Data Description Use Source Harbor Generating Station - Sediment chemistry data (2001-2003) Sediment Bed Chemistry Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Contractor during 303(d) data compilation efforts Terminal Island Treatment Plant - Sediment chemistry data (2001-2003) Sediment Bed Chemistry Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by City of Los Angeles, Environmental Monitoring Division EPA/POLA/AMEC - Sediment chemistry data (2002) Sediment Bed Chemistry Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor Bight 03 – Sediment chemistry data (2003) Sediment Bed Chemistry Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided by SCCWRP POLA/POLB – Sediment chemistry data (2006) Sediment Bed Chemistry Model Initialization Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor POLA/POLB – Overlying water chemistry data (2006) Water Column Chemistry Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor POLA/POLB – Mid-column water chemistry data at POLB stations (2006) Water Column Chemistry Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Study Contractor POLA - Mid-column water chemistry data at POLA stations (2005) Water Column Chemistry Calibration Electronic Data Provided to US EPA by Port of Los Angeles 4. Model Configuration The following subsections outline the steps conducted to configure the EFDC hydrodynamic model. 4.1. Model Grid System A multi-resolution, curvilinear spatial grid of the greater harbors and San Pedro Bay was constructed using the using the Visual Orthogonal Grid Generation (VOGG) grid generation system (Tetra Tech, 2002). Shoreline boundaries for the grid were based on the NOAA/NOS electronic navigation charts in GIS format. The grid and shoreline, with the exception of the Dominguez Channel area, are shown in Figure 1. The Dominguez Channel grid from a previous study was incorporated into the model (Everest, 2006). The grid system uses a multi- domain mapping, unique to the EFDC model, which allow a course resolution outside the breakwater in San Pedro Bay and a finer resolution in the harbors system. The grid has 2,568 horizontal cells. In the vertical, the number of sigma layers is readily changed to allow for use of an optimum number of layers to represent hydrodynamic and transport processes. For this study four vertical layers were used. 4.2. Bathymetry and Topography Bathymetric data were interpolated on to the model grid using an average of the bathymetric data points falling within a cell. The primary bathymetric data set Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 7 used was the NOAA High Resolution Coastal Relief Data, which has a horizontal resolution of approximately 90 meters. This data set was supplemented by recent bathymetric survey data provided by the Port of Los Angeles. Additional bathymetry adjustments were made by visual comparison of gridded bathymetry with NOAA/NOS electronic navigation charts. Model bathymetry is shown in Figure 2. 4.3. Selection of Temporal Simulation Period The hydrodynamic and transport model was configured for a four-year historical simulation period spanning January 2002 through December 2005, since this period encompasses the greatest density of observational data for model calibration. Note: The portion of the grid in Dominguez Channel extending to Vermont Avenue is not shown. The grid for this area was represented by a previous study (Everest, 2006). Figure 1. Greater harbors and San Pedro Bay grid Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 8 East, KmNorth, Km15 20 25 30 35 40 4510 15 20 25 30 35 bathy: -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Area Bathymetry Note: Elevation in meters relative to local mean sea level. Figure 2. Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor area bathymetry 4.4. Open Boundary Hydrodynamic Forcing Circulation in the greater harbor system is forced by water surface elevation and transport along the grid boundaries in San Pedro Bay. The hydrodynamic boundary condition used along the three open boundaries is a radiation separation condition of the form 2 R H gH z z- = n ui (1) where z is the water surface elevation relative to a sea-level data, n is the outward normal vector to the boundary, u is the horizontal barotropic velocity vector, H is the water depth, and zR is the equivalent progressive wave amplitude. m Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 9 Along the open boundaries, the water surface elevation is composed of periodic tidal components and a transient or low frequency component in the sub-tidal frequency spectrum. The equivalent incoming wave boundary condition (1) was specified as the sum of a low frequency component and harmonic components, described by equation (2): ( ) ( )() 1 cos sin M R LF RCm m RSm m m t tz z z w z w = = ++∑ (2) where M is the number of tidal constituents, zRCm and zRSm are cosine and sine amplitudes at frequency wm. Six harmonics constituents (M2, S2, N2, K1, O1, and P1) were used. Since observational data were not available along the open boundaries, the tidal frequency components of the incoming wave open boundary condition were estimated by an optimization based inverse procedure to obtain a best fit prediction of water surface elevation and current meter observations within the model domain shown in Figure 3. 4.5. Salinity and Temperature Open Boundary Conditions Salinity and temperature open boundary conditions were specified as spatially constant and temporally varying along the open boundary. The salinity boundary condition was based on fitting monitoring data to a seasonally varying function with an adjustment factor to account for higher salinities in San Pedro Bay. The adjustment factor was calibrated. The temperature boundary condition was based on fitting the Palos Verde Shelf station A8 CTD record (SAIC, 2004) to a seasonally varying function. 4.6. Wind and Atmospheric Forcing Wind speed and direction and atmospheric thermal conditions including air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, solar short wave radiation, and cloud cover data were obtained from the NOAA National Climate Data Center for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). These data were supplemented by California Irrigation Management Information System observational data for Long Beach and Santa Monica and NOAA National Data Buoy Center observational data for off shore stations 46025 and 46086. The resulting model wind forcing is a spatially variable weighted average taking into account regional topographic conditions, while the atmospheric thermal forcing is spatially uniform and based on a composite of the various data sets. The NOAA Ports observational system for Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors began providing wind speed and direction data for seven stations in May 2005. Since these data spanned only 25 percent of the 2003-2005 simulation and did not cover the high freshwater inflow events of January 2003 and December 2004 to February 2005, they were not used in the current model configuration. In addition, during the period of May Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 10 2005 to December 2005, there were no salinity data to evaluate whether these data would improve model performance. However they should be considered for use in potential update model configurations if the simulation intervals are expanded into 2006 and beyond (when additional observational data may be available to further evaluate model performance). 4.7. Fresh Water Inflow Fresh water inflow along the boundaries of the model domain is introduced for Dominguez Channel, the Los Angeles River, and the San Gabriel River. For these three sources, inflow data provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works or from LSPC models (Tetra Tech, 2006) can be used. Terminal Island Treatment Plant Discharges, provided by the City of Los Angeles, were introduced into the interior model grid cell at the corresponding diffuser location. Non-point source freshwater inflows corresponding to 67 local near shore watersheds were provided by the LSPC watershed model (Tetra Tech, 2006). Figure 3. Location of Tide Gauge (blue) and Current Meters (black) Pac. Ave. 200G 206 173 NOAA A7 A6 A9 A8 AB AD Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 11 5. Hydrodynamic Calibration Hydrodynamic model calibration involved the adjustment of open boundary forcing, bottom roughness, and bottom elevations to obtain a general best agreement between model predictions and observations of water surface elevation and horizontal currents. Quantitative evaluation of the hydrodynamic calibration is based on comparison of observed and model predicted harmonic amplitudes and phases of tidal water surface elevation and currents and time series error analysis of observed and low frequency water surface elevation. The following subsections summarize the steps followed in the calibration process. 5.1. Tidal Frequency Water Surface Elevation Tidal frequency water surface elevation calibration is based on comparison of observed and model predicted tidal constituent amplitudes and phases at the NOAA Los Angeles Harbor tide gauge shown in Figure 3 and water surface elevation records at four Los Angeles inner harbor current meter stations also shown in Figure 3. Tables 3 through 7 summarize the comparisons for these five locations. For the NOAA gauge (Table 3) four of the six constituents have normalized amplitude errors less than 1 percent (0.01). The normalized amplitude error for the N2 constituent is approximately 10 percent, but is acceptable because the N2 constituent is of secondary importance. Absolute phase error for the dominant M2 constituent is just over 1 minute. Agreement between observed and predicted constituent amplitudes and phases is reasonably good for inner harbor stations 206B (Table 4) and 173 (Table 5), which also indicate that there is little change in amplitude and phase throughout the system consistent with previous model study findings. For station 200G (Table 6), the harmonic analysis of the data essentially failed and model predictions are tabulated to support the conclusion of marginal amplitude and phase variability. For the Pacific Avenue station in Dominguez Channel (Table 7), the amplitude and phase errors are large for all constituents. The failure of harmonic analysis to resolve the data at station 200G (Table 6) and the disagreement at Pacific Avenue (Table 7) is likely due to a large number of default entries in the data records. As will be shown in section 5.3, model comparison with current meter data at these two stations is more reasonable. 5.2. Low Frequency Water Surface Elevation Low frequency or sub-tidal water surface elevation in the greater harbors responds to low-frequency sea level variability in San Pedro Bay with negligible amplitude and phase variation. Figure 4 shows a comparison of model predicted and observed low frequency sea level at the Los Angeles Harbor NOAA Tide Gauge. Time series error analyses for the observed and predicted low frequency Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 12 sea level are summarized in Table 8. These, and other, model performance measures are described in Appendix B. Table 3. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at NOAA Gauge Tidal Constituent Observed Amplitude (meters) Modeled Amplitude (meters) Amplitude Error (|Observed- Modeled|/Observed) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Phase Error (Seconds) M2 0.503 0.505 0.004 27434 27498 64 S2 0.203 0.202 0.005 31335 31149 186 N2 0.119 0.119 0.000 31824 31657 167 K1 0.371 0.364 0.019 19854 19095 759 O1 0.246 0.240 0.024 7829 7082 747 P1 0.107 0.102 0.047 22894 26560 3666 Table 4. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at 206B Gauge Tidal Constituent Observed Amplitude (meters) Modeled Amplitude (meters) Amplitude Error (|Observed- Modeled|/Observed) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Phase Error (Seconds) M2 0.500 0.508 0.016 27273 27489 216 S2 0.219 0.204 0.068 31102 31123 21 N2 0.120 0.119 0.008 31436 31664 228 K1 0.380 0.366 0.037 18958 19214 256 O1 0.254 0.241 0.051 8891 7136 1755 P1 0.102 0.103 0.010 22507 26241 3734 Table 5. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at 173 (Data File Borx) Gauge Tidal Constituent Observed Amplitude (meters) Modeled Amplitude (meters) Amplitude Error (|Observed- Modeled|/Observed) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Phase Error (Seconds) M2 0.575 0.508 0.116 27065 27502 437 S2 0.250 0.203 0.188 31921 31127 794 N2 0.135 0.119 0.118 32390 31667 723 K1 0.400 0.366 0.085 18089 19217 1128 O1 0.303 0.241 0.204 9299 7136 2163 P1 0.086 0.103 0.197 23452 26229 2777 Table 6. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at 200G (Data file Barg) Gauge Tidal Constituent Observed Amplitude (meters) Modeled Amplitude (meters) Amplitude Error (|Observed- Modeled|/Observed) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Phase Error (Seconds) M2 0.163 0.508 21967 27503 S2 0.614 0.204 19966 31129 N2 0.070 0.119 33352 31670 K1 0.664 0.366 30625 19217 O1 0.160 0.241 12668 7138 P1 0.809 0.103 25720 26251 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 13 Table 7. Water Surface Elevation Tidal Constituents Comparison at DC Pacific Avenue Gauge Tidal Constituent Observed Amplitude (meters) Modeled Amplitude (meters) Amplitude Error (|Observed- Modeled|/Observed) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Phase Error (Seconds) M2 0.897 0.510 0.431 39765 27705 12060 S2 0.378 0.204 0.460 18710 31333 12623 N2 0.245 0.119 0.510 44224 31909 12315 K1 0.361 0.370 0.025 39878 19428 20450 O1 0.225 0.242 0.076 30302 7349 22953 P1 0.148 0.102 0.310 45411 26159 19252 Table 8. Instantaneous and Low Frequency Water Surface Elevation Statistical Comparison at NOAA Gauge Statistical Measure Instantaneous Low Frequency Mean Error (meters) 0.001 0.001 Absolute Mean Error (meters) 0.122 0.003 Maximum Absolute Error (meters) 0.670 0.047 RMS Error (meters) 0.168 0.004 RMS Error/RMS Observed 0.324 0.058 Linear Regression Intercept (meters) 0.001 0.001 Linear Regression Slope 0.959 0.993 Correlation Coefficient 0.986 0.997 Skill (0 to 1, 1 being perfect) 0.973 0.999 Figure 4. Low frequency sea level comparison at NOAA tide gauge in Los Angels Harbor Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 14 5.3. Tidal Frequency Currents Table 9 through Table 14 summarize the comparison of horizontal tidal current major axis amplitudes, phases, and orientation angles at six Palos Verde Shelf current meter locations for the six primary tidal constituents. The locations correspond to the six current meter locations outside the breakwater shown in Figure 3. Although absolute quantitative agreement between the observations and model predictions is poor, the qualitative agreement is reasonable in that current magnitudes are similar and phases are consistent. Predicted major axis orientations are generally good having angular errors of less than 20 degrees. Tables 15 through 20 summarize the comparison of horizontal tidal current major axis amplitudes, phases, and orientation angles at the four Los Angeles Inner Harbor current meter locations shown in Figure 3. Tidal currents are weak at the 173, 200G, and 206B stations and on the order of 2 cm/sec or less for all constituents. However, the model predicted major axis amplitudes and phases compare reasonably well at these three stations and directions. The Pacific Avenue station in Dominguez Channel has much stronger currents and the model predicted major axis amplitudes, phase, and directions compare well with the observations. The strong agreement between model predicted currents at the Pacific Avenue station tends to support the conclusion that water surface elevation observations at this station are compromised. Table 9. Horizontal Current M2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) PV A6 0.053 0.023 9126 8091 160 170 PV A7 0.096 0.047 10840 9709 179 180 PV A8 0.047 0.060 5084 4326 145 152 PV A9 0.069 0.059 7843 9190 171 15 (195) PV AB 0.053 0.077 2731 5080 141 161 PV AD 0.052 0.050 21788 3125 126 117 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 15 Table 10. Horizontal Current S2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) PV A6 0.027 0.014 17329 17372 175 178 PV A7 0.050 0.028 18703 17986 2 0 PV A8 0.024 0.031 13561 14130 131 155 PV A9 0.032 0.033 16132 17200 174 15 (195) PV AB 0.028 0.043 10211 14209 151 169 PV AD 0.021 0.022 7372 12358 136 127 Table 11. Horizontal Current N2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) PV A6 0.012 0.007 14608 12120 166 166 PV A7 0.025 0.013 14521 13794 0 (180) 179 PV A8 0.009 0.017 8373 8419 121 155 PV A9 0.016 0.015 12077 13427 152 15 PV AB 0.012 0.021 6201 9430 145 162 PV AD 0.012 0.013 827 8026 105 112 Table 12. Horizontal Current K1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) PV A6 0.034 0.024 4924 7573 129 82 PV A7 0.048 0.031 42864 32391 162 4 (184) PV A8 0.032 0.056 2027 11750 104 152 PV A9 0.046 0.056 2086 29650 131 17 PV AB 0.036 0.058 39852 19312 125 154 PV AD 0.031 0.043 42692 42053 141 21 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 16 Table 13. Horizontal Current O1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) PV A6 0.026 0.019 37240 40430 143 74 PV A7 0.034 0.022 38133 22097 170 3 (183) PV A8 0.014 0.036 39197 91780 110 154 PV A9 0.025 0.040 36670 17039 149 16 PV AB 0.018 0.039 34854 6872 138 152 PV AD 0.017 0.027 33163 26160 140 0 (180) Table 14. Horizontal Current P1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Palo Verde Shelf Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) PV A6 0.006 0.007 6472 15643 116 77 PV A7 0.005 0.009 3839 39296 112 0 (180) PV A8 0.008 0.015 42175 19610 134 153 PV A9 0.007 0.015 41014 36314 39 16 PV AB 0.010 0.017 39484 26896 51 153 PV AD 0.010 0.012 1007 3990 99 13 Table 15. Horizontal Current M2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) 206 B 0.021 0.017 19382 21780 1 14 200G 0.023 0.019 15881 14407 57 29 173 0.020 0.026 10989 12645 59 53 DC PA 0.365 0.317 17542 17306 64 60 Table 16. Horizontal Current S2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) 206 B 0.005 0.007 2543 6861 4 14 200G 0.010 0.008 20890 17170 54 26 173 0.008 0.014 19476 16920 60 53 DC PA 0.156 0.119 21958 21340 64 60 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 17 Table 17. Horizontal Current N2 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) 206 B 0.005 0.004 21792 25047 7 14 200G 0.004 0.004 22337 18580 54 26 173 0.005 0.006 15018 16930 62 53 DC PA 0.082 0.072 22027 21350 64 60 Table 18. Horizontal Current K1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) 206B 0.008 0.004 42848 27923 1 14 200G 0.008 0.005 468 24060 61 29 173 0.002 0.014 1353 38330 62 52 DC PA 0.138 0.125 41512 40890 64 60 Table 19. Horizontal Current O1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) 206B 0.007 0.004 27528 39638 -2 14 200G 0.004 0.006 32331 9203 66 26 173 0.002 0.006 38429 20710 60 53 DC PA 0.086 0.075 32783 31020 63 60 Table 20. Horizontal Current P1 Major Axis Amplitude, Orientation and Phase Comparison at Los Angeles Inner Harbor Current Meter Stations Station Observed Major Amplitude (m/s) Modeled Major Amplitude (m/s) Observed Phase (seconds) Modeled Phase (seconds) Observed Angle (degrees CCW from East) Modeled Angle (degrees CCW from East) 206B 0.005 0.005 15789 24410 -4 14 200G 0.003 0.001 3300 8369 54 26 173 0.003 0.007 28868 37500 65 53 DC PA 0.004 0.025 2950 3126 61 60 6. Transport Calibration Transport calibration involves the quantitative comparison of model predicted and observed concentrations of dissolved and suspended material in the water column. For freshwater influenced estuarine and coastal waterbodies, salinity transport calibration provides an additional level of confidence in model predictive Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 18 ability, particularly in the absence of extensive current meter observations. Model prediction of temperature is generally more sensitivity to wind and atmospheric thermal forcing rather than hydrodynamic transport, the exception being situations that have large thermal loads from power plants. In the absence of significant salinity variability, simulation of other tracers, including dye, is also an important means of transport calibration. This section presents the results of model calibration for salinity. Temperature simulation is typically not conducted for modeling applications directed at simulating sediment and contaminant transport and fate, unless temperature stratification and thermal buoyancy induced current contribute significantly to transport processes. Evaluation of temperature observations in the greater harbors systems indicates that this is not the case and temperature is not simulated. Model configuration and calibration for sediment and adsorptive contaminant transport calibration are presented in sections 7 and 8, respectively. 6.1. Salinity Calibration Salinity calibration involves the adjustment of salinity open boundary conditions and possibly freshwater inflows if there is significant uncertainty associated with the inflows. Although there are approximately120 salinity monitoring stations, only 20 of those stations, whose locations are shown in Figure 5, have significant salinity variability (when the salinity is significantly less than the 32 to 33 ppt level characteristic of the greater harbors system). Bight 03 event stations in San Pedro Bay (Figure 6) did not show salinity variations significant enough for comparison with model predictions. Figure 7 shows a scatter plot comparing predicted and observed data for the 20 station locations shown in Figure 5. The surface and bottom notation corresponds to averages over the upper and lower halves of the water column. The data comparison points correspond to seven sampling times (Julian Days 16, 44, and 72 of 2003, Julian Day 351 of 2004, and Julian Days 13, 55, and 68 of 2005), three of which (44 of 2003 and 13 and 55 of 2005) correspond to depressed observed salinity. Predicted salinities over the lower half of the water column agree reasonably well with observations although there are a number of stations where the model under predicts salinity. Predicted salinities for the upper half of the water column agree reasonably well at many stations (Figure 7) although the model under predicts surface salinity at the same locations where it under predicts bottom salinity, as illustrated by the close proximity of similar station numbers in Figure 8. Due to the extreme scatter of the data, lumped error statistics are not particularly meaningful. The salinity response of the model is better represented by time series plots of continuous model simulations of salinity observations at the twenty stations. These plots are presented in Figures A-1 through A-20 of Appendix A. Although point wise agreement is not always good, the model does represent the general response to the high freshwater inflow events represented by the observations. The model tends to under predict observed stratification. There Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 19 are a number of possible causes for the salinity under prediction and the under prediction of stratification. Under prediction of stratification might result from too much vertical mixing, which can influence the dynamics of the freshwater plume from the Los Angeles River during storm events. During significant storm events, the freshwater inflows should exit through the gate opening in the breakwater. However, if the dynamics of the freshwater plume are impacted by excessive vertical mixing in the model, the low salinity water could enter into the sampling area (rather than taking the intended path through the gate in the breakwater). Vertical mixing in the model is predicted by a robust and widely accepted turbulence model having universal parameters. Adjustment of these parameters to force a fit to a spatially and temporally limited observational data, set such as that being discussed here is not considered acceptable. As previously noted, these are the only observations of salinity response to freshwater inflow events in the other regions of the harbor. A more extensive set of observations having a wider spatial coverage over multiple events would be necessary to quantify the dynamics of the freshwater transport and diagnose the cause of the present under prediction. The settling dynamics of particulate matter carrying contaminates can result in contaminant transport patterns different from fresh water making model performance extrapolations speculative. Note: Stations illustrated are where the salinity during the simulation period is significantly less than the 32 to 33 ppt level characteristic of the greater harbors system. Figure 5. Location of salinity stations having significant variability Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 20 Figure 6. Location of Bight 03 salinity sampling stations Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 21 Figure 7. Comparison of predicted and observed salinity at 20 stations during seven monitoring times over upper (surface) and lower (bottom) fractions of the water column Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 22 Figure 8. Station numbers associated with the comparison of predicted and observed salinity at 20 stations during seven monitoring times over upper (surface) and lower (bottom) fractions of the water column 7. Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model Configuration This section describes the configuration of the EFDC based greater harbors model for the simulation of sediment and adsorptive contaminant transport simulation. Sediment and contaminant transport formulations in the EFDC model are documented by Tetra Tech (2007). Both fine, cohesive behaving sediment and noncohesive sand are simulated. Particulate organic material is assumed to be associated with the fine sediment class. Contaminants modeled include three metals; copper, lead, and zinc and three organics; DDT, PAH, and PCB. Two- phase equilibrium partitioning is used to represent adsorption of the metals and organics to the fine sediment class. The EFDC model simulates transport and fate in both the water column and sediment bed. Water column transport includes advection, diffusion, and settling for sediment and sediment adsorbed contaminates. The sediment bed is represented by multiple layers with internal Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 23 transport of contaminants by pore water advection and diffusion. Sediment and water is exchanged between the water column and bed by deposition and erosion, with corresponding exchange of adsorbed and dissolved contaminants. Dissolved phase contaminants are also exchanged by diffusion between bed pore water and the overlying water column. The following subsections describe specific aspects of model configuration including: establishment of spatially varying initial conditions in the sediment bed, specification of sediment erosion potential, specification of contaminant partition coefficients, and external loadings and boundary conditions. 7.1. Sediment Bed Initial Conditions Inter-annual scale simulation of sediment adsorbed contaminants requires establishment of sediment bed initial conditions to the highest possible level of accuracy because the bed can be a significant source and/or sink of contaminants with respect to the water column as well as a reservoir for exposure and subsequent transport up the aquatic food chain. In contrast to water column initial conditions that wash out or rapidly respond to external sources and open boundary conditions, bed initial conditions are persistent with changes in bed sediment composition and contamination levels occurring slowly at annual scales and longer. Initial conditions are required for both sediments and contaminants. Sediment initial conditions influence both sediment transport dynamics and the phase distribution and mobility of contaminants in the bed. Required model initial conditions include sediment size class fractional distribution and a measure of water content such as porosity or void ratio. Organic material composition as specified by particulate or total organic carbon (POC or TOC) is also desirable. Numerous studies in the greater harbors system have collected sediment bed physical data. However the data sets are quite heterogeneous in that they include near surface samples, composite cores, and depth varying sub-cores having data ranging from fraction of fine sediment to detailed grain size distributions. To achieve the widest spatial coverage, approximately 200 data points were selected, which are distributed among the datasets described in Table 2. Data inside the breakwaters prior to 1998 were excluded while all data outside the break water were used. Grain size information was reduced to two classes, fines composed of silt and clay, and sand and coarser particles, using 0.063 mm as the class size boundary. Water content measures were all converted to porosity. Figure 9 shows the location of 200 data sites having bed sediment size information, while Figure 10 shows a zoom of the most recent sub- set of these data. Since many of the sites had no information on water content as defined by porosity, correlations between porosity and fine sediment fractions were developed using sites having data for both (Figure 11). The average of these two correlations was used to estimate porosity at sites having no data. Due to Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 24 lack of quantitative data in San Pedro Bay, sediment composition near the open boundaries was assumed to be 25 percent fine with a porosity of 0.5. The fine sediment fraction and porosity data including assumed values along the open boundaries in San Pedro Bay were interpolated to the model grid (Figure 1) using a Laplacian scheme which is equivalent to bi-linear interpolation with the exception that interpolation over land is prohibited. Figures 12 and 13 show the bed initial conditions for fine sediment fraction and porosity. The sediment bed was also configured to initially have 4 layers, each 20 cm thick. Sediment size class fractions, porosity, and contaminant concentrations are assumed uniform over the depth of the sediment bed at each horizontal location. The procedure for establishing initial conditions for contaminants in the sediment bed follows that for sediment physical properties. To again achieve the widest spatial coverage, approximately 250 to 300 data points were selected for each contaminant, which are distributed among the datasets shown in Table 2. Data inside the breakwaters prior to 2000 were excluded while all data outside the breakwater were used. Figure 14 shows the location of all contaminant bed concentration data sites, while Figure 15 shows the location of sites recently sampled in fall 2006. The bed data for sites shown in Figure 15 were used to initialize metals and organics concentrations, while the overlying water data at these stations were used for calibration of sediment and contaminant transport. Since data in San Pedro Bay were extremely limited, bed solid phase concentrations near the open boundaries were estimated to be 10, 10, and 50 mg/kg for copper, lead, and zinc, and 0.01, 0.1, and 0.01 mg/kg for DDT, PAH, and PCB. Figures 16 through 21 show the spatial distribution of total sediment- normalized bed initial conditions for six contaminants using logarithmic concentration scales. For clarification of the logarithmic concentration scales, the log of the pollutant-specific sediment quality guidelines are identified in the figure captions as well as on the concentration legends. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 25 Figure 9. Location of 200 data sites used to initialize sediment bed physical properties Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 26 Note: 2006 data points refer to the POLA/POLB fall 2006 sampling; Bight 03 samples are represented by the 2003 points; 2000 data points refer to the POLA/POLB Biological Baseline Study conducted in 2000. Figure 10. Most recent sediment bed physical data sites inside the breakwater Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 27 Figure 11. Porosity as a function of fine sediment fraction Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 28 East, KmNorth, Km 15 20 25 30 35 40 4510 15 20 25 30 fsed 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 Fraction of Fine Sediment (< 0.063 mm) Figure 12. Fraction of fine sediment (< 0.063 mm) in the sediment bed used for model initialization Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 29 East, KmNorth, Km 15 20 25 30 35 40 4510 15 20 25 30 poro 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 Sediment Bed Porosity Figure 13. Sediment bed porosity used for model initialization Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 30 Figure 14. All sites used to initialize sediment bed metals, and organics concentrations Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 31 Note: These stations are the recently sampled locations in the greater harbors used for model configuration and calibration (POLA/POLB 2006). They are a subset of the stations presented in Figure 14. Bed data used to initialize sediment, metals, and organics concentrations. Overlying water data used for sediment and contaminant transport calibration. Figure 15. Fall 2006 bed and overlying water column sample sites Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 32 East, KmNorth,Km15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 copp 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 Initial Bed Solid Phase Copper log10(mg/kg) Note: Copper sediment quality guideline is 270 ppm (or mg/kg dry weight). Log(270) = 2.4 (represented by a black triangle in the concentration legend). Figure 16. Initial bed solid phase copper concentration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 33 East, KmNorth,Km15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 lead 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 Initial Bed Solid Phase Lead log10(mg/kg) Note: Lead sediment quality guideline is 112 ppm (or mg/kg dry weight). Log(112) = 2.1 (represented by a black triangle in the concentration legend). Figure 17. Initial bed solid phase lead concentration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 34 East, KmNorth,Km15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 zinc 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 Initial Bed Solid Phase Zinc log10(mg/kg) Note: Zinc sediment quality guideline is 410 ppm (or mg/kg dry weight). Log(410) = 2.6 (represented by a black triangle in the concentration legend). Figure 18. Initial bed phase zinc concentration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 35 East, KmNorth, Km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 ddt -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2 -2.2 -2.4 Initial Bed Solid Phase DDT log10(mg/kg) Note: DDT sediment quality guideline is 0.59 ppm (or mg/kg dry weight). Log(0.59) = -0.23 (represented by a black triangle in the concentration legend). Figure 19. Initial bed solid phase DDT concentration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 36 East, KmNorth, Km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 pah 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 -0.4 -0.8 -1.2 Initial Bed Solid Phase PAH log10(mg/kg) Note: Data presented are normalized to total solids. Figure 20. Initial bed solid phase PAH concentration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 37 East, KmNorth, Km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 pcb 0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.9 -1.2 -1.5 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 -2.7 -3 Initial Bed Solid Phase PCB log10(mg/kg) Note: PCB sediment quality guideline is 0.4 ppm (or mg/kg dry weight). Log(0.4) = -0.4 (represented by a black triangle in the concentration legend). Figure 21. Initial bed solid phase PCB concentration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 38 7.2. Sediment Settling, Deposition and Erosion Parameters The sediment transport model requires specification of various sediment settling, deposition and erosion parameters. For the noncohesive sand sediment class, settling velocity is determined internally in the model based on input mean sand size. Erosion and deposition of sand associated with suspended and bed load transport is also internally parameterized in the model based on size class diameter and user choices of a number of widely accepted suspended and bed transport formulas (Tetra Tech, 2007). Available sediment bed grain size data suggest that a mean sand diameter between 0.125 and 0.250 mm would be appropriate and could be further refined during calibration. The settling, deposition and erosion of fine cohesive-behaving silt and clay tends to be highly site specific and influenced by water ionic chemistry, organic content, sediment mineralogy and the state of bed consolidation. Site specific information requires settling column analyses and either in-situ or laboratory sediment erosion potential analyses. For environments having relatively low suspended sediment concentration, settling column analyses are not feasible and the fine sediment settling velocity is generally assigned an appropriate fresh or salt water value, in this case 0.0001 m/s, which can be adjusted during calibration as necessary. A laboratory study of sediment erosion was conducted by Jepson et al. (1997) using intact field cores and cores reconstituted from field samples taken near Queen’s Way and Queen’s Gate in Long Beach Harbor. Grain size analysis of the material sampled near Queen’s Gate and used to form four reconstituted cores indicated approximately 30 percent of the material to be cohesive silt and clay and the remaining 70 percent to be fine sand with a mean diameter of approximately 0.120 mm. The four reconstituted cores were allowed to consolidate for 2, 6, 20, and 60 days before their erosion potential was measured with the sedflume devise, described in Jepson et al. (1997). Consolidation of the cores allowed the degree of consolidation, represented by the void ratio, to be considered as a factor in determining erosion potential. The resulting sedflume measurements provided data to parameterize erosion as a function of applied shear stress and sediment bulk density using ( ) 2 1/3 exp 1 0.237 2.18 32.05 0.02 / E V V V g m s b gae a b g n t   =   +    = = = - = = (3) Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 39 for the erosion velocity, E, and 2 exp1 1s M f V V b gar e e t    =    ++     (4) for the mass erosion rate M. In equations (3) and (4), rs is the sediment particle density, V is a velocity scale, f is the fine fraction, t is the kinematic shear stress, and e is the void ratio. The coefficients a, b, and g are based on a log-linear least squares fit of equation (3). Figure 22 compares observed erosion velocities with those predicted by equation (3). Figure 22. Erosion velocity predicted by equation (3) versus erosion velocity observed during sedflume erosion potential measurements 7.3. Equilibrium Partition Coefficients The phase distribution of adsorptive contaminants, including metals and hydrophobic organic compounds, is an important determinant in their transport Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 40 and fate. Although arguments and evidence can be presented to question the utility of equilibrium partitioning to represent phase distribution, the equilibrium approach is accepted by US EPA for regulatory modeling studies associated with TMDL development and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility studies (RI/FS) at Superfund sites. Literature values are available for use when site specific information is not available. Site specific information, when available, is preferred to estimate equilibrium partition coefficients, in conjunction with comparison to literature values to identify unreasonable estimates. The EFDC model supports three phase equilibrium partitioning into free dissolved, complexeated or adsorbed to dissolved organic carbon, and particulate adsorbed, with further particulate phase options based on sediment size class, fraction of organic carbon and particulate organic carbon. Data available in the greater harbors system do not support three phase partitioning; therefore, the following two phase formulation was used: d p p p p p p nC C dissolved per total volumen K P P KC C particulate per total volumen K P C contaminant concentration per total volume n porosity P particulate adsorption site concentration per total volume CK   ==  +   ==+  = = = = i i i d n partition coefficientP C =i (5a) (5b) (5c) The particulate adsorption site can be defined as the concentration of the fine sediment size class or as the concentration of particulate organic carbon (POC). The concentration of particulate organic carbon can in turn be defined as the product of a POC fraction and fine sediment concentration. A field study in fall 2006 collected both sediment and contaminant data at approximately 60 sediment bed and overlying water sites (Figure 15). Bed data were sufficient to estimate partition coefficients using equation (5c) since both the particulate and dissolved phase contaminants were measured as total solids and organic carbon concentrations. The overlying water was sampled only for total concentration and total suspended solids. For the three metals, partition coefficients were defined in terms of fine sediment concentration. For the three organic compounds, partition coefficients were defined in terms of both the fine sediment and particulate organic carbon concentrations. Since organic carbon data were not complete for the entire sample set, a relationship between total bed solids concentration and total bed organic carbon was developed and shown in Figure 23. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 41 Figure 23. Total organic carbon fraction as a function of total solids concentration, based on 2006 sediment bed data Equilibrium partition coefficients as a function of bed sediment concentration for the three metals are shown in Figure 24. Corresponding average and visual best estimates based on the 2006 sediment bed and overlying water data (Figure 15) are listed in Table 21. The visual best estimates are based on clustering and are lower than the averages by a factor of approximately two since the averages are influenced by a few large values. Both sets for values are within the literature range summarized by USEPA (2005). Water column partition coefficients for metal adsorption to dilute sediment (concentrations on the order of 1 to 100’s mg/L) are typically larger than bed values. For water column sediment concentrations in the range of a few mg/L, the water column partition coefficients would be five to ten times larger than those for the bed values (USEPA, 2005). For initial metals configuration, the visual best fit bed partition coefficients (column three) were used and water column values were set to five times the bed values (column five). Table 21. Sediment Bed and Water Column Equilibrium Partition Coefficients and Particulate to Dissolved Concentration Ratios for Metals Contaminant Average Bed Partition Coefficient Based on Total Solids (L/mg)1 Visual Best Fit Bed Partition Coefficient Based on Total Solids (L/mg)1 Water Column Particulate to Dissolved Concentration Ratio2 Estimated Water Column Partition Coefficient, 5 Times Column 3 (L/mg)3 Copper 0.09 0.05 0.51 0.25 Lead 0.54 0.25 7.12 1.25 Zinc 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.05 1 Based on POLA/POLB 2006 sediment bed and overlying water data. 2 Based on POLA 2005 and 2006 mid-water data. 3 Calculated based on POLA/POLB 2006 sediment bed and overlying water data. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 42 Figure 24. Equilibrium partition coefficients for copper, lead, and zinc based on bed total solids concentration. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 43 Thomann and Mueller (1987) suggest that the product of the partition coefficient and sediment concentration, given by, p p d CK P C=i (6) is approximately constant. Mid-water column metals samples collected during 2005 and 2006 (Figure 25) provide dissolved and particulate concentrations allowing the quantity defined in equation (6) to be determined. Sediment concentrations were erroneously not recorded. Figure 26 shows this product for the 2005-2006 mid-water data (Figure 25) for copper, lead, and zinc with average values tabulated in Table 21. The range of average ratios for the copper and zinc data is consistent with the value of 0.25 suggested by Thomann and Mueller (1987) while the lead value is an order of magnitude higher. Note: 2005 data collected by POLA; 2006 data collected at POLB stations as part of 2006 POLA/POLB study. Figure 25. Mid-water column sample sites used for metals calibration Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 44 Figure 26. Particulate to dissolved concentration ratio (equal to product of partition coefficient and adsorption site particle concentration) for mid-water column metals concentrations Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 45 Subsequent to conducting the calibration and sensitivity simulations for metals, described in Chapter 8 and Appendix C, using water column partition coefficients in column 5 of Table 21, additional water column metals and sediment concentration data sets became available. These data sets include dissolved and total metals data collected during January and March 2006, and dissolved and total metals and suspended solids during January 2008 by POLA. The locations of these data sets correspond to the 2005 locations shown in Figure 25. An analysis and discussion of the significance of these additional data sets is provided in Appendix E. Equilibrium partition coefficients based on the 2006 POLA-POLB data (Figure 15) for DDT, PAH, and PCB, as a function of bed sediment concentration and bed total organic carbon concentration, are shown in Figures 27 through 29. Table 22 summarizes approximate constant values of these equilibrium partition coefficients for the three organic contaminants based on the data shown in Figures 27 through 29. Bed solids and bed TOC based values are consistent with the ranges reported in the literature (Chapra, 1997; Chiou, 2002). Low and high range values in Table 22 are based on the range of octanol-water partition coefficients for pesticides, PAHs, and PCBs reported in Chapra (1997). For these three contaminants, organic carbon-referenced bed values should be readily utilized in the water column and can be referenced to water column solids by dividing by the ratio of TOC to total solids. A limited number of the fall 2006 overlying water sites (Figure 15) had organic carbon samples, which are shown in Figure 30. At higher sediment concentrations, the ratio is approximately 0.01, which is approximately the ratio represented by the difference in solids and TOC normalized bed values (Table 22). This suggests that the bed solids referenced partition coefficients for the three organics can also be used in the water column. Table 22. Sediment Bed Equilibrium Partition Coefficients for Organics Contaminant Bed Solids Based (L/mg)1 Bed TOC Based (L/mg)1 TOC Based Low Range (L/mg)2 TOC Based High Range (L/mg)2 DDT 0.0002 0.02 0.0002 0.2 PAH 0.0004 0.04 0.01 2.0 PCB 0.0002 0.02 0.005 0.5 1 Based on POLA-POLB 2006 sediment bed and overlying water data. 2 Based on Chapra, 1997. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 46 Figure 27. Equilibrium partition coefficient for DDT based on total solids (top panel) and total organic carbon (bottom panel) based on data collected in 2006 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 47 Figure 28. Equilibrium partition coefficient for PAH based on total solids (top panel) and total organic carbon (bottom panel) based on data collected in 2006 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 48 Figure 29. Equilibrium partition coefficient for PCB based on total solids (top panel) and total organic carbon (bottom panel) based on data collected in 2006 Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 49 Figure 30. Fraction of organic carbon as function of total suspended solids concentration based on fall 2006 overlying water site data 7.4. External Loads and Open Boundary Conditions External loads of sediment and contaminants are provided by the watershed model (Tetra Tech, 2006), which was used to provide point and nonpoint source inflows to the greater harbors system. Each inflow time series is assigned a corresponding time series of contaminant concentrations. Figure 31 shows an example of inflow and inflowing sediment and copper concentrations for the Los Angeles River. Loads for metals also included atmospheric dry deposition rates of 22, 14, and 160 mg/m2-day, for copper, lead, and zinc, respectively. Sediment and contaminant concentration must be specified on the model open boundaries in San Pedro Bay (Figure 1). Sediment concentrations on all three open boundaries were set to a value of 2.0 mg/L based on limited measurements during the Bight 03 study. Concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc were set to 0.10, 0.03, and 0.30 mg/L based on greater harbors observations during 2005 and 2006 taken near and immediately outside of the breakwater (Figure 25). Concentrations of DDT, PAH, and PCB were set to 0.25, 100.0, and 0.015 ng/L. Values for DDT and PCB were based on those reported by Zeng and Tran (2002) and Zeng, et al. (2005). Values for PAH were based on greater harbors observations during 2006 take near and immediately outside of the breakwater (Figure 25; 2006 sample locations only). Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 50 Figure 31. Examples of flow and inflowing sediment and copper concentration for the Los Angeles River Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 51 8. Sediment and Contaminant Transport Calibration Model calibration involves the adjustment of selected model input parameters to achieve a best or targeted level of agreement between model predictions and observations. The level of agreement can be judged by combinations of qualitative methods, usually visual comparison, or quantitative methods, such as those discussed in Appendix B of this document. Subsequent validation of a calibrated model involves using the same procedures to judge the level of agreement between model predictions and a different set of observations not used for calibration. Preferably the observations used for validation should represent hydrodynamic and transport conditions different from those under which the calibration observations were obtained. In many situations, particularly when the cost of obtaining multiple observation data sets is prohibitive, calibration and validation cannot be unique activities and validation is often foregone or replaced by sensitivity analysis. Since the availability of water column sediment and contaminant data in the greater harbors precludes formal validation, sensitivity analysis was conducted (see Appendix C and Appendix D). Specifically, the dry weather sensitivity of water column sediment and contaminant concentration prediction to changes in river and watershed loads, open boundary conditions, and sediment erosion rates were analyzed (Appendix C). Long-term sensitivity was also evaluated by comparing water column and sediment bed concentration results from simulations using baseline conditions and a 50 percent reduction in river and watershed loading (Appendix D). The observational data available for sediment and contaminant transport model calibration and validation is sparse to the extent that only a calibration effort can be undertaken. As discussed in the preceding section, observational data defining conditions in the sediment bed were used for model initialization and are not appropriate for use in calibration. Instead, the calibration approach taken in this study is to use observational data in the water column for model calibration. Observational data in the water column includes sediment and contaminant concentrations measured near the bottom of the water column during fall 2006. This data set is referred to as the overlying water observations since they were taken at the same locations as the in bed observations (Figure 15). Specifically, the data set includes total suspended sediment concentration and total concentration of the six contaminants sampled at one instance in time. Two additional water column data sets taken at mid-depth in the water column during 2005 and 2006 (Figure 25) provide observations of total and particulate concentrations of the three metals. Total suspended solids information, which would allow definition of phase distribution in these metal data sets, was not recorded. Subsequently, six of the sites sampled in 2005, were sampled for mid- water column total suspended solids in 2007. The following two sections further discuss the calibration approach and present results for sediment and contaminants. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 52 8.1. Sediment Transport Calibration The degree of calibration of the sediment transport model is evaluated using sediment concentrations at the 60, fall 2006 overlying water sites (Figure 15) and six of the 2005 mid-water column sites (Figure 25) which were sampled for suspended sediment concentration in fall 2007. For comparison with the instantaneous observations, taken under dry fall conditions, model predictions were averaged over a six month dry season period. Figure 32 shows the continuous model predictions at a representative site with the instantaneous observation value shown as a dashed line. Model predicted and observed sediment concentration at the 2006 overlying water sites and the 2007 mid-water column sites are shown in Figure 33. Model predicted concentrations are reasonable, however a quantitative measure of agreement would be extremely low. The average predicted values show less variation than observations, although Figure 32 shows that instantaneous predictions can vary significantly about the mean. Calibration parameters for suspended sediment traditionally include effective diameters for noncohesive size classes, settling velocity and erosion rate for the fine cohesive size class, loading relationships, and open boundary conditions. Best estimates for all of these parameters were used for model configuration. The primary adjustment made during calibration was setting the noncohesive sediment class diameter to 0.125 mm so that excess erosion did not occur in San Pedro Bay and override the observational based boundary conditions. For the fine cohesive sediment, which represented more than 90 percent of the model predicted water column sediment, sensitivity of predictions with respect to settling velocity were conducted. Lower and higher settling velocities increased disagreement between predictions and observations at most stations. Increasing and decreasing the base cohesive sediment erosion rate coefficient (a in equation 5) resulted in similar responses using lower and higher settling velocities. 8.2. Contaminant Transport Calibration The degree of calibration of the contaminant transport model is evaluated using contaminant concentrations at the 60, fall 2006 overlying water sites (Figure 15) and the 2005 and fall 2006 mid-water column sites (Figure 25). As previously noted, the mid-water column sites only have data for the three metals. Overlying water sites failed to provide detectable concentrations of PCB, resulting in no calibration results being presented for PCB other than confirmation that the model predicted water column PCB levels were below detection limits. As was done for the sediment comparison, contaminant concentrations were averaged over a six month dry season period for comparison with instantaneous observations taken during dry fall conditions. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 53 Figures 34 through 36 show comparisons of model predictions and observations for total copper, lead, and zinc. The comparisons show extensive scatter, but model predicted levels are within the range of observations. For copper, the model predictions tend to be flat, on the order of 0.25 mg/L, while observations show more variability. For lead, the model predicts a larger range of concentrations than the observational data. Zinc predictions show a greater range as well as a region of flat predictions on the order of 1 mg/L. The flat prediction regions for copper and zinc have concentrations approximately three times larger than the open boundary values suggesting that they are not boundary condition driven. Predicted lead concentrations are also significantly larger than boundary conditions values. Figures 37 and 38 show comparisons of predicted and observed total concentrations of DDT and PAH. Predictions for DDT are almost constant and equal to the boundary condition value of 0.25 ng/L. Predictions for PAH show slightly more variability but are also close to the boundary condition value of 100 ng/L. Model predictions for PCB also were close to the boundary condition value of 0.015 ng/L, but are not shown since PCB levels in the samples were not detectable. 8.3. Dry Season Sensitivity Analysis A dry season sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the influence of open boundary concentrations, watershed loads, and sediment bed erosion rates on model predictions. These results are presented in Appendix C. Open boundary conditions, representing ambient or background concentrations in San Pedro Bay, result from much larger scale distributed sources than the greater harbors watersheds, and cannot be readily controlled with respect to a localized watershed-scale TMDL. In this respect, demonstration of low sensitivity to open boundary conditions is desirable A moderate to high sensitivity with respect to river and watershed loads indicates that these sources are primarily responsible for observed levels of contamination. In water bodies having significant existing or legacy contaminant of the sediment bed, net flux of sediment, metals, and organics from the bed to the water column due to erosion and slower diffusive flux can represent a significant source to the water column. For the organics and, to a certain extent, zinc, the sensitivity analyses suggest that a reduction of land-derived loads may result in lower levels of water column contamination. In addition, sediment bed erosion was found to be a significant source of contamination. Pollutant load reductions may be achieved by implementation measures either individually or in combination. Such implementation measures may include, but are not limited to, reducing watershed and river inflows of contaminated sediments (but not necessarily clean sediment), localized capping or sediment removal, and gradual replacement of incoming contaminated sediment with clean sediment (to reduce contaminant Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 54 flux from the sediment bed since the new deposited cleaner sediment would lower contamination levels). 8.4. Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions To compliment the dry season sensitivity analysis and demonstrate the application of the model to investigate load allocations, two long-term simulations were conducted (Appendix D). Both simulations examined several pollutants (copper, zinc, DDT, and PAHs) and spanned a four year period from 2002 through 2005. The first (or baseline) simulation used watershed model estimated sediment and contaminant loads (i.e., the baseline conditions from the calibrated model). The second (or load reduction) simulation used sediment and contaminant loads which were reduced by 50 percent for inputs from both the rivers and near shore watersheds. The sensitivity analysis results are presented in both time series graphs and maps illustrating changes in contaminant level over the four year period. Results for both copper and zinc indicate decreases in water column concentrations during periods of high flow, when comparing the baseline conditions with the 50 percent load reduction scenario. In addition, after the four- year period, the copper and zinc sediment bed concentrations associated with the 50 percent load reduction scenario were lower than baseline. The spatial maps of copper and zinc indicate that a 50 percent reduction of incoming loads results in a system-wide reduction in sediment bed concentrations. Similar to the metals, DDT and PAH concentrations in the water column decrease during periods of high flow when comparing the baseline conditions with the 50 percent load reduction scenario. Sediment bed contaminant concentration behavior was more spatially varied after the four-year period for DDT; one station increased in concentration while another decreased. PAH in the sediment bed followed a pattern more similar to metals (concentrations associated with the 50 percent load reduction scenario were lower than baseline conditions). As illustrated by the maps, the spatial pattern is somewhat similar for the two organics, with the most significant changes occurring in the inner harbors and near the Los Angeles River inflow. Similar to the metals, these maps indicate that a 50 percent reduction of incoming loads results in a system- wide reduction in sediment bed DDT and PAH concentrations. Overall, the simulations showed that water column contaminant concentrations were lower for the reduced load simulation during wet period events and that sediment bed contaminant levels were lower after the four year period for the reduced load simulation. These results suggest that the model could be used to evaluate spatially distributed and wet weather magnitude-based load reduction scenarios. Detailed discussion of the simulations are presented in Appendix D. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 55 Figure 32. Comparison of model predicted and single observed sediment. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 56 Figure 33. Comparison of model predicted and observed sediment concentration at the 2006 overlying water sites and 2007 mid-water column sites Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 57 (a) (b) (c) Figure 34. Comparison of model predicted and observed copper concentration at the overlying water and mid-water column sites Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 58 (a) (b) (c) Figure 35. Comparison of model predicted and observed lead concentrations at the overlying water and mid-water column sites Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 59 (a) (b) (c) Figure 36. Comparison of model predicted and observed zinc concentration at the 2006 overlying water and mid-water column sites Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 60 Figure 37. Comparison of model predicted and observed DDT concentration at the 2006 overlying water column sites Figure 38. Comparison of model predicted and observed PAH concentration at the 2006 overlying water sites Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 61 9. Summary and Recommendations This report summarizes the calibration of a fully coupled EFDC based hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate model for the greater Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors and adjacent region of San Pedro Bay. Observational data to support model configuration and calibration were reviewed and judged adequate to very adequate for model configuration. Tide gauge and current meter data were very adequate for hydrodynamic calibration and the level of calibration is consistent with other hydrodynamic modeling studies of similar scope. Due to the event-driven character of fresh water inflow into the greater harbors, salinity data sets lacked significant variability to fully evaluate salinity transport calibration as compared to studies in other estuaries and coastal harbors having continuous freshwater inflow. Sediment and contaminant data were adequate for model configuration, which focused on establishing sediment bed initial conditions. Water column data for suspended sediment concentration are very limited and tend to constrain the level of calibration which can be achieved, although field observations during fall 2006 significantly enhanced the base of data. Water column data for metals concentration are more extensive, but metal calibration is still limited by the water column sediment transport calibration. Water column data for DDT and PAH are also limited and data for PCB indicate that levels are below detection limits. Dry weather sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the influence of open boundary concentrations, watershed loads, and sediment bed erosion rates on water column, sediment, and contaminant concentration levels (Appendix C). Long-term sensitivity was also evaluated by comparing water column and sediment bed concentrations associated with baseline conditions and a 50 percent reduction in river and watershed loading (Appendix D). In contrast to hydrodynamic and eutrophication modeling studies in estuarine and coastal regions, extensive literature is not available for establishing what constitutes an acceptable level of calibration for sediment and contaminant transport modeling. However the calibration results presented herein demonstrate that use of available data combined with best estimates of required model parameters do yield model predictions well within the range of observations. The EFDC based hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate model for the greater Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors and adjacent region of San Pedro Bay is judged suitable for use in TMDL development. The model provides a rigorous framework for contaminant response surface development with respect to the major sources including land-based loadings, net flux of legacy contaminants for the sediment bed, and open boundary driven loads. The attention given to the development of initial conditions for the sediment bed makes the modeling framework particularly useful in determining difficult to control source contributions from the sediment bed. Likewise the ease in model reconfiguration to adjust incoming contaminant levels on a sub- watershed scale will allow focused allocations to be developed. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 62 References Bunch, B. W., D. H. Tillman, D. J. Mark. 2000. Port of Los Angeles Pier 300 Expansion Water Quality and Hydrodynamic Study, Report ERDC/CHL TR-00-X US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Bunch, B. W., D. H. Tillman, D. J. Mark, 2002: Water Quality and Hydrodynamic Analysis of the Cabrillo Shallow Water Habitat. Report ERDC/CHL LR US Army Engineer District Los Angeles, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Bunch, B. W., D. H. Tillman, D. J. Mark, 2003: Sensitivity Analysis of Winds and Bathymetry on the Port of Los Angeles Pier 300 Expansion and Dominguez Channel Studies. Final Report ERDC/CHL LR US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. CERC, 1990: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Enhancement Study; Three-Dimensional Numerical Model testing of Tidal circulation. Technical Report CERC-90-16, U.S. Army Engineer Water Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Chapra, S. C., 1997: Surface Water-Quality Modeling. McGraw-Hill, New York, 844 pp. Chiou, C, T., 2002: Partition and Adsorption of Organic Contaminants in Environmental Systems: John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 257 p. Devore, J. L., 1982. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA. Everest International Consultants, 2006. Dominguez Channel Estuary Model Study, Model Data, Calibration and Verification Report. Prepared for the Port of Los Angeles by Everest International Consultants, Long Beach, CA, 141 pp. Hall, R. W., 1990: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Enhancement Study; Numerical water quality model study of harbor enhancements. Technical Report EL-90-6, U.S. Army Engineer Water Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hall, R. W., 1995: Numerical water quality study for the Los Angeles Harbor Pier 400 Project Miscellaneous Paper EL-95-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hamrick, J. M., 1992: A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Special Report 317, 63 pp. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 63 Hamrick, J. M., and T. S. Wu, 1997: Computational design and optimization of the EFDC/HEM3D surface water hydrodynamic and eutrophication models. Next Generation Environmental Models and Computational Methods. G. Delich and M. F. Wheeler, Eds., Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 143-156. Jepson, R., J. Roberts, and W. Lick, 1997: Long Beach Harbor Sediment Study. A report to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, DACW09-97-M- 0068, Department of Mechanical and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara. Ji, Z.-G., J. H. Hamrick, and J. Pagenkopf, 2002: Sediment and metals modeling in shallow river, Journal of Environmental Engineering, 128, 105-119. King County, 1999: Water quality assessment of Elliot Bay and the Duwamish River. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wqa/wqrep.htm Miller, M. C., Z. Demirbilek, D. Mark and R. Hall, 1998:. Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Studies for Pier 400 Causeway Gap, Appendix 1, Letter Report submitted to the Port of Long Beach, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Park, K., A. Y. Kuo, J. Shen, and J. M. Hamrick, 1995: A three-dimensional hydrodynamic-eutrophication model (HEM3D): description of water quality and sediment processes submodels. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Special Report 327, 113 pp. Preisendorfer, R. W., 1988: Principal Component Analysis in Meteorology and Oceanography. Developments in Atmospheric Science Volume 17. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 429. Science Applications International Corp., 2004: Analysis of Moored Oceanographic Data Acquired on the Palos Verdes Shelf by the LACSD During the Period from November 2000 to August 2003. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Science Applications International Corp., 2005: Data Report for the Summer 2004 Geotechnical Measurement Program Conducted on the Palos Verdes Shelf. prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 64 Seabergh, W. C. and D. G. Outlaw, 1984: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study; Numerical analysis of tidal circulation for the 2020 Master Plan. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-84-5, U.S. Army Engineer Water Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Seabergh, W. C., 1985: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study; deep-draft dry bulk export terminal, Alternative No. 6: Resonant response and tidal circulation studies. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-85-8, U.S. Army Engineer Water Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002: VOGG: A visual orthogonal grid generation tool for hydrodynamic and water quality modeling. A report to U. S. EPA, Region 4, August 2002, 62 pp. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2006: Watershed Model Development for Simulation of Loadings to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors. Prepared for US EPA Region 9 and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fairfax, VA., 64 pp. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007: The Environmental Fluid Dynamic Code: theory and computation, Volume 2: Sediment and contaminant transport and Fate. Fairfax, VA., 96 pp. Thomann, R. V., 1982. Verification of water quality models. J. Environ. Engrg. Div., ASCE. 108, 923-940. Thomann, R. V., and J. A. Mueller, 1987: Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper and Row, New York, 644 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990: Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book III Estuaries, Part 2, Application of Estuarine Waste Load Allocation Models. EPA 823-R-92-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005: Partition Coefficients for Metals in Surface Water, Soil, and Waste. EPA 600-R-05-074. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 2006: Link to Housatonic River PCB Superfund web page. http://www.epa.gov/region01/ge/thesite/restofriver-reports.html U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 2006: Link to Portland Harbor Superfund web page. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/ph/fact+sheets/$FILE/1001PH.pdf Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Calibration for the LA/LB Harbor – Draft February 2009 65 Wang, H. V., A. Cialone and P. River, 1995: Numerical Hydrodynamic Modeling in Support of Water Quality and Ship Simulation Models in Los Angeles Harbor. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-95-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, MS. Wool, T. A., S. R. Davie, and H. N. Rodriguez, 2003: Development of three- dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality models to support TMDL decision process for the Neuse River estuary, North Carolina. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 129, 295-306. Zeng, E., and K. Tran, 2002: Distribution of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Overlying Water , Sediment, Polychaete, and Hornyhead Turbot in the Coastal Ocean, Southern California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 1600–1608, 2002. Zeng, E., D. Tsukada, D. Diehl, J. Peng, K. Schiff, J. Noblet and K. Maruya: 2005: Distribution and Mass Inventory of Total DDT in the water column Of the Southern California Bight. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 3347-3353 Zou, R., Carter, S., Shoemaker, L., Parker, A., and Henry, T., 2006. An integrated hydrodynamic and water quality modeling system to support nutrient TMDL development for Wissahickon Creek. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 132, 555-566. Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Calibration Plots DRAFT November 2008 Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-1 Figure A-1. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 20 Figure A-2. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 21 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-2 Figure A-3. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 23 . Figure A-4. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 24 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-3 Figure A-5. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 33 . Figure A-6. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 40 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-4 Figure A-7. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 41 Figure A-8. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 43 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-5 Figure A-9. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 44 Figure A-10. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 47 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-6 Figure A-11. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 49 Figure A-12. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 50 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-7 Figure A-13. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 51 Figure A-14. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 53 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-8 Figure A-15. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 54 . Figure A-16. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 56 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-9 Figure A-17. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 62 Figure A-18. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 63 Appendix A: Salinity Time Series Plots February 2009 A-10 Figure A-19. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 64 Figure A-20. Model Predicted and Observed Salinity at LAH Station 65 Appendix B: Model Performance Measures DRAFT November 2008 Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Appendix B: Model Performance Measures February 2009 B-1 To quantify the EFDC model's prediction of water surface elevation, velocity, and concentration of suspended and dissolved water scalar state variables, a number of statistical tests and time series analyses are used. This section summarizes general test and analysis procedures. The statistical test that can be used for evaluating model predictions includes the mean error, mean absolute error, root mean square error, maximum absolute error, relative mean error and relative absolute mean error (Thomann, 1982). Letting O and P denote observed and predicted values of a quantity at N observation times, the mean error is defined by ( ) 1 1 N n n n ME O PN= = -∑ (B.1) Positive values of the mean error indicate that the model tends to under predict the observations whereas negative values indicate that the model tends to over predict observations. The mean absolute error is defined by 1 1 N n n n MAE O PN= = -∑ (B.2) Although the mean absolute error provides no indication of over prediction or under prediction, it eliminates the canceling effects of positive and negative errors and can be viewed as a more extreme measure of observation-prediction agreement. The root mean square error is defined by ( ) 2 1 1 N n n n RMSE O PN= = -∑ (B.3) The root mean square error can be interpreted as a weighted equivalent to the mean absolute error with larger observation-prediction differences given larger weightings. The square root operation recovers the units of the data quantities. The rms error is generally viewed as the most rigorous absolute error test. The maximum absolute error is defined by max : 1,n n MAXE O P n N= - = (B.4) and provides information on the largest discrepancy between corresponding values of observed and predicted quantities over an interval of N measurements. Relative error measures can be used to eliminate data units and to provide a measure of error relative to the magnitude of the observational data. The relative mean error and the relative mean absolute error are defined by Appendix B: Model Performance Measures February 2009 B-2 ( ) 1 1 1 1 N n n n N n n O PNRME ON = = - = ∑ ∑ (B.5) 1 1 1 1 N n n n N n n O PNMAE ON = = - = ∑ ∑ (B.6) Caution should be employed in the use of these two relative error measures, particularly when observed and predicted quantities can have small values or values that have both positive and negative signs. An alternative relative error, hereafter referred to as the relative mean square error, is RSE = O(n)-P(n)( ) 2 n=1 N∑ O(n)-O ( ) 2 +P(n)-O ( ) 2() n =1 N∑ (B.7) This error measure was proposed by Willmott (1982) and Willmont et al. (1982) and used by Blumberg and Goodrich (1990) to analyze the prediction skill of an estuarine model. The value of RSE always falls between zero and unity, with an increasing value corresponding to decreasing skill of the model. Thomann (1982) suggested the use of linear regression for comparing model predictions with observations in the context of model calibration. Following Thomann, the linear equation relating observed and predicted values of the quantity is written as O Pa b= + (B.8) where alpha and beta are determined by ( )( ) 1 1 1 N N n n n n O PNab == = -∑ ∑ (B.9) ( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 2( ) ( ) 1 N n avg n avg n N n avg n O O P P P P b = = - - = - ∑ ∑ (B.10) Appendix B: Model Performance Measures February 2009 B-3 (Devore, 1982). The null hypothesis for the linear regression is alpha, the intercept, equal to zero, and beta, the slope, equal to one. Also useful in the regression analysis is the correlation coefficient ( ) ( )( )( ) 1 1 1 2 2 ( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) 1 1 1 1 N N N n n n n n n n N N N N n n n n n n n n n n N P O P O r N P P P N O O O === ====   -    =   --     ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ (B.11) For a good a fit or correlation between observations and predictions, the correlation coefficient should be near one. The square of the correlation coefficient equals the fractional proportion of variation of observations explained by the regression relationship between the observations and predictions (Devore, 1982). Time series having deterministic periodic structure can be analyzed using least squares harmonic analysis. Consider a time series of the form f t( )=a0 +b0t +an cos 2pt Tm       m=1 M∑+bnsin 2pt Tm       m=1 M∑ (B.12) composed of a constant, a0, a linear in time term b0t, and M periodic or harmonic components having periods Tm. Note that equation B.12 can also be written in the form f t( )=a0 +b0t +Am cos 2p Tm t -tm( )       m=1 M∑ Am 2 =am 2 +bm 2 tm =Tm 2parctan bm am       (B.13) where Am and tm are the amplitude and phase of the mth periodic or harmonic component of the time series. The a and b coefficients representing the time series can be determined form discrete values of f at N times by minimization of the least squares functional E =f tn( )-a0 -b0t -am cos 2ptn Tm       m=1 M∑-bm sin 2ptn Tm       m=1 M∑      2 n=1 N∑ (B.14) with respect to the a and b coefficients. The minimization results in a system of 2N+1 equations for the a and b coefficients. For comparison of model Appendix B: Model Performance Measures February 2009 B-4 predictions with observations, harmonic coefficients are determined for both model-predicted and observed time series, and the amplitudes and phases appropriately compared for each harmonic component. For two-dimensional vector time series, the vector components, u and v, are separately analyzed to determine the coefficients in the expansions u t( )=u0 +ucn cos 2pt Tm       m=1 M∑+usn sin 2pt Tm       m=1 M∑ v t( )=v0 +vcn cos 2pt Tm       m=1 M∑+vsn sin 2pt Tm       m=1 M∑ (B.15a) (B.15b) The combined results can be cast in tidal velocity ellipse form with the major and minor axis amplitudes, the ellipse orientation, and the phase at which the velocity vector aligns with the major axis replacing the uc, us, vc, and vs coefficients for each constituent. The half-lengths, ma and mi, of the major and minor axes are given by ma =rp +rm mi =rp -rm rp =uc +vs( ) 2 +vc -us( ) 2 rm =uc -vs( ) 2 +vc +us( ) 2 (B.16) for each constituent. The major axis orientation angle ang, in degrees counterclockwise from east, and the time phase phe, at which the velocity vector aligns with the major axis, are given by ang =90 p ap +am( ) phe =T 4p am -ap( ) ap =tan-1 vc -us uc +vs     am =tan-1 vc +us uc -vs     (B.17) for each constituent. An alternative method for comparing time series of observed and model predicted quantities is the use of spectral analysis techniques. Spectral analysis is particularly useful for comparing the frequency domain structure of observed and predicted responses to random external model forcings such as wind. Appendix B: Model Performance Measures February 2009 B-5 Spectral analysis can also be used for the analysis of time series composed of the sums of discrete harmonics and a random component. For a quantity sk, observed or predicted at N discrete times kDt (k = 0, N-1) relative to a local time original, the discrete Fourier transform Sn is given by Sn =sk exp 2pikn N       k=0 N-1∑ (B.18) where i is the unit imaginary number. Note that the standard Fourier transform convention of defining N data points from indices 0 to N-1 is employed here (Press et al., 1992). The discrete transform is defined at discrete frequencies: fn =n NDt ;n = - N 2 ,…0…,N 2 (B.19) with S0 corresponding to the discrete 0 frequency, Sn (n = 1, N/2-1) corresponding to the first N/2-1 positive frequencies, and Sn (n = N/2+1, N-1) corresponding to the first N/2-1 negative frequencies in reverse order. At n equals N/2, Sn defines the value at both the positive and negative Nyquist critical frequencies, fc =fN /2 =1 2Dt (B.20) The inverse discrete transform is given by: sk =1 N Sn exp 2pikn N       n=0 N -1∑ (B.21) The power spectral density function, Pss, of the quantity is defined, following Press et al. (1992), as Pss 0( )=Pss f0( )=1 N2 S0 2 Pss fk( )=1 N2 Sk 2 +SN-k 2( ) ,k =1,N 2 -1 Pss fk( )=Pss fN /2( )=1 N2 SN/ 2 2 (B.22) for positive frequencies only and has the normalization property that its sum is equal to the mean square value of s. Pss fk( ) k=0 N/2∑=1 N sj 2 j=0 N-1∑ (B.23) Appendix B: Model Performance Measures February 2009 B-6 When s is the water surface elevation, the summed spectral density function is readily identified as twice the mean potential energy divided by the acceleration for gravity: 2PE g =Pzz fk( ) k=0 N /2∑ (B.24) When s corresponds to velocity, the summed spectral density function is twice the component kinetic energy with the total kinetic energy defined by 2KE =Puu fk( )+Pvv fk()() k=0 N/2∑ (B.25) A useful measure of model performance is provided by the difference of observed and predicted power spectral density function of a particular quantity: Pdd fk()=Poo fk()-Ppp fk() (B.26) with d, o, and p denoting the difference, observed, and predict, quantities respectively. Principal current direction ( )( ) ( )( ) 1 2 2 1 1 21arctan2 2 N n n n PCD N N n n n n u u v v m u u v v pq= = = - -=+- - - ∑ ∑ ∑ (B.27) Where m is chosen to be 0 or 1, whichever maximizes ( )( ) ( )( ) 2 22 2 2 1 1 1 cos sin cos sin N N PCD n PCD n n n N PCD PCD n n n s u u v v u u v v q q q q == = =- +- +- - ∑∑ ∑ (B.28) Appendix C: Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model Dry Season Sensitivity Analysis DRAFT November 2008 Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-1 Introduction A preliminary, dry season sensitivity analysis for the sediment and contaminant transport model predictions was conducted with respect to three types of model forcing functions and process parameterizations representing sediment and contaminant sources and sinks. The three types of conditions included: open boundary concentration levels, river and watershed loads, and sediment erosion rates. These three sensitivity options represent the range of controllability. For example, it is not practicable or feasible to control the open boundary concentration levels, representing ambient or background concentrations in San Pedro Bay. In this respect, demonstration of low sensitivity to open boundary concentration levels is desirable. In contrast, river and watershed loads are the primary controllable sediment and contaminant sources. A moderate to high sensitivity with respect to loads indicates that these sources are primarily responsible for observed levels of contamination. Another sensitivity analysis was performed to explore controlling sediment bed sources via sediment erosion rates. That is, lower erosion rates would reduce diffusive flux rates and overall net flux of sediment, metals, and organics from the bed to the water column. This could be achieved via controlling sediment bed sources by either covering contaminated sediment with clean sediment from land source controlled inflow or active capping or removal at hot spots. The approach utilized in the sensitivity analysis involved simple system wide perturbations in the three types of forcing functions. Since a primary objective of TMDL development is reduction in contamination levels, the perturbations were based on 50 percent reductions or halving of the forcing functions. The model calibration simulation was repeated for each of the three sensitivity cases. Sensitivity was evaluated by comparison of dry season average model calibration predictions with sensitivity simulation predictions at the sixty 2006 sediment and overlying water sites (Figure 15). These sites were chosen for comparison since their locations represent a random sampling within the greater harbors area of interest. Sensitivity to Open Boundary Conditions The open boundary of the model domain can be either a source or sink with net transport of material into or out of the model domain. To investigate sensitivity with respect to open boundary concentrations, the calibration open boundary concentrations were reduced by a factor of one-half (0.5). Dry season average concentration predictions corresponding to the full and half calibration boundary values were compared at the sixty 2006 sediment and overlying water sites and are shown in Figures C-1 through C-7. A diagonal or unit slope plot, Figure C-1 for example, of black dots indicates low sensitivity in that model predictions are not affected by halving the boundary condition. A slope of less than unity, Figure C-6 for example, indicates sensitivity. The red dots indicate the difference Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-2 between the full boundary concentration and the half boundary concentration and are measured on the y-axis. With respect to halving boundary conditions values, PAH was the only variable showing sensitivity as noted in Table C-1. With reference to Figure C-6, sites with low concentrations tend to be highly sensitive with concentrations approximately halved. Higher concentration sites are moderately sensitive. Sensitivity to River and Watershed Loads In the absence of significant point source loads, river and watershed loads are the primary controllable sediment and contaminant sources. A simple global loading sensitivity analysis was conducted by halving the inflowing concentration of sediment and contaminants, which corresponds to a 50 percent load reduction. Dry season average concentration predictions corresponding to the full and half calibration sediment and contaminant loads are compared at the sixty 2006 sediment and overlying water sites and are shown in Figures C-8 through C-14. The results indicate that sediment, copper, lead, DDT, and PAH predictions are relatively insensitive to halving loads. Zinc exhibits moderate or medium level sensitivity in Figure C-11. Figure C-14 shows model predicted PCB concentrations to exhibit a medium to high sensitivity with a halving of loads yielding a corresponding reduction in PCB concentrations. Sensitivity to Sediment Erosion Rates Existing contamination of bed sediment can be a significant source of water column contamination due to sediment erosion and diffusion of contaminants dissolved in pore water. To gain insight into the relative importance of the sediment bed as a source of water column contamination, the base sediment erosion rate was halved. Although halving the erosion rate does not represent a feasible harbor wide control approach, it does directly reveal the relative importance of the sediment bed as a source. Alternatively, halving of the erosion rate could be viewed as analogous to wide scale capping of coarse material making the sediment more resistant to hydrodynamic forces responsible for erosion, or mixing clean sediment from the inflows such that net erosion flux of contaminants is reduced. As might be expected, the water column sediment concentrations were significantly reduced as shown in Figure C-15. The concentrations of the three metals in the water column were also reduced, Figures C-16 through C-18. Copper and lead, which have higher partition coefficients than zinc, showed corresponding higher sensitivities to erosion, as expected, due to their strong affinity for the particulate phase. The three organic contaminants showed a range of sensitivities to sediment erosion (Figures C-19 through C-21). Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-3 Summary With respect to contaminated sediment TMDL development for the greater harbors, the sensitivity analysis suggests that a reduction of watershed and river inflows of contaminated sediments, but not necessarily clean sediment, provides a feasible pollution control strategy in combination with localized capping or sediment removal. For the organics and, to a certain extent, zinc, reduction of land-derived loads was shown to result in lower levels of water column contamination. Gradual replacement of incoming contaminated sediment with clean sediment would yield lower contaminant exposure levels to living organisms in either water column or bed sediments, since the new deposited cleaner sediment would ultimately reduce contaminant flux from the sediment bed. Table C-1. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis Contaminant Sensitivity to Halving Open Boundary Conditions Sensitivity to Halving River and Watershed Loads Sensitivity to Halving Sediment Erosion Rate Sediment Low Low High Copper Low Low High Lead Low Low High Zinc Low Medium Medium DDT Low Low Medium PAH Low to Medium Low Medium to High PCB Low Medium to High Low to Medium Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-4 Figure C-1. Sensitivity of sediment concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Figure C-2. Sensitivity of copper concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-5 Figure C-3. Sensitivity of lead concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Figure C-4. Sensitivity of zinc concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-6 Figure C-5. Sensitivity of DDT concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Figure C-6. Sensitivity of PAH concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-7 Figure C-7. Sensitivity of PCB concentration to halving sediment and contaminant open boundary conditions Figure C-8. Sensitivity of sediment concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-8 Figure C-9. Sensitivity of copper concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Figure C-10. Sensitivity of lead concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-9 Figure C-11. Sensitivity of zinc concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Figure C-12. Sensitivity of DDT concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-10 Figure C-13. Sensitivity of PAH concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Figure C-14. Sensitivity of PCB concentration to halving sediment and contaminant loads Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-11 Figure C-15. Sensitivity of sediment concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Figure C-16. Sensitivity of copper concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-12 Figure C-17. Sensitivity of lead concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Figure C-18. Sensitivity of zinc concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-13 Figure C-19. Sensitivity of DDT concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Figure C-20. Sensitivity of PAH concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Appendix C: Dry Season Sediment and Contaminant Sensitivity February 2009 C-14 Figure C-21. Sensitivity of PCB concentration to halving sediment erosion rate Appendix D: Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions DRAFT November 2008 Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-1 Introduction Two simulations were conducted to investigate the sensitivity of the sediment and contaminant model predictions to long-term load reductions. Both simulations spanned a four year period from 2002 through 2005. This period includes significant wet season inflow events as illustrated by the Los Angeles River flow shown in Figure D-1. The first (or baseline) simulation used watershed model estimated sediment and contaminant loads. The second (or load reduction) simulation used sediment and contaminant loads which were reduced by 50 percent for both rivers and near shore watersheds. The sensitivity analysis results are presented in both time series graphs and maps illustrating changes in contaminant level over the four year period, as described below. Time series of water column and sediment bed concentrations provide qualitative insight into the long-term response at three spatially diverse stations selected from the 60 sites visited in the Ports’ 2006 study (Figure 15 and Figure D-2). Water column and sediment bed concentration time series for copper, zinc, DDT, and PAHs are shown for three stations: LA Inner Harbor (8); LB Inner Harbor (42) and Outer Harbor (54) (circled in blue on Figure D-2). These results also provide insight into water column and sediment bed concentration responses during wet weather inflow events. Concentrations in these graphs are defined as mass per unit volume (ug/L or ng/L) for both the water column and sediment bed surface. This provides a true measure of mass associated with the sediment bed and therefore illustrates the changes in total concentration. Analysis of the simulation results focuses on the change in sediment bed surface contaminant levels over the four-year period. Three sets of spatial maps were generated to illustrate (1) the changes at the end of the four year simulations for the base and load reduction simulations and (2) the relative change for the load reduction simulation. The three maps presented for each contaminant are defined as: Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation Over Time = Final Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2005 (after 4 years) – Initial Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2002 (beginning of simulation period) Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation = Final Areal Base Simulation Concentration in 2005 – Final Areal Load Reduction Concentration in 2005 (based on 50 percent load reduction from the rivers and nearshore watersheds) Relative Change in Load Reduction Simulation = Relative Change in Load Reduction Change (normalized by initial top bed layer concentration) Note: Areal concentration is the mass per unit area in top layer of sediment bed Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-2 The “Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation” is presented for comparative purposes only. Specifically, the “Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation” results can be compared with the “Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation” to evaluate the impacts of reducing the watershed and river loads by 50 percent after a four year period. Copper and Zinc Results Water column and sediment bed concentration time series for total copper are shown in Figures D-3 through D-5 for Stations 8, 42, and 54 (these stations are circled in blue on Figure D-2). Corresponding results for zinc are shown in Figures D-6 through D-8. The top panel of the time series figures shows the results for the Baseline Simulation (i.e., using baseline loads from the watersheds), while the lower panel illustrates the concentrations associated with the Load Reduction Simulation (i.e., river and near shore watershed loads were reduced by 50 percent). Results for both copper and zinc indicate decreases in water column concentrations during periods of high flow, when comparing the baseline conditions with the 50 percent load reduction scenario. Although the load reductions were 50 percent, there is not a corresponding 50 percent reduction in water column concentrations. In general, sediment bed contaminant concentrations tend to increase in response to high freshwater flows, which is expected since more sediments are transported by inflows from the watershed under high flow conditions. Over a four-year period, additional sediment is added to the system due to freshwater inputs and other transport factors; therefore, there is an expected net increase in sediment bed contaminant concentrations (assuming no dredging or other pollutant-reduction activities have occurred). The net increases in sediment bed contaminant concentrations were compared between the Baseline Simulation and the Load Reduction Simulation. Overall, the net increase in copper and zinc concentrations over the four year period are substantially lower for the Load Reduction Simulation. Specifically, for stations 8 and 54 (Figures D-3 and D-5), the copper reductions observed at the end of the four-year period were approximately 1,000 ug/L (station 42 [Figure D-4] showed minimal change in copper concentrations). Sediment bed zinc concentrations at station 8 (Figure D- 6) decreased by approximately 15,000 ug/L after four years in the Load Reduction Simulation, while stations 42 (Figure D-7) and 54 (Figure D-8) had smaller zinc reductions at the end of the four-year period (approximately 1,000 ug/L and 3,500 ug/L, respectively). Figures D-9 through D-11 present the three maps associated with sediment bed copper results, while Figures D-12 through D-14 present sediment bed zinc results. For comparative purposes, the Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation results are shown first and exhibit a similar spatial pattern for the two metals (Figures D-9 and D-12). These results are followed by the maps of the Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-3 Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation. Overall, reduction of incoming loads by 50 percent results in a system-wide reduction in sediment bed copper and zinc concentrations (Figures D-10 and D-13, respectively). Recall that these figures represent the difference between the end of the simulation period under baseline conditions and the end of the simulation period for the load reduction scenario (not the change over time between the beginning and end of the load reduction simulation period). Therefore, all positive values indicate a reduction in copper and zinc sediment bed concentrations. Reductions in sediment bed copper concentrations due to the load reduction simulation ranged from over 1,000 mg/m2 near the Consolidated Slip to less than 100 mg/m2 by the breakwater. Similarly, zinc reductions ranged from over 10,000 mg/m2 near the Consolidated Slip to less than 800 mg/m2 by the breakwater. These correspond to relative copper reductions of approximately 10 percent (a factor of 0.10) in the Consolidated Slip region to nearly 1 percent (a factor of 0.01) in many of the other harbor areas (Figure D-11). Relative reductions associated with the load reduction simulations for zinc were even higher (Figure D-14), ranging from 40 percent (a factor of 0.4) to 2 percent (a factor of 0.02) throughout most of the area inside the breakwater. DDT and PAH Results Water column and sediment bed concentration time series for total DDT are shown for Stations 8, 42, and 54 (circled in blue on Figure D-2) in Figures D-15 through D-17. Corresponding results for PAH are shown in Figures D-18 through D-20. As described above for the metals, the top panel of the time series figures shows the results for the Baseline Simulation (i.e., using baseline loads from the watersheds), while the lower panel illustrates the concentrations associated with the Load Reduction Simulation (i.e., river and near shore watershed loads were reduced by 50 percent). The results indicate that DDT and PAH concentrations in the water column decrease during periods of high flow when comparing the baseline conditions with the 50 percent load reduction scenario, as was the case for the two metals. Sediment bed contaminant concentration behavior is more spatially varied with DDT concentrations decreasing at Station 8 (Figure D-15) at approximately the same rate and similar magnitude for both scenarios. At the other two stations, DDT concentrations in the sediment bed do not change significantly. Specifically, almost no change in concentration is observed at Station 42 (Figure D-16) when comparing the two simulations. Station 54 shows a slight increasing trend in sediment concentrations over time in both simulations; however, the load reduction simulation has a lower concentration after four years by about 500 ng/L (Figure D-17). Bed concentration tendencies for PAH are somewhat more consistent with those for metals, but do not exhibit large relative changes. Station 8 (Figure D-18) shows a 10,000 ng/L decrease in sediment bed concentrations when comparing the base simulation results with the 50 percent load reduction simulation. Station 42 does not present a change in concentration Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-4 (Figure D-19), while there is an approximately 700 ng/L decrease in sediment concentration at Station 54 when comparing the two simulations (Figure D-20). Spatial maps associated with sediment bed DDT results are presented in Figures D-21 through D-23, while maps for PAH levels are illustrated in Figures D-24 through D-26. Similar to the metals, for comparative purposes, the Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation results are shown first (Figures D- 21 and D-24) and these results are followed by the maps of the Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation (Figures D-22 and D-25). The Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation maps illustrate the change in sediment bed concentrations over a four-year period using the baseline conditions. The spatial pattern is somewhat similar for the two pollutants, with the most significant changes occurring in the inner harbors and near the Los Angeles River inflow (Figures D-21 and D-24). Review of the Load Reduction Simulation maps for DDT and PAH (i.e., the areal concentration change between the end of the simulation period under baseline conditions and the end of the simulation period for the load reduction scenario) indicates that the reduction of incoming loads by 50 percent results in a system-wide reduction in sediment bed DDT and PAH levels (Figures D-22 and D-25, respectively). These reductions are illustrated by the positive values in sediment bed concentrations. Reductions in areal sediment bed DDT concentrations due to the load reduction simulation ranged from over 1,000 mg/m2 near the Los Angeles River to less than 100 mg/m2 by the breakwater. Similarly, PAH reductions ranged from approximately 20,000 mg/m2 near the Consolidated Slip to less than 200 mg/m2 by the breakwater. These correspond to relative DDT reductions of approximately 40 percent (a factor of 0.40) in the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River regions to 2 percent (a factor of 0.02) throughout most of the area inside the breakwater (Figure D-23). Relative reductions associated with the load reduction simulations for PAH were low (Figure D-26), ranging from 6 percent (a factor of 0.06) in Alamitos Bay, 4 percent (a factor of 0.04) near the Los Angeles River, and approximately 0.5 percent (a factor of 0.005) throughout most of the area inside the breakwater. Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-5 Figure D-1. Los Angeles River flow during long-term simulation period Note: Long-term sensitivity results are presented for the three stations circled in blue. Figure D-2. Location of 2006 sediment and overlying water sampling locations Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-6 Figure D-3. Total copper concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 8 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-7 Figure D-4. Total copper concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 42 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-8 Figure D-5. Total copper concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 54 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-9 Figure D-6. Total zinc concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 8 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-10 Figure D-7. Total zinc concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 42 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-11 Figure D-8. Total zinc concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 54 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-12 Note: Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation Over Time = Final Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2005 (after 4 years) – Initial Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2002 (beginning of simulation period). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-9. Areal concentration change in baseline simulation over time (after four years) – copper East, kmNorth, km15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 40000 20000 0 -20000 -40000 -60000 -80000 -100000 Change in Sediment Copper Level for Full Loading after 4 Years (mg/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-13 Note: Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation = Final Areal Baseline Simulation Concentration in 2005 – Final Areal Load Reduction Concentration in 2005 (based on 50 percent load reduction from the rivers and nearshore watersheds). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-10. Areal concentration change from load reduction simulation – copper East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 2000 1000 800 400 200 100 80 40 20 10 Reduction in Sediment Copper Level for Halving of Load (mg/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-14 Note: Relative Change in Load Reduction Simulation = Relative Change in Load Reduction Change (normalized by initial top bed layer concentration). Results are proportions and can be multiplied by 100 to obtain percent. Figure D-11. Relative change in load reduction simulation – copper East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 0.2 0.1 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.008 0.004 0.002 0.001 Relative Reduction in Sediment Copper Level for Halving of Load Proportion Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-15 Note: Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation Over Time = Final Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2005 (after 4 years) – Initial Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2002 (beginning of simulation period). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-12. Areal concentration change in baseline simulation over time (after four years) – zinc East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 zincf 40000 20000 10000 0 -10000 -20000 -40000 -80000 -100000 -200000 -400000 Change in Sediment Zinc Level for Full Loading after 4 Years (mg/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-16 Note: Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation = Final Areal Baseline Simulation Concentration in 2005 – Final Areal Load Reduction Concentration in 2005 (based on 50 percent load reduction from the rivers and nearshore watersheds). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-13. Areal concentration change from load reduction simulation – zinc East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 zincd 20000 10000 8000 4000 2000 1000 800 400 200 100 Reduction in Sediment Zinc Level for Halving of Load (mg/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-17 Note: Relative Change in Load Reduction Simulation = Relative Change in Load Reduction Change (normalized by initial top bed layer concentration). Results are proportions and can be multiplied by 100 to obtain percent. Figure D-14. Relative change in load reduction simulation – zinc East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 zincn 2 1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 Relative Reduction in Sediment Zinc Level for Halving of Load Proportion Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-18 Figure D-15. Total DDT concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 8 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-19 Figure D-16. Total DDT concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 42 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-20 Figure D-17. Total DDT concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 54 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-21 Figure D-18. Total PAH concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 8 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-22 Figure D-19. Total PAH concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 42 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-23 Figure D-20. Total PAH concentration in water column and at sediment bed surface for Station 54 (see Figure D-2 for location) Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-24 Note: Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation Over Time = Final Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2005 (after 4 years) – Initial Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2002 (beginning of simulation period). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-21. Areal concentration change in baseline simulation over time (after four years) – DDT East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 5000 2500 0 -2500 -5000 -12000 -25000 -50000 -120000 -250000 -500000 Change in Sediment DDT Level for Full Loading after 4 Years (ug/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-25 Note: Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation = Final Areal Baseline Simulation Concentration in 2005 – Final Areal Load Reduction Concentration in 2005 (based on 50 percent load reduction from the rivers and nearshore watersheds). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-22. Areal concentration change from load reduction simulation – DDT East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 2000 1000 500 250 100 50 25 12 0 -12 Reduction in Sediment DDT Level for Halving of Load (ug/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-26 Note: Relative Change in Load Reduction Simulation = Relative Change in Load Reduction Change (normalized by initial top bed layer concentration). Results are proportions and can be multiplied by 100 to obtain percent. Figure D-23. Relative change in load reduction simulation – DDT East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.004 0.002 0 -0.002 Relative Reduction in Sediment DDT Level for Halving of Load Proportion Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-27 Note: Areal Concentration Change in Baseline Simulation Over Time = Final Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2005 (after 4 years) – Initial Areal Concentration using Baseline Conditions in 2002 (beginning of simulation period). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-24. Areal concentration change in baseline simulation over time (after four years) – PAH East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 pahf 1E+06 800000 400000 200000 100000 0 -100000 -200000 -400000 -800000 -1E+06 -2E+06 -4E+06 -8E+06 Change in Sediment PAH Level for Full Loading after 4 Years (ug/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-28 Note: Areal Concentration Change from Load Reduction Simulation = Final Areal Baseline Simulation Concentration in 2005 – Final Areal Load Reduction Concentration in 2005 (based on 50 percent load reduction from the rivers and nearshore watersheds). Results are presented in mg/m2. Figure D-25. Areal concentration change from load reduction simulation – PAH East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 pahd 32000 16000 10000 8000 4000 2000 1000 500 250 125 Reduction in Sediment PAH Level for Halving of Load (ug/m*m) mg/m2 Appendix D: Sensitivity to Long-Term Load Reductions February 2009 D-29 Note: Relative Change in Load Reduction Simulation = Relative Change in Load Reduction Change (normalized by initial top bed layer concentration). Results are proportions and can be multiplied by 100 to obtain percent. Figure D-26. Relative change in load reduction simulation – PAH East, kmNorth, km 15 20 25 30 3515 20 25 30 35 pahn 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001 Relative Reduction in Sediment PAH Level for Halving of Load Proportion Appendix E: Analysis of Additional Water Column Metals and Suspended Solids Data DRAFT November 2008 Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Appendix E: Analysis of Additional Metals and Sediment Data February 2009 E-1 Introduction Subsequent to conducting the calibration and sensitivity simulations for metals, described in Chapter 8 and Appendix C, using water column partition coefficients in column 5 of Table 21, additional water column metals and sediment concentration data sets became available. These data sets include dissolved and total metals data collected during January and March 2006 and dissolved and total metals and suspended solids data collected in January 2008. The locations of these data sets correspond to the 2005 locations shown in Figure 25. The following sections present, analyze, and discuss these data sets. Water Column Metals Data: 2006 Dissolved and total metals concentrations were reported for 66 mid-water column sampling locations in January and March of 2006 in waters of the Port of Los Angeles. For comparison with the 2005 POLA and 2006 POLB data, these data were used to determine the ratio of the particulate to dissolved fraction, which also corresponds to the product of the equilibrium partition coefficient and suspended solids concentration according to p p d CK P C=i (6) where P is the suspended sediment concentration. Figure E-1 shows scatter plots of the ratio for copper, lead, and zinc. Table E-1 summarizes the average values of the ratios and compares them with results for 2005 POLA and 2006 POLB stations (Figure 26 and Table 21, fourth column). The concentration ratios for the three metals, copper, lead, and zinc, are very consistent between the two data sets. The range of average partition coefficients corresponding to an assumed range of sediment concentrations is shown in the fourth column of Table E-1. Water Column Metals and Suspended Solids Data: 2008 Dissolved and total metals concentrations and total suspended solids were reported for 43 mid-water column sampling locations in January 2008 in waters of the Port of Los Angeles. For comparison with the 2005 POLA and 2006 POLB data, these data were used to determine the partition coefficient with the following equation: 1 p p d CK P C = (5C) Appendix E: Analysis of Additional Metals and Sediment Data February 2009 E-2 where P is the suspended sediment concentration. Figure E-2 shows the partition coefficients for copper, lead, and zinc as function of the suspended sediment concentration. The fifth column of Table E-1 summarizes the average values of the partition coefficients. These can be compared to the range estimated using the POLA 2006 particulate to dissolved concentration ratio. For comparison, the model calibration and sensitivity simulations (Chapter 8 and Appendix C) conducted before these data became available used partition coefficients of 0.25, 1.25, and 0.05 L/mg for copper, lead, and zinc, respectively. The model simulation values used for copper and lead, 0.25 and 1.25, are very consistent with the observation-based values of 0.17 and 1.5. The model simulation value for zinc (0.05 L/mg) is significantly less than the average observation-based value, but still within the range of shown for zinc in Figure E-1 and Table E-1. Table E-1. Equilibrium Partition Coefficients and Particulate to Dissolved Concentration Ratios for Metals Contaminant Water Column Particulate to Dissolved Concentration Ratio POLA2005 POLB2006 Water Column Particulate to Dissolved Concentration Ratio POLA2006 Range of Partition Coefficients, L/mg Corresponding to TSS range of 1 to 10 mg/L (based on POLA2006) Average Partition Coefficients, L/mg for POLA2008 Copper 0.51 0.72 0.05 to 0.7 0.17 Lead 7.12 6.28 0.6 to 7 1.5 Zinc 0.20 0.19 0.02 to 0.2 0.20 Appendix E: Analysis of Additional Metals and Sediment Data February 2009 E-3 Figure E-1. Particulate to dissolved concentration ratio (equal to product of partition coefficient and adsorption site particle concentration) for 2006 POLA mid-water column metals samples Appendix E: Analysis of Additional Metals and Sediment Data February 2009 E-4 Figure E-2. Partition coefficients for copper, lead, and zinc as a function of suspended sediment concentration for 2008 POLA mid-water column samples Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 1 - May 5, 2011 Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to Incorporate the Total Maximum Daily Load for Toxic Pollutants in Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region on May 5, 2011 Amendments Table of Contents Add: Chapter 7. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 7-40 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL List of Figures, Tables, and Inserts Add: Chapter 7. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Tables 7-40 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL 7-40.1 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL – Elements 7-40.2 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL – Implementation Schedule Chapter 7. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL This TMDL was adopted by: The Regional Water Quality Control Board on May 5, 2011. This TMDL was approved by: The State Water Resources Control Board on [Insert date]. The Office of Administrative Law on [Insert date]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on [Insert date]. This TMDL is effective on [Insert date]. The elements of the TMDL are presented in Table 7-40.1 and the Implementation Plan in Table 7-40.2. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 2 - May 5, 2011 7-40.1 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL – Elements TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Problem Statement The waters of Dominguez Channel and the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor area1 are impaired by heavy metals and organic pollutants. These water bodies are included on the State’s Clean Water Act 303(d) impaired waters list for one or more of the following pollutants: cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, zinc, chlordane, dieldrin, toxaphene, DDT, PCBs, certain PAH compounds, benthic community effects and toxicity. These impairments exist in one or more environmental media—water, sediment, or tissue. Impairments in fish tissue are for DDT, PCBs, toxaphene, chlordane and dieldrin. Beneficial uses designated in these waters to protect aquatic life include the marine habitat use (MAR) and rare, threatened or endangered species habitat use (RARE). In addition, the estuaries (EST) are recognized as areas for spawning, reproduction and/or early development (SPWN), migration of aquatic organisms (MIGR), and wildlife habitat (WILD). Dominguez Channel also has an existing designated use of warm freshwater habitat (WARM) and the Los Angeles River Estuary has the designated use of wetland habitat (WET). Beneficial uses associated with human use of these waters include recreational use for water contact (REC1), non-contact water recreation (REC2), industrial service supply (IND), navigation (NAV), commercial and sport fishing (COMM), and shellfish harvesting (SHELL). Because of the impairments, these waterbodies fail to fully support the designated beneficial uses. The goal of this TMDL is to protect and restore fish tissue, water and sediment quality in Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters by remediating contaminated sediment and controlling the sediment loading and accumulation of contaminated sediment in the Harbors. Numeric Targets Applicable water quality objectives for this TMDL are narrative objectives for Chemical Constituents, Bioaccumulation, Pesticides, and Toxicity in the Basin Plan and the numeric water quality criteria promulgated in 40 CFR section 131.38 (the California Toxics Rule (CTR)). In addition, sediment condition objectives were determined using the State Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries – Part 1 Sediment Quality (SQO Part 1) and the sediment quality guidelines.2 The following tables provide the water, sediment and fish tissue targets for the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDLs. Water Column Targets Water targets were determined by this Basin Plan and the California Toxics Rule (CTR). Site- specific conversion factors were developed to convert CTR acute dissolved metal criteria to total recoverable metals using The Metals Translator Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion EPA 823-B-96-007. Because exceedances of CTR criteria were only observed in freshwaters of the Dominguez 1 Dominguez Channel includes the Dominguez Channel Estuary and Torrance Lateral Channel and Greater Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor waters include Inner and Outer Harbor, Main Channel, Consolidated Slip, Southwest Slip, Fish Harbor, Cabrillo Marina, Inner Cabrillo Beach, Los Angeles River Estuary, and San Pedro Bay. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 3 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Channel during wet weather, targets are set for wet weather only. Site-specific wet-weather conversion factors were calculated using paired dissolved and total metals data and the statistical method outlined in the Guidance. Dissolved Metals and Organic Compounds Targets Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life (µg/L) Criteria for Protection of Human Health (µg/L) For consumption of: Freshwater Saltwater Pollutant Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Organisms only Dissolved Metals Copper 6.99* 4.95* 4.8 3.1 - Lead 30.14* 1.17* 210 8.1 - Zinc 65.13* 65.66* 90 81 - Mercury - - - - 0.051 Organic Compounds Chlordane n/a n/a 0.09 0.004 0.00059 4,4’-DDT 1.1 0.001 0.13 0.001 0.00059 Total PCBs - 0.014 - 0.03 0.00017 Benzo[a]pyrene** - - - - 0.049 Dieldrin 0.24 0.056 0.71 0.0019 0.00014 *Freshwater aquatic life criteria for Cu, Pb and Zn are expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L) in the water body. Values presented correspond to median hardness from 2002 to 2010 of 50 mg/L based upon Los Angeles County Department of Public Works data from Station ID S28 (n = 35). - means that no criteria were established for California. **CTR human health criteria were not established for total PAHs. Therefore, the CTR criteria for individual PAHs of 0.049 µg/L are applied individually to benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene. The CTR human health criterion for Pyrene is 11,000 µg/L. Other PAH compounds in the CTR shall be screened as part of the TMDL monitoring. Total Recoverable Metals, Freshwater Targets Metal Acute Dissolved CTR Criteria Conversion Factor* Acute Total Recoverable Metals Copper 6.99 0.722 9.7 Lead 30.14 0.706 42.7 Zinc 65.13 0.935 69.6 * Site-specific conversion factors were calculated using Los Angeles County Department of Public Works data from Station ID S28 using the data record 2002-2010 (n = 35), which had a median hardness of 50 mg/L. Site-specific conversion factors maybe recalculated based on updated data at the time of permit issuance, modification, or renewal. 2 Long, ER, LJ Field and DD MacDonald. 1998. Predicting Toxicity in Marine Sediments with Numerical Sediment Quality Guidelines, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:4, 714-727. MacDonald, DD, CG Ingersoll and TA Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:20-31. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 4 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Freshwater toxicity target: This TMDL also establishes a numeric toxicity target of 1.0 toxicity unit, chronic (1.0 TUc) to address toxicity. TUc = Toxicity Unit, chronic = 100/NOEC (no observable effects concentration) Targets based on new toxicity criteria that achieve the narrative Toxicity objective of Chapter 3 of this Basin Plan may substitute for the TUc of 1, when those new criteria are adopted and in effect. Sediment Targets Sediment targets were determined by the narrative standards of this Basin Plan, the SQO Part 1 and the sediment quality guidelines of Long et al. (1998) and MacDonald et al. (2000), which are recommended by the State Listing Policy. The fresh water sediment numeric targets for Dominguez Channel are based on the freshwater Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) sediment guidelines compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs). The marine sediment quality guidelines of Effect Range Low (ERL), also from NOAA SQuiRTs, were used to establish the numeric targets for marine sediment for the greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. These TECs and ERLs are set as the sediment quality thresholds for the calculation of loading capacity and allocations. This TMDL anticipates that revisions to specific sediment quality targets may be determined by development of site-specific sediment quality values (SQV). Sediment targets Metals Freshwater Sediment (mg/kg) Marine Sediment (mg/kg) Cadmium n/a 1.2 Copper 31.6 34 Lead 35.8 46.7 Mercury n/a 0.15 Zinc 121 150 Chromium n/a 81 Organics Marine Sediment (µg/kg) Chlordane, total 0.5 Dieldrin 0.02 Toxaphene 0.10* Total PCBs 22.7 Benzo[a]anthracene 261 Benzo[a]pyrene 430 Chrysene 384 Pyrene 665 2-methylnaphthalene 201 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 260 Phenanthrene 240 Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 5 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Hi MW PAHs 1700 Lo MW PAHs 552 Total PAHs 4,022 Total DDT 1.58 *Toxaphene value from Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources (1999), assumes 1% TOC. n/a indicates that a fresh water sediment target is not established in this TMDL for this constituent, since impairments for the constituent is in saltwater only. These sediment targets are not intended to be used as ‘clean-up standards’ for navigational, capital or maintenance dredging or capping activities; rather they are long-term sediment concentrations that should be attained after reduction of external loads, targeted actions addressing internal reservoirs of contaminants, and environmental decay of contaminants in sediment. In addition, the categories designated in the SQO Part 1 as Unimpacted and Likely Unimpacted by the interpretation and integration of multiple lines of evidence shall be considered as the protective narrative objective for sediment toxicity and benthic community effects. The thresholds established in the SQO Part 1 are based on statistical significance and magnitude of the effect. Therefore, this TMDL implicitly includes sediment toxicity and benthic community targets by its use of the SQO Part 1. Fish Tissue and Associated Sediment Targets Fish tissue targets were determined from Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene, developed by OEHHA (2008) to assist agencies in developing fish tissue-based criteria for pollution mitigation or elimination and to protect humans from consumption of contaminated fish. Associated sediment targets required to achieve the fish tissue targets were determined from several sources depending on the contaminant. Fish Tissue and Associated Sediment Targets Pollutant Fish Tissue Target (µg/kg wet) Associated Sediment Target (µg/kg dry) Chlordane 5.6 1.3 b Dieldrin 0.46 n/a Total DDT 21 1.9 b Total PCBs 3.6 3.2 c Total PAHs 5.47a n/a Toxaphene 6.1 0.1 d a Total PAHs in fish from EPA screening value. b Chlordane and total DDT associated sediment values from SFEI (2007) “Indicator development and framework for assessing indirect effects of sediment contaminants”, SFEI Contribution #524. c Total PCBs - associated sediment target from Gobas, F. and J. Arnot (2010) “Food Web Bioaccumulation Model for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in San Francisco Bay, California, USA”, ET&C 29:6, 1385-95. d Toxaphene value from New York State (1999), assumes 1% TOC. n/a indicates that an associated sediment target is not established in this TMDL at this time because there is no BSAF in literature to use in the calculation. If BSAFs are developed in the future, associated sediment targets for dieldrin and/or PAHs may be added during reconsideration of the TMDL. Source Analysis Monitoring data from NPDES discharges and land use runoff coefficients were used to estimate the magnitude of metals, organo-chlorine pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs loads to Dominguez Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 6 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, and chlordane are legacy pollutants for the most part, yet, they remain present in the environment, bound to fine-grained particles. Because they are legacy pollutants and are subject to environmental decay, their concentrations are gradually decreasing over time. When these particles become waterborne, the chemicals are ferried to new locations. Urban runoff and rainfall higher in the watersheds mobilize the particles, which are then washed into storm drains and channels that discharge to the Dominguez Channel and greater Harbor waters. Metals and PAHs are currently generated or deposited in the watersheds and are then washed into storm drains and channels that discharge to the Dominguez Channel and greater Harbor waters. Briefly there are several categories of pollutant sources to the waters of concern in these TMDLs. Point sources include stormwater and urban runoff (MS4) and other NPDES discharges, including but not limited to Port operations, Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant (TIWRP), refineries, and generating plants. Nonpoint sources include existing contaminated sediments and direct (air) deposition. Dominguez Channel waters: The major point sources of organo-chlorine pesticides, PCBs, and metals into Dominguez Channel are stormwater and urban runoff discharges. Nonpoint sources include atmospheric deposition and fluxes from contaminated sediments into the overlying water. Current loads of metals into Dominguez Channel were estimated using Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) model output from simulated flows for 1995-2005. Monitoring data from NPDES discharges and land use runoff coefficients were analyzed along with Channel stream flow rates to estimate the magnitude of metal loadings. In recognition of the wide variety of stream flow rates generated by various rainfall conditions, flow duration curves were utilized to analyze the metals loading during wet weather. Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters: A variety of activities over the past decades in the four contributing watersheds (Dominguez Channel, Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River and the nearshore watershed) and in the Harbors themselves have contributed to the sediment contamination. The contaminated sediments are a reservoir of historically deposited pollutants. Stormwater runoff from manufacturing, military facilities, fish processing plants, wastewater treatment plants, oil production facilities, and shipbuilding or repair yards in both Ports discharged untreated or partially treated wastes into Harbor waters. Current activities also contribute pollutants to Harbor sediments. In particular, stormwater runoff from port facilities, commercial vessels (ocean going vessels and harbor craft), recreational vessels, and the re-suspension of contaminated sediments via natural processes and/or anthropogenic activities including (ship) propeller wash within the Ports also contributes to transport of pollutants within the Harbors. Loadings from the four contributing watersheds are also potential sources of metals, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs to the Harbors. The major nonpoint source of pesticides and PCBs to the greater Harbor waters is the current sediments. The re-suspension of these sediments contributes to the fish tissue impairments. In addition, atmospheric deposition may be a potential nonpoint source of metals to the watershed, through either direct deposition or indirect deposition. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 7 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Current loading of metals, PAHs, DDT and PCBs to contaminated sediments within the Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor waters was estimated using monitoring data from special studies and water body surface area for air deposition; discharge results for refineries and TIWRP; and Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model output for 2002-2005. Model inputs included the existing average sediment concentration in the top 5 cm of bed sediments and the total sediment deposition rate per waterbody. Linkage Analysis The linkage analysis connects pollutant loads to the numeric targets and protection of beneficial uses of Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. To represent the linkage between source contributions and ambient water and sediment response, two dynamic water quality models were developed to simulate source loadings and transport of the listed pollutants in Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) and Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) models were selected to simulate the pollutants in this TMDL. LSPC for freshwater loadings of metals and total PAHs, DDT, and PCBs. LSPC was developed for Dominguez Channel based on information initially provided by SCCWRP for this watershed. In addition, Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River LSPC models were updated from earlier TMDL models. Model development throughout the Los Angeles Region relies on Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) as well as simulated flows to estimate pollutant loadings. Flow data records for 1995-2005 were used to calibrate LSPC models for each watershed; similar simulation time frames were used to generate simulated flows for each watershed. Dominguez Channel freshwater metals TMDLs examined only wet weather flows; however, LSPC output for dry and wet weather conditions was applied to all estuarine and marine receiving waters. The nearshore watershed was analyzed and modeled using LSPC by breaking it into 67 subwatersheds that discharge directly to the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. These sub-watersheds were then aggregated by receiving waterbody; e.g. nearshore contributions to Inner Harbor consisted of stormdrains and surface (sheet) flows that discharge directly into the Inner Harbor. The table below shows total loads from the four contributing watersheds to the Greater Harbor waters. Overall, the Los Angeles River is the largest freshwater contributor of pollutants to the greater Harbor waters; flows from the Los Angeles River primarily impact water quality in eastern San Pedro Bay. The Inner Harbor receives the bulk of the loading from the nearshore watershed. Comparative Watershed Loading to Greater Harbor Waters LSPC Modeled Existing Loading by Watershed (1995-2005) Dominguez Channel Los Angeles River San Gabriel River Nearshore Watershed Contaminant Percent of Total Loading Average Daily Load (kg/day) Percent of Total Loading Average Daily Load (kg/day) Percent of Total Loading Average Daily Load (kg/day) Percent of Total Loading Average Daily Load (kg/day) Wet Conditions Sediment 5.6% 1.88E+05 72.0% 2.79E+06 20.4% 4.90E+05 1.9% 6.54E+04 Total Copper 4.3% 3.58E+01 81.1% 7.85E+02 12.5% 7.51E+01 2.1% 1.78E+01 Total Lead 3.0% 2.08E+01 71.5% 5.67E+02 23.3% 1.15E+02 2.2% 1.53E+01 Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 8 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Total Zinc 5.0% 3.56E+02 72.2% 5.89E+03 20.2% 1.02E+03 2.6% 1.84E+02 Total DDT 9.2% 2.20E-02 89.5% 2.46E-01 0.7% 1.15E-03 0.7% 1.59E-03 Total PAH 8.0% 2.04E+00 70.2% 2.07E+01 16.1% 2.95E+00 5.8% 1.50E+00 Total PCB 2.3% 1.38E-02 97.5% 6.86E-01 0.1% 3.11E-04 0.2% 9.92E-04 Dry Conditions Sediment 0.7% 8.57E+01 19.0% 2.27E+03 80.1% 1.01E+04 0.1% 1.54E+01 Total Copper 2.6% 2.56E-01 48.7% 4.69E+00 40.8% 4.18E+00 8.0% 7.78E-01 Total Lead 0.9% 3.48E-02 19.8% 7.86E-01 72.9% 3.07E+00 6.5% 2.59E-01 Total Zinc 0.9% 5.65E-01 30.4% 1.90E+01 62.6% 4.15E+01 6.2% 3.89E+00 Total DDT 7.7% 1.90E-05 83.0% 2.01E-04 9.3% 2.38E-05 0.0% 2.88E-10 Total PAH 6.8% 7.06E-02 62.7% 6.39E-01 30.4% 3.29E-01 0.0% 4.18E-05 Total PCB 1.8% 1.06E-05 97.1% 5.59E-04 1.1% 6.43E-06 0.0% 1.45E-10 The EFDC was used to model hydrodynamics and water and sediment quality of the greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. The EFDC model applied a simulated time period of 2002-2005. The model was calibrated with numerous sediment monitoring studies, including Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor’s 2006 sediment characterization study, which yielded sediment, porewater and overlying water concentrations as well as results from highly sensitive monitoring devices for detecting DDT, PCBs, and PAHs in the water column. The EFDC model also considered ocean water (outside breakwater) conditions and fine and coarse sediment transport and deposition. Ultimately the EFDC model was integrated with LSPC output – hourly for three watersheds, daily for nearshore watersheds – to model metals, PAHs, PCBs, and DDT (total) sediment concentrations in the receiving waters. The annual total (clean) sediment deposition rate for the top 5 cm (active sediment layer) was multiplied by the corresponding existing sediment pollutant level or the TMDL sediment quality target to yield pollutant load within each waterbody. Annual (clean) Sediment Deposition Rates per (salt)Waterbody Waterbody Name TMDL Zone Area (acres)1 Area (m2)1 Total Deposition (kg/yr)2 Dominguez Channel Estuary 01 140 567,900 2,470,201 Consolidated Slip 02 36 147,103 355,560 Inner Harbor - POLA 03 1,539 6,228,431 1,580,809 Inner Harbor - POLB 08 1,464 5,926,130 674,604 Fish Harbor 04 91 368,524 30,593 Cabrillo Marina 05 77 310,259 38,859 Cabrillo Beach 06 82 331,799 27,089 Outer Harbor - POLA 07 1,454 5,885,626 572,349 Outer Harbor - POLB 09 2,588 10,472,741 1,828,407 Los Angeles River Estuary 10 207 837,873 21,610,283 San Pedro Bay 11 8,173 33,073,517 19,056,271 1 Area obtained from GIS layer of the 2006 303(d) list. Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_lists2006_gis.shtml 2 Sediment deposition rates were calculated by approximating the average mass of total sediment (fine and coarse particles) deposited in each waterbody annually based on 2002-2005 EFDC output. Sediment flux for each grid cell, Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 9 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions which is dependent on watershed inputs as well as tidal movements between waterbodies, was obtained from the EFDC model output. These values were summarized across each TMDL waterbody, resulting in the average deposition of both sediment fines and sand by waterbody. The total deposition rate is simply the sum of the rates for fines and sand and this value is the waterbody-specific average annual (clean) sediment deposition rate. The EFDC model was used to evaluate several management scenarios and relative contributions from various inputs to support water quality management decisions in Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. Preliminary results for two scenarios indicate that reducing freshwater input loads may not be sufficient to achieve target concentrations in water and sediments; thus reductions in contaminant levels in bed sediments may be required. Loading Capacity Loading capacity was calculated for both Dominguez Channel (wet weather) and in the Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor waters (dry and wet weather). Dominguez Channel wet weather metals TMDLs: During wet weather, the loading capacity is a function of the volume of water in the Channel. Given the variability in wet-weather flows, the concept of a single critical flow was not justified. Instead, a load duration curve approach was used to establish the wet-weather loading capacity. The load duration curve was developed by multiplying the wet-weather flows by the in-stream numeric targets. The resulting curves identify the allowable load for a given flow. The wet-weather TMDLs for copper and zinc are defined by these load duration curves. Loading capacities were calculated by multiplying the daily volume by the appropriate numeric water quality target or, in the case of lead, the observed existing average concentration. The wet-weather loading capacity applies to any day when the maximum daily flow measured at a location within the Dominguez Channel is equal to or greater than 62.7 cfs, which is the 90th percentile of annual flow rates from estimated/modeled flow rates. The freshwater toxicity TMDL is equal to 1 TUc. Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor waters, metals and organics in sediment TMDLs: Loading capacities for Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor waters were calculated by estimating the sediment load (based on modeled sediment deposition rates) multiplied by the sediment quality target. The active sediment layer was defined as the top 5 cm of sediment; the habitat of approximately 95% of benthic organisms. In addition, chlordane, dieldrin, toxaphene and mercury TMDLs were defined for specific waterbodies as equivalent to the concentration-based sediment quality target. Waste Load and Load Allocations Final waste load allocations (WLA) are assigned to stormwater dischargers (MS4, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), general construction and general industrial dischargers), and other NDPES dischargers. Final load allocations (LAs) are assigned to direct atmospheric deposition and bed sediments in both wet and dry weather. Dominguez Channel freshwater allocations are set for wet weather only because exceedances have only been observed in wet weather. Mass-based allocations have been set where sufficient data was available to calculate mass-based allocations, otherwise, concentration-based allocations have Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 10 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions been set. Interim WLA and LA are intended to not allow any decrease in current facility performance. Interim allocations shall be met upon the effective date of the TMDL. Interim and final WLAs and LAs shall be included in permits and/or other Board orders in accordance with state and federal regulations and guidance. INTERIM ALLOCATIONS 1. Dominguez Channel Freshwater Interim Allocations A. Freshwater Toxicity Interim Allocation wet weather An interim allocation of 2 TUc applies to each source, including all point sources assigned a WLA and all nonpoint sources assigned a LA. The freshwater toxicity interim allocation is set at 2 TUc based on current monitoring results performed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, which have shown average values of less than 2 TUc. The fresh water interim allocation shall be implemented as a trigger requiring initiation and implementation of the TRE/TIE process as outlined in US EPA’s “Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program” (2000) and current NPDES permits. The fresh water interim allocation shall be implemented in accordance with US EPA, State Board and Regional Board resolutions, guidance and policy at the time of permit issuance, modification or renewal. B. Freshwater Metals Interim Allocations - wet weather only Interim water allocations are assigned to stormwater dischargers (MS4, Caltrans, general construction and general industrial stormwater dischargers) and other NPDES dischargers. Interim water allocations are based on the 95th percentile of total metals data collected from January 2006 to January 2010 using a log-normal distribution. The use of 95th percentile values to develop interim allocations is consistent with NPDES permitting methodology. Regardless of the interim allocations below, permitted dischargers shall ensure that effluent concentrations and mass discharges do not exceed levels that can be attained by performance of the facility’s treatment technologies existing at the time of permit issuance, reissuance or modification. Concentration-based Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral freshwater interim metal allocations Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc allocation (µg/L) 207.51 122.88 898.87 2. Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters: Interim sediment allocations are assigned to stormwater dischargers (MS4, Caltrans, general construction and general industrial stormwater dischargers) and other NPDES dischargers. Interim sediment allocations are based on the 95th percentile of sediment data collected from 1998-2006. The use of 95th percentile values to develop interim allocations is consistent with NPDES permitting methodology. For waterbodies where the 95th percentile value has been equal to, or lower than, the numeric target, then the interim allocation is set equal to the final allocation. Regardless of the interim sediment allocations below, permitted dischargers shall Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 11 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions ensure that effluent concentrations and mass discharges do not exceed levels that can be attained by performance of the facility’s treatment technologies existing at the time of permit issuance, reissuance or modification. Sediment, interim concentration-based allocations Pollutant (mg/kg sediment) Waterbody Copper Lead Zinc DDT PAHs PCBs Dominguez Channel Estuary 220.0 510.0 789.0 1.727 31.60 1.490 Long Beach Inner Harbor 142.3 50.4 240.6 0.070 4.58 0.060 Los Angeles Inner Harbor 154.1 145.5 362.0 0.341 90.30 2.107 Long Beach Outer Harbor (inside breakwater) 67.3 46.7 150 0.075 4.022 0.248 Los Angeles Outer Harbor (inside breakwater) 104.1 46.7 150 0.097 4.022 0.310 Los Angeles River Estuary 53.0 46.7 183.5 0.254 4.36 0.683 San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones 76.9 66.6 263.1 0.057 4.022 0.193 Los Angeles Harbor - Cabrillo Marina 367.6 72.6 281.8 0.186 36.12 0.199 Los Angeles Harbor - Consolidated Slip 1470.0 1100.0 1705.0 1.724 386.00 1.920 Los Angeles Harbor - Inner Cabrillo Beach Area 129.7 46.7 163.1 0.145 4.022 0.033 Fish Harbor 558.6 116.5 430.5 40.5 2102.7 36.6 Numbers in bold are also the final allocation. Compliance with the interim concentration-based sediment allocations may be demonstrated via any one of three different means: 1. Demonstrate that the. sediment quality condition of Unimpacted or Likely Unimpacted via the interpretation and integration of multiple lines of evidence as defined in the SQO Part 1, is met; or 2. Meet the interim allocations in bed sediment over a three-year averaging period; or 3. Meet the interim allocations in the discharge over a three-year averaging period. FINAL ALLOCATIONS 1. Dominguez Channel Freshwater Allocations A. Freshwater Toxicity Allocation in wet weather A final allocation of 1 TUc, or its equivalent based on any Statewide Toxicity Policy, applies to each source, including all point sources assigned a WLA and all nonpoint sources assigned a LA. B. Freshwater Metals Allocations in wet weather Wet-weather allocations are assigned to Dominguez Channel and all upstream reaches and tributaries of Dominguez Channel (above Vermont Avenue). Allocations are assigned to both point (WLA) and nonpoint sources (LA). A mass-based LA has been developed for direct atmospheric deposition. A mass-based waste load allocation (WLA) is divided between the MS4 permittees and Caltrans under its NPDES stormwater Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 12 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions permit by subtracting the other stormwater or NPDES waste load allocations, air deposition and the margin of safety from the total loading capacity. Concentration-based WLAs are assigned for the other point sources including but not limited to General Construction, General Industrial, Power Generating stations, minor permits and irregular dischargers, and other NPDES dischargers. Mass-based Dominguez Channel Wet-weather Final Allocations Total Copper (g/day) Total Lead (g/day) Total Zinc (g/day) TMDL 1,485.1 6,548.8 10,685.5 Waste Load Allocations: MS4 – LA County Permittees 1,300.3 5,733.7 9,355.5 MS4 - Caltrans 32.3 142.6 232.6 Load Allocations: Air Deposition 4.0 17.7 28.9 Margin of Safety MOS (10%) 148.5 654.9 1,069.6 Based on total recoverable metal targets, a hardness of 50 mg/L, and 90th percentile of annual flow rates (62.7 cfs) in Dominguez Channel. Recalculated mass-based allocations using ambient hardness and flow rate at the time of sampling are considered consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these waste load allocations. In addition to the wasteload allocations above, samples collected during flow conditions less than the 90th percentile of annual flow rates must demonstrate that the acute and chronic hardness dependent water quality criteria provided in the CTR are achieved. Concentration-based Dominguez Channel Wet-weather Final Allocations (µg/L) Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Other stormwater/NPDES 9.7 42.7 69.7 Based on hardness = 50 mg/L. Recalculated concentration-based allocations using ambient hardness at the time of sampling are considered consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these waste load allocations. In addition to the wasteload allocations above, samples collected during flow conditions less than the 90th percentile of annual flow rates must demonstrate that the acute and chronic hardness dependent water quality criteria provided in the CTR are achieved. 2. Torrance Lateral Freshwater and Sediment Allocations Torrance Lateral is a subwatershed that flows directly into Dominguez Channel Estuary. Allocations are assigned to the ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery and all other dischargers. Mass- based sediment allocations are assigned to the ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery. This allocation has been developed based on an average discharge frequency of once every 7 years. If, at the end of Phase I of implementation, due to an increase in discharge frequency or volumes, it appears that the allocations are not supportive of the TMDL, these allocations may be revised. Sediment waste load allocations are assigned to all other dischargers to Torrance Lateral equal to the concentration-based sediment targets. Torrance Lateral Wet-weather Waste Load Allocations and Sediment Waste Load Allocations, concentration-based Media Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Water (unfiltered) (µg/L) 9.7 42.7 69.7 Sediment (mg/kg dry) 31.6 35.8 121 Hardness = 50 mg/L. Recalculated concentration-based allocations using ambient hardness at the time of sampling are considered consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 13 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions waste load allocations. In addition to the wasteload allocations above, samples collected during flow conditions less than the 90th percentile of annual flow rates must demonstrate that the acute and chronic hardness dependent water quality criteria provided in the CTR are achieved. Waste Load Allocations for ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery into Torrance Lateral, mass- based Media Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc Water (unfiltered) (kg/yr) 1.36 5.98 9.75 Based on Q = 3.7 MGD for 7 days/year; and total metals targets No allocation for PAHs is assigned to ExxonMobil; however, discharges should not exceed existing water quality criteria for those compounds and monitoring shall continue. Compliance with the freshwater metals allocations for Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral may be demonstrated via any one of three different means: a. Final allocations are met. b. CTR total metals criteria are met instream. c. CTR total metals criteria are met in the discharge. Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor Waters Allocations Concentration-based WLAs for point sources in Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor Waters (including refineries) for metals, PAHs, and bioaccumulative compounds in water. Non-MS4 point sources such as General Construction, General Industrial, individual industrial permittees, including power generating stations, minor permits and irregular dischargers into Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor Waters are assigned concentration-based allocations. Mass-based WLA for other refineries based on appropriate data maybe considered during the TMDL reconsideration. (Refineries which have provided discharge flow data along with monitoring results are assigned mass-based allocations, whereas other refineries are assigned concentration-based allocations because no discharge flow data has been provided.) Any future minor NPDES permits or enrollees under a general NPDES permit are also assigned the concentration-based waste load allocations. The allocations are set equal to the saltwater targets for metals and equal to the human health targets for the organic compounds in CTR. The averaging period for the concentration-based WLAs shall be consistent with that specified in the regulation establishing the criterion or objective or relevant implementation guidance published by the establishing agency. Receiving (salt) Water Column Concentration-Based Waste Load Allocations Constituents Copper* (µg/L) Lead* (µg/L) Zinc* (µg/L) PAHs (µg/L) Chlordane (µg/L) 4,4’- DDT (µg/L) Dieldrin (µg/L) Total PCBs (µg/L) Dominguez Channel Estuary 3.73 8.52 85.6 0.049** 0.00059 0.00059 0.00014 0.00017 Greater Harbor Waters 3.73 8.52 85.6 0.00059 0.00017 * Total Concentration-based WLAs for metals are converted from saltwater dissolved CTR criteria using CTR saltwater default translators. ** CTR human health criteria were not established for total PAHs. Therefore, the CTR criterion for individual PAHs of 0.049 µg/L is applied individually to benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, and chrysene. The CTR criterion for Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 14 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Pyrene of 11,000 µg/L is assigned as an individual WLA to Pyrene. Other PAH compounds in the CTR shall be screened as part of the TMDL monitoring. A. Mass-based allocations for metals and PAHs compounds Mass-based WLAs are assigned to the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant (TIWRP) (based on current discharge volume) and other point sources that have sufficient discharge flow data. Municipal stormwater sources, including the Los Angeles, Long Beach, Caltrans and other MS4 co-permittees, are assigned a mass-based allocation for each permit in place at the time of TMDL adoption, depending on the waterbody. Discharges from the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and Port of Long Beach (POLB) are grouped with the MS4 dischargers. Mass-based WLAs are applied as annual limits. Individual mass-based WLAs for an individual MS4 Permittee will be calculated based on its share, on an area basis, of the mass-based WLA or other approved approach available at the time final mass-based WLAs are in effect and incorporated into the permit. TMDLs and allocations were developed based on existing sediment concentrations in the active sediment layer defined herein as the top 5 cm of bed sediment concentrations. Load Allocations are assigned to existing sediments and direct air deposition. All allocations assigned to point sources and non-point sources are subtracted from the loading capacity and the remaining allocatable amount is assigned to the bed sediments. Direct air deposition allocations have been set equal to existing load estimates for Cu, Zn and PAHs based on atmospheric monitoring results collected in 2006. The Pb air deposition allocation has been developed by using the SCAQMD air quality Pb criteria (2010) multiplied by the surface area of each waterbody to produce direct air deposition allocations. Future changes to Cu, Zn and PAH air quality criteria, other regulation such as brake pad requirements, or other improvement in air quality may allow for re-calculations of air deposition allocations in future revisions to the TMDL. If, at some point in the future, a nonpoint source is considered subject to NPDES or WDR regulations, then the corresponding load allocation established herein may be considered a waste load allocation for purposes of implementation and enforcement through a permit or other Board order. Air deposition allocations for copper and zinc are based on existing loads; by assuming no direct deposition reductions, this consumes or partially consumes the available loading capacity. As a result, copper and zinc load allocations for bed sediments are negative values, in Inner and Outer Harbor, indicating that copper and zinc loads must be reduced. (Each negative copper and zinc bed sediment allocation may alternatively be interpreted as zero, or not adversely affecting benthic organisms.) The amount of copper and zinc load reduction may be revised based on future monitoring results. If future air deposition studies show lower existing air deposition copper and zinc loads, or if future copper and zinc sediment characterization studies show lower bed sediment copper and zinc loads, then copper and zinc allocations may be adjusted. The bed sediment LA is assigned to the City of Los Angeles (including the Port of Los Angeles), the City of Long Beach (including the Port of Long Beach) and the State Lands Commission. After remediation activities that address existing sediment contamination are complete and when LAs are attained, if bed sediments are recontaminated as a result of continued polluted discharge from the surrounding watersheds, the WLA compliance monitoring data will be used, along with other available information, to assess the relative contribution of watershed dischargers and determine their responsibility and allocations for secondary remediation activities. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 15 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Final, mass-based TMDLs and Allocations for metals and PAHs (Kg/year) Waterbody/source Total Cu Total Pb Total Zn Total PAHs DomCh Estuary - TMDL 84 115.4 370.5 9.94 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. 22.4 54.2 271.8 0.134 MS4- City of Long Beach 0.6 1.52 7.6 0.0038 MS4- CalTrans 0.384 0.93 4.7 0.0023 LAs Air deposition 4.6 0.031 33.2 0.051 Bed sediments 56.0 58.7 53.3 9.7 Current Load 327.6 457.9 1799.0 28.1 Overall reduction 74% 75% 79% 65% Consolidated Slip - TMDL 12.1 16.6 53.3 1.43 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. 2.73 3.63 28.7 0.0058 MS4 CalTrans 0.043 0.058 0.5 0.00009 LAs Air deposition 1.2 0.008 8.6 0.013 Bed sediments 8.13 12.9 15.57 1.41 Current Load 92.1 127.3 398.9 11.5 Overall reduction 87% 87% 87% 88% Inner Harbor - TMDL 76.7 105.3 338.3 9.1 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. 1.7 34.0 115.9 0.088 MS4 City of Long Beach 0.463 9.31 31.71 0.024 MS4 CalTrans 0.032 0.641 2.18 0.0017 LAs Air deposition 97.6 0.67 710 1.08 Bed sediments (23.1) 60.7 (521.3) 7.88 Current Load 178.4 105.9 542.1 3.524 Overall reduction 57% 1% 38% 0% Outer Harbor - TMDL 81.6 112.1 360.1 9.7 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. 0.91 26.1 81.5 0.105 MS4 City of Long Beach 0.63 18.1 56.4 0.073 MS4 CalTrans 0.0018 0.052 0.162 0.00021 TIWRP = POTW 80.4 183.6 1845 1.056 Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 16 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions (CTR & MGD***) LAs Air deposition 17.9 0.9 108.1 1.5 Bed sediments (18.2) (116) (1731) 6.964 Current Load 119.0 66.7 403.4 0.626 Overall reduction 31% 0% 11% 0% Fish Harbor - TMDL 1.04 1.43 4.59 0.123 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. (POLA) 0.00017 0.54 1.62 0.007 MS4 CalTrans 0.0000005 0.00175 0.0053 0.000021 LAs Air deposition 0.4 0.02 2.4 0.033 Bed sediments 0.636 0.87 0.5 0.084 Current Load 1.43 0.60 4.2 0.003 Overall reduction 27% 0% 0% 0% Cabrillo Marina -TMDL 1.32 1.81 5.8 0.156 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. (POLA) 0.0196 0.289 0.74 0.00016 MS4 CalTrans 0.00019 0.0028 0.007 0.0000016 LAs Air deposition 0.34 0.017 2.05 0.028 Bed sediments 1.0 1.506 3.03 0.1285 Current Load 9.2 2.3 9.14 0.236 Overall reduction 86% 21% 36% 34% San Pedro Bay - TMDL 648 890 2858 76.6 WLAs MS4- LA County et al. 20.3 54.7 213.1 1.76 MS4 City of Long Beach 137.9 372.2 1449.7 12.0 MS4 CalTrans 0.88 2.39 9.29 0.077 MS4 Orange County** 9.8 26.4 102.9 0.85 LAs Air deposition 36 1.8 219 2.9 Bed sediments 442.9 432 865 59.0 Current Load 1251 1737 8167 3.63 Overall reduction 48% 49% 65% 0% LA River Estuary - TMDL 735 1009 3242 86.9 WLAs LAR Estuary dischargers* [Cu SQV] [Pb SQV] [Zn SQV] [PAH SQV] Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 17 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions MS4- LA County et al. 35.3 65.7 242.0 2.31 MS4 City of Long Beach 375.8 698.9 2572.7 24.56 MS4 CalTrans 5.1 9.5 34.8 0.333 LAs Air deposition 6.7 0.046 48.9 0.075 Bed sediments 311.8 235.0 343.0 59.6 Current Load 1612 2641 20096 8.72 Overall reduction 54% 62% 84% 0% Note: Cu and Zn air deposition load allocations are set equal to existing load with no reductions anticipated. Negative (values) for bed sediments indicate that bed sediment loads are expected to be reduced; the amount of reduction may be revised with additional monitoring results. *SQVs are currently set at ERLs **Orange County MS4 Permit is issued by the Santa Ana Regional Board. The allocations included, here, for the Seal Beach nearshore area, are for TMDL calculation purposes only, and an allocation is not assigned. ***For TIWRP, the discharge volume at the time of permit modification or reissuance shall be used to calculate the mass-based effluent limitations consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these WLAs. Studies may be conducted to determine the portion of the discharged pollutants that is deposited on bed sediment. The results of any such Executive Officer approved studies shall be evaluated at the TMDL reconsideration to modify these WLAs as appropriate. Consolidated Slip and Fish Harbor are impaired for mercury in sediments and the average sediment concentration (1.1 mg/kg dry) is significantly higher than the target concentration (0.15 mg/kg dry). Consolidated Slip and Dominguez Channel Estuary are impaired for cadmium in sediments, and Consolidated Slip is also impaired for chromium in sediments. Final Concentration-Based Sediment WLAs for metals in Dominguez Channel Estuary, Consolidated Slip and Fish Harbor Concentration-based Sediment WLAs (mg/kg dry sediment) Cadmium Chromium Mercury 1.2 81 0.15 Mercury applies to both Consolidated Slip and Fish Harbor; Cd applies to Dominguez Channel Estuary and Consolidated Slip, and Cr applies to Consolidated Slip only. Compliance with these sediment TMDLs for Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd, Cr, Hg and total PAHs may be demonstrated via any one of three different means: a. Final sediment allocations, as presented above, are met. b. The qualitative sediment condition of Unimpacted or Likely Unimpacted via the interpretation and integration of multiple lines of evidence as defined in the SQO Part 1, is met, with the exception of Cr, which is not included in the SQO Part 1. c. Sediment numeric targets are met in bed sediments over a three-year averaging period. Compliance with mass-based WLAs shall be measured at designated discharge points. Compliance with concentration-based WLAs for existing sediment shall be determined by pollutant concentrations in ambient sediment in each waterbody. The average ambient bulk sediment level within a waterbody at or below the sediment quality target is considered compliance with these TMDLs. B. Mass-based Allocations for Bioaccumulative Compounds Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 18 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Fish tissue levels of certain bioaccumulative compounds are above desired numeric targets. These TMDLs are designed to reduce contaminated sediment levels, which will result in lower corresponding pollutant levels in fish tissue. These sediment allocations have been derived to support lowering fish tissue levels using biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) or ERLs, whichever is more protective. For chlordane and dieldrin, the ERL values are lower and more protective than BSAF values. The DDT sediment values are comparable (ERL = 1.58, BSAF = 1.9); the more stringent one was used for calculation. The PCBs sediment value associated with fish tissue is more stringent than the ERL sediment value for PCBs. Mass-based WLAs are assigned for TIWRP and other point sources that have sufficient discharge flow data. Municipal stormwater sources, including the Los Angeles, Long Beach, Caltrans and other MS4 co-permittees, are assigned a single, mass-based allocation by permit, depending on the waterbody. Discharges from the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and Port of Long Beach (POLB) are grouped with the MS4 dischargers. Mass-based WLAs are applied as annual limits. Individual mass-based WLAs for an individual MS4 Permittee will be calculated based on its share, on an area basis, of the mass based WLA or other approved approach available at the time final mass-based WLAs are in effect and incorporated into the permit. Mass-based LAs are identified for bed sediments and direct air deposition. Direct air deposition allocations for total DDT are based on estimates of existing loads using atmospheric monitoring results collected close to Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor at SCAQMD Wilmington Station in 2006. Pollutant-specific air deposition values (DDT = 29 ng/m2/day) were multiplied by the surface area of each waterbody to produce direct deposition allocations. Direct deposition allocations for PCBs are not included since air deposition has been measured to be less than water-to-air fluxes. DDT load allocations for bed sediments are negative values, with the exception of those for the Los Angeles River Estuary, indicating that DDT loads must be reduced. (Each negative DDT bed sediment allocation may alternatively be interpreted as zero, or interpreted as minimal bioaccumulation into the food web.) The amount of DDT load reduction may be revised based on future monitoring results. If future air deposition studies show lower existing air deposition DDT loads, or if future DDT sediment characterization studies show lower bed sediment DDT loads, then DDT load allocations may be adjusted. The Greater Harbor Waters (excluding LA River Estuary and Consolidated Slip) bed sediment LA is assigned to the City of Los Angeles (including the Port of Los Angeles), the City of Long Beach (including the Port of Long Beach) and the State Lands Commission. After remediation activities that address existing sediment contamination are complete and when LAs are attained, if bed sediments are recontaminated as a result of continued polluted discharge from the surrounding watersheds, the WLA compliance monitoring data will be used, along with other available information, to assess the relative contribution of watershed dischargers and determine their responsibility and allocations for secondary remediation activities. DDT and PCBs (total) TMDLs apply to all estuarine and marine waters in Greater Harbor area, including Inner Cabrillo Beach, Los Angeles River Estuary and Eastern San Pedro Bay. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 19 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Final mass-based TMDLs and Allocations for total DDT and total PCBs (g/yr) Waterbody/source DDT total PCBs total DomCh Estuary – TMDL 3.90 7.90 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.250 0.207 MS4 City of Long Beach 0.007 0.006 MS4 CalTrans 0.004 0.004 LAs Air deposition 6.01 n/a Bed sediments (2.4) 7.7 Current Load 54.0 57.5 Overall reduction 93% 86% Consolidated Slip - TMDL 0.56 1.14 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.009 0.004 MS4 CalTrans 0.00014 0.00006 LAs Air deposition 1.56 n/a Bed sediments (1.00) 1.13 Current Load 49.0 83.9 Overall reduction 99% 99% Inner Harbor - TMDL 3.56 7.22 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.051 0.059 MS4 City of Long Beach 0.014 0.016 MS4 CalTrans 0.0010 0.0011 LAs Air deposition 129 n/a Bed sediments (125) 7.14 Current Load 21.67 29.51 Overall reduction 84% 76% Outer Harbor - TMDL 3.79 7.68 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.005 0.020 MS4 City of Long Beach 0.004 0.014 MS4 CalTrans 0.000010 0.00004 TIWRP = POTW (CTR & MGD***) 12.7 0.37 Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 20 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions LAs Air deposition 173 n/a Bed sediments (182) 7.28 Current Load 30.8 34.7 Overall reduction 88% 78% Fish Harbor - TMDL 0.048 0.098 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.0003 0.0019 MS4 CalTrans 0.0000010 0.000006 LAs Air deposition 3.9 n/a Bed sediments (3.85) 0.10 Current Load 0.168 0.075 Overall reduction 71% 0% Cabrillo Marina -TMDL 0.061 0.124 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.000028 0.000025 MS4 CalTrans 0.00000028 0.00000024 LAs Air deposition 3.3 n/a Bed sediments (3.22) 0.12 Current Load 1.66 1.06 Overall reduction 96% 88% Inner Cabrillo Beach - TMDL 0.04 0.09 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.0001 0.0003 LAs Air deposition 3.5 n/a Bed sediments (3.5) 0.09 Current Load 0.98 0.31 Overall reduction 96% 72% San Pedro Bay - TMDL 30.1 61.0 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.049 0.44 MS4 City of Long Beach 0.333 3.01 MS4 CalTrans 0.002 0.019 MS4 Orange County** 0.024 0.213 LAs Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 21 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Air deposition 350 n/a Bed sediments (320) 57.3 Current Load 205.2 110.7 Overall reduction 85% 45% LA River Estuary - TMDL 34.1 69.2 WLAs MS4- LA County et al 0.100 0.324 MS4 City of Long Beach 1.067 3.441 MS4 CalTrans 0.014 0.047 LAR Estuary dischargers [DDT SQV] [PCBs SQV] LAs Air deposition 8.9 n/a Bed sediments 24.09 65.3 Current Load 231.6 402.2 Overall reduction 85% 83% Note: DDT air deposition load allocation is set equal to existing load with no reductions anticipated. Negative values for bed sediments indicate that DDT bed sediment loads are expected to be reduced; the amount of reduction may be revised with additional monitoring results. *SQVs are currently set at the more protective of ERLs or fish tissue associated sediment targets. **Orange County MS4 Permit is issued by the Santa Ana Regional Board. The allocations included, here, for the Seal Beach nearshore area, are for TMDL calculation purposes only, and an allocation is not assigned. ***For TIWRP, the discharge volume at the time of permit modification or reissuance shall be used to calculate the mass-based effluent limitations consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these WLAs. Studies may be conducted to determine the portion of the discharged pollutants that is deposited on bed sediment. The results of any such Executive Officer approved studies shall be evaluated at the TMDL reconsideration to modify these WLAs as appropriate. In addition, bed sediment concentration-based allocations are assigned for chlordane in Dominguez Channel Estuary, Consolidated Slip, Fish Harbor, Los Angeles River Estuary and Eastern San Pedro Bay. Bed sediment concentration-based allocations are also assigned for dieldrin in Dominguez Channel Estuary and Consolidated Slip. Bed sediment concentration allocations are also assigned for toxaphene in Consolidated Slip. The TMDLs and allocations are set at target sediment concentrations: chlordane = 0.5, dieldrin = 0.02, toxaphene = 0.10 µg/kg dry sediment. Compliance with these bioaccumulative TMDLs may be demonstrated via any of four different means: a. Fish tissue targets are met in species resident to the TMDL waterbodies3. b. Final sediment allocations, as presented above, are met. c. Sediment numeric targets to protect fish tissue are met in bed sediments over a three- year averaging period. d. Demonstrate that the sediment quality condition protective of fish tissue is achieved per the Statewide Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan, as amended to address contaminants in resident finfish and wildlife. 3 A site-specific study to determine resident species shall be submitted to the Executive Officer for approval. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 22 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions 3. Diazinon Los Angeles County monitoring data in Dominguez Channel freshwaters show diazinon exceedences from 2002-2005, but none from 2006-2010. This timing is concurrent with EPA’s ban on urban use of diazinon, effective Dec. 31, 2005. Based these results, no diazinon TMDLs are developed at this time. Margin of Safety The Dominguez Channel freshwater allocations included an explicit margin of safety (MOS) equal to 10% of the loading capacity or existing load to account for any additional uncertainty in the wet-weather TMDLs. The 10% MOS was subtracted from the loading capacity or existing load, whichever was smaller. Applying an explicit margin of safety is reasonable because a number of uncertain estimates are offset by the explicit margin of safety. While the observed dissolved-to-total metals ratios are not similar to CTR default conversion values, there appears to be very poor correlation between the fraction of particulate metals and TSS. Also, there is added uncertainty regarding stream flow rates during wet weather conditions, when the highest metal loads occur, thus an explicit margin of safety is justified. An implicit margin of safety exists in the final allocations to Dominguez Channel Estuary and Greater Harbor waters. The implicit margin of safety is based on the selection of multiple numeric targets, including targets for water, fish tissue and sediment among other conservative modeling assumptions. An additional explicit margin of safety must be considered and may be applied if any chemical-specific sediment quality target is revised or updated contingent on future sediment quality studies. That is, there may be uncertainty associated with revised sediment quality values, which may warrant including an additional explicit margin of safety. Seasonal Variations and Critical Conditions Wet weather events may produce extensive sediment redistribution and transport sediments to the harbors and the CTR-based water column targets are protective of this condition. This would be considered the critical condition for loading. No correlation with flow or seasonality (wet vs. dry season) was found to exist in sediment or tissue data. Given that allocations for this TMDL are expressed in terms pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, and metals concentrations in sediment, a critical condition is not identified based upon flow or seasonality. Because the adverse effects of pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, and metals are related to sediment accumulation and bioaccumulation in the food chain over long periods of time, short term variations in concentrations are less likely to cause significant impacts upon beneficial uses. Monitoring Plan Monitoring by assigned responsible parties is required in three waterbody areas: 1. Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral, and Dominguez Channel Estuary 2. Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters (including Consolidated Slip) 3. Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River Monitoring shall be conducted under technically appropriate Monitoring and Reporting Plans (MRPs) and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). The MRPs shall include a requirement that the responsible parties report compliance and non-compliance with waste load and load allocations as part of annual reports submitted to the Regional Board. The QAPPs shall include protocols for sample collection, standard analytical procedures, and laboratory certification. All samples shall be collected in accordance with SWAMP protocols. Monitoring Plans shall be submitted twenty (20) months after the effective date of the TMDL for public review and, Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 23 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions subsequently, Executive Officer approval. Monitoring shall begin six months after the monitoring plan is approved by the Executive Officer. Responsible parties assigned both WLAs and LAs may submit one document that addresses the monitoring requirements (as described below) and implementation activities for both WLAs and LAs. Responsible parties shall submit annual monitoring reports. The Regional Board Executive Officer may reduce, increase, or modify monitoring and reporting requirements, as necessary, based on the results of the TMDL monitoring program. Currently, several of the constituents of concern have numeric targets that are lower than the readily available detection limits. As analytical methods and detection limits continue to improve (i.e., development of lower detection limits) and become more environmentally relevant, responsible parties shall incorporate new method detection limits in the MRP and QAPP. 1. Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral, and Dominguez Channel Estuary Compliance Monitoring Program For Dominguez Channel, Dominguez Channel Estuary, and Torrance Lateral, water and total suspended solids samples shall be collected at the outlet of the storm drains discharging to the channel and the estuary. Fish tissue samples shall be collected in receiving waters of the Dominguez Channel Estuary. Sediment samples shall also be collected in the estuary. • Water Column Monitoring Water samples and total suspended solids samples shall be collected during two wet weather events and one dry weather event each year. The first large storm event of the season shall be included as one of the wet weather monitoring events. Water samples and total suspended solid samples shall be analyzed for a suite of compounds including, at a minimum, metals, including lead, zinc, and copper, DDT, PCBs, Benzo[a] anthrancene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Chrysene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene. Sampling shall be designed to collected sufficient volumes of suspended solids to allow for analysis of the pollutants in the bulk sediment. In addition to TMDL constituents, general water chemistry (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and electrical conductivity) and a flow measurement will be required at each sampling event. General chemistry measurements may be taken in the laboratory immediately following sample collection, if auto samplers are used for sample collection or if weather conditions are unsuitable for field measurements. In addition, toxicity shall be tested for in the freshwater portion of Dominguez Channel. • Sediment Monitoring A sediment monitoring program shall be developed consistent with the selected method for compliance and all samples shall be collected in accordance with SWAMP protocols. a) If compliance will be determined based on achieving sediment quality targets, sediment chemistry samples shall be collected every two years for analysis of general sediment quality constituents and the full chemical suite as specified in SQO Part 1. In addition, benthic community effects shall be assessed in the Dominguez Channel Estuary. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 24 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions b) If compliance will be determined based on the SQO compliance method, sediment chemistry samples shall also be collected every five years (in addition to, and in between, the sediment triad sampling events as described below), beginning after the first sediment triad event, to evaluate trends in general sediment quality constituents and listed constituents relative to sediment quality targets. Chemistry data without accompanying sediment triad data shall be used to assess sediment chemistry trends and shall not be used to determine compliance. Sediment quality objective evaluation as detailed in the SQO Part 1 (sediment triad sampling) shall be performed every five years in coordination with the Biological Baseline and Bight regional monitoring programs, if possible. Sampling and analysis for the full chemical suite, two toxicity tests and four benthic indices as specified in SQO Part 1 shall be conducted and evaluated. If moderate toxicity as defined in the SQO Part 1 is observed, results shall be highlighted in annual reports and further analysis and evaluation to determine causes and remedies shall be required in accordance with the EO approved monitoring plan. Locations for sediment triad assessment and the methodology for combining results from sampling locations to determine sediment conditions shall be specified in the MRP to be approved by the Executive Officer. The sampling design shall be in compliance with the SQO Part 1 Sediment Monitoring section (VII.E.). • Fish Tissue Monitoring Fish tissue samples shall be collected every two years from the Dominguez Channel Estuary and analyzed for chlordane, dieldrin, toxaphene, DDT, and PCBs. The target species in the Dominguez Channel Estuary shall be selected based on residency, local abundance and fish size at the time of field collection. Tissues analyzed shall be based on the most common preparation for the selected fish species. The Dominguez Channel responsible parties are each individually responsible for conducting water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring. However, they are encouraged to collaborate or coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication and reduce associated costs. Dischargers interested in coordinated monitoring shall submit a coordinated MRP that identifies monitoring to be implemented by the responsible parties. Under the coordinated monitoring option, the compliance point for the stormwater WLAs shall be storm drain outfalls or a point(s) in the receiving water that suitably represents the combined discharge of cooperating parties. The details of the monitoring program including sampling locations and all methods shall be specified in the MRP to be approved by the Executive Officer. 2. Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Compliance Monitoring Program At a minimum, compliance monitoring shall be conducted at the locations and for the constituents listed in the table below for water column, total suspended solids, and sediment. The exact locations of monitoring sites shall be specified in the MRP to be approved by the Executive Officer. During aspects of the remedial action(s) for the Montrose Superfund Site that may mobilize sediments and associated pollutants from the on- or near-property soils or “Neighborhood Areas”, it is recommended that US EPA, as the regulatory oversight agency, require that Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) implement monitoring to evaluate pollutant loads and concentrations leaving the site and surrounding area, as well as pollutant Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 25 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions concentrations in the bed sediments of Dominguez Channel Estuary and Consolidated Slip and coordinate such monitoring with other TMDL compliance monitoring. • Water Column Monitoring Water samples and total suspended solids samples shall be collected during two wet weather events and one dry weather event each year. TSS shall be collected at several depths during wet weather events. The first large storm event of the season shall be included as one of the wet weather monitoring events. General water chemistry (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity) and a flow measurement shall be required at each sampling event. • Sediment Monitoring Sediment chemistry samples shall be collected every five years (in addition to, and in between, the sediment triad sampling events as described below), beginning after the first sediment triad event, to evaluate trends in general sediment quality constituents and listed constituents relative to sediment quality targets. Chemistry data without accompanying sediment triad data shall be used to assess sediment chemistry trends and shall not be used to determine compliance. Sediment chemistry monitoring requirements Sample Media Water Body Name Station Id Station Location WATER/TSS SEDIMENT Consolidated Slip 01 Center of Consolidated Slip Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Chlordane, DDT PCBs, PAHs Los Angeles Inner Harbor 02 East Turning Basin Metals, PCBs, DDT 03 Center of the POLA West Basin Metals, PCBs, DDT 04 Main Turning Basin north of Vincent Thomas Bridge Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect 05 Between Pier 300 and Pier 400 Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect 06 Main Channel south of Port O’Call Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect Fish Harbor 07 Center of inner portion of Fish Harbor Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, PCBs, DDT, Chlordane, PAHs Los Angeles Outer Harbor 08 Los Angeles Outer Harbor between Pier 400 and middle breakwater Metals, PCBs, DDT Toxicity 09 Los Angeles Outer Harbor between the southern end of the reservation point and the San Pedro breakwater Metals, PCBs, DDT Toxicity Cabrillo Marina 10 Center of west Channel Metals, PCBs, DDT Inner Cabrillo 11 Center of Inner Metals, PCBs, Metals Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 26 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions Beach Cabrillo Beach DDT Long Beach Inner Harbor 12 Cerritos Channel between the Heim Bridge and the Turning Basin Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect 13 Back Channel between Turning Basin and West Basin Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect 14 Center of West Basin Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect 15 Center of Southeast Basin Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Toxicity, Benthic Community Effect Long Beach Outer Harbor 16 Center of Long Beach Outer Harbor Metals, PCBs, DDT Toxicity 17 Between the southern end of Pier J and the Queens Gate Metals, PCBs, DDT Toxicity San Pedro Bay 18 Northwest of San Pedro Bay near Los Angeles River Estuary Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Chlordane, PAHs, Toxicity 19 East of San Pedro Bay Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Chlordane, PAHs, Toxicity 20 South of San Pedro Bay inside breakwater Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Chlordane, PAHs, Toxicity Los Angeles River Estuary 21 Los Angeles River Estuary Queensway Bay Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Chlordane, DDT, PCBs 22 Los Angeles River Estuary Metals, PCBs, DDT Metals, Chlordane, DDT, PCBs Sediment quality objective evaluation as detailed in the SQO Part 1 (sediment triad sampling) shall be performed every five years in coordination with the Biological Baseline and Bight regional monitoring programs, if possible. Sampling and analysis for the full chemical suite, two toxicity tests and four benthic indices as specified in SQO Part 1 shall be conducted and evaluated. If moderate toxicity as defined in the SQO Part 1 is observed, results shall be highlighted in annual reports and further analysis and evaluation to determine causes and remedies shall be required in accordance with the EO approved monitoring plan. Locations for sediment triad assessment and the methodology for combining results from sampling locations to determine sediment conditions shall be specified in the MRP to be approved by the Executive Officer. The sampling design shall be in compliance with the SQO Part 1 Sediment Monitoring section (VII.E.). • Fish Tissue Monitoring Fish tissue samples shall be collected every two years in San Pedro Bay, Los Angeles Harbor, and Long Beach Harbor, and analyzed for chlordane, dieldrin, toxaphene, DDT, and PCBs. At a minimum, three species shall be collected, including white croaker, a sport Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 27 - May 5, 2011 TMDL Element Regulatory Provisions fish, and a prey fish. The Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors3 responsible parties are each individually responsible for conducting water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring. However, they are encouraged to collaborate or coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication and reduce associated costs. Dischargers interested in coordinated compliance monitoring shall submit a coordinated MRP that identifies monitoring to be conducted by the responsible parties. Under the coordinated compliance monitoring option, the compliance point for the stormwater WLAs shall be storm drain outfalls or a point(s) in the receiving water that suitably represents the combined discharge of cooperating parties. The Consolidated Slip sub-group responsible parties are responsible for conducting water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring in Consolidated Slip. The details of the monitoring program including sampling locations and all methods shall be specified in the MRP to be approved by the Executive Officer. 3. Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River Compliance Monitoring Program Los Angeles River Watershed and San Gabriel River Watershed responsible parties identified in effective metals TMDLs for Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River are responsible for conducting water and sediment monitoring above the Los Angeles River Estuary and at the mouth of the San Gabriel River, respectively, to determine the Rivers’ contribution to the impairments in the Greater Harbor waters. • Water Column Monitoring Water samples and total suspended solids samples shall be collected at, at least one site during two wet weather events and one dry weather event each year. The first large storm event of the season shall be included as one of the wet weather monitoring events. Water samples and total suspended solid samples shall be analyzed for metals, DDT, PCBs, and PAHs. Sampling shall be designed to collect sufficient volumes of suspended solids to allow for analysis of the listed pollutants in the bulk sediment. General water chemistry (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and electrical conductivity) and a flow measurement shall be required at each sampling event. General chemistry measurements may be taken in the laboratory immediately following sample collection if auto samplers are used for sample collection or if weather conditions are unsuitable for field measurements. • Sediment Monitoring For sediment chemistry, sediment samples shall be collected at, at least one site every two years for analysis of general sediment quality constituents and the full chemical suite as specified in SQO Part 1. All samples shall be collected in accordance with SWAMP protocols. The details of the monitoring program including sampling locations and all methods shall be specified in the MRP to be approved by the Executive Officer. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 28 - May 5, 2011 Implementation Plan The regulatory mechanisms to implement the TMDL include, but are not limited to, general NPDES permits, individual NPDES permits, MS4 Permits covering jurisdictions and flood control districts within these waters, the Statewide Industrial Storm Water General Permit, the Statewide Construction Activity Storm Water General Permit, the Statewide Stormwater Permit for Caltrans Activities, and the authority contained in Sections 13263, 13267 and 13383 of the Cal. Water Code. For each discharger assigned a WLA, the appropriate Regional Board Order shall be reopened or amended when the order is reissued, in accordance with applicable laws, to incorporate the applicable WLA(s) as a permit requirement consistent with federal regulation and related guidance (40 CFR 144.22(d)(1)(vii)(B); US EPA Memorandum “Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum ‘Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs’” (November 12, 2010)). LAs will be implemented in a manner consistent with federal and state laws, regulations and policies, including the Nonpoint Source Implementation and Enforcement Policy. Implementation by assigned responsible parties is required in three waterbody areas: 1. Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral, and Dominguez Channel Estuary 2. Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters (including Consolidated Slip) 3. Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River Actions to achieve WLA and LA may be implemented in phases with information from each phase being used to inform the implementation of the next phase. These sediment targets are not intended to be used as ‘clean-up standards’ for navigational, capital or maintenance dredging or capping activities; rather they are long-term sediment concentrations that should be attained after reduction of external loads, targeted actions addressing internal reservoirs of contaminants, and environmental decay of contaminants in sediment. The implementation may be adjusted, as necessary, based on information gained during each phase. Table 7-40.2 contains the schedule for responsible parties to develop and implement TMDL implementation plans and sediment management plans to comply with the TMDL. 1. Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral, and Dominguez Channel Estuary Responsible parties can implement a variety of implementation strategies to meet the required WLAs and LAs, such as non-structural and structural BMPs, diversion and treatment to reduce sediment transport from the watershed to Dominguez Channel and Greater Harbor waters, and sediment removal activities. Nonpoint source elements include legacy sediments and air deposition across Dominguez Channel and Harbor waters. The responsible parties identified in the Allocation section and in part 6. Application of Allocations to Responsible Parties of this section are assigned sediment load allocations and responsibility for remediation of the contaminated sediments to attain the load allocations. Phase I The purpose of the Phase I implementation is to reduce the amount of sediment transport from point sources that directly or indirectly discharge to Dominguez Channel and the Harbor waters. Phase I should include watershed-wide implementation actions. Important components of Phase I should be to secure the relationships and agreements between cooperating parties and to develop a detailed scope of work with priorities. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 29 - May 5, 2011 Potential watershed-wide non-structural BMPs include more frequent and appropriately timed storm drain catch basin cleaning, improved street cleaning by upgrading to vacuum type sweepers, and educating residents and industries about good housekeeping practices. Structural BMPs may include the placement of stormwater treatment devices designed to reduce sediment loading, such as infiltration trenches, vegetated swales, and/or filter strips at critical points in the watershed. Structural BMPs may also include diversion and treatment facilities to divert runoff directly, or provide capture and storage of runoff and then diversion to a location for treatment. Treatment options to reduce sediment could include sand or media filters. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) owns and operates Dominguez Channel; therefore, the District and the cities that discharge to Dominguez Channel shall each be responsible for conducting implementation actions to address contaminated sediments in Dominguez Channel. Responsible parties in Dominguez Channel shall develop a Sediment Management Plan to address contaminated sediment in Dominguez Channel and Dominguez Channel Estuary. Sediment conditions shall be evaluated through the Sediment Quality Objective (SQO) process detailed in the SQO Part 1. If chemicals within sediments are contributing to an impaired benthic community or toxicity, then causative agent(s) shall be determined using SQO recommended procedures, SQO Part 1 (VII.F.). Impacted sediments shall be included in the list of sites to be managed. Phase II Phase II should include the implementation of additional BMPs and site remedial actions, as determined to be effective based on the success of upstream source control, evaluation of TMDL monitoring data collected during Phase I, and targeted source reduction activities as identified in Phase I. Regional responsible parties should develop, prioritize, and implement Phase II elements based on data from the TMDL monitoring program and other available information from special studies. Possible actions include implementation of additional structural and non-structural BMPs throughout the watershed by municipalities, LA County, Caltrans, and others. Phase II should include the implementation of site- specific cleanup actions for areas identified as high priority in the Dominguez Channel Estuary and in accordance with the Sediment Management Plan. - As management actions are planned for a contaminated site, site-specific cleanup criteria should be determined following protocols that are consistent with state and national guidance. The site improvements should be confirmed through a sediment monitoring program. - There are two Superfund sites located within Dominguez Channel Watershed: the Montrose Superfund Site and the Del Amo Superfund Site. The US EPA has not yet reached a final remedial decision with respect to certain of the Montrose Superfund Site Operable Units (OUs) that remain contaminated with DDT, including the on- and near-property soils (OU1), the current storm water pathway (OU2), and the “Neighborhood Areas” (OU4 and OU6). The TMDL, its waste load and load allocations, and other regulatory provisions of this TMDL may be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) as set forth in Section 121(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 9621(d)) for those OUs. Whether provisions within the TMDL are ARARs will be determined in accordance with CERCLA Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 30 - May 5, 2011 when US EPA develops Records of Decision for the Superfund sites. The TMDL for DDT should be taken into account in the course of the remedial decision- making process. The City of Los Angeles and/or Los Angeles County, should they decide to take action that impacts one of the OUs, shall consult with US EPA’s Superfund Division in advance of such action. Detection of DDT compounds in water or sediment samples collected within Torrance Lateral shall trigger additional monitoring, by parties to be determined by the Executive Officer, in coordination with EPA, to evaluate potential contribution from contaminated soils related to upstream Montrose operable units discharging via the Kenwood storm drain. Upon reconsideration of the TMDL, all monitoring results for DDT compounds collected by responsible parties or other entities shall be considered as part of source analysis and to determine potential future allocation(s) that may be necessary to minimize impacts to downstream waters and restore beneficial uses in TMDL waterbodies. Phase III Phase III should include implementation of secondary and additional remediation actions as necessary to be in compliance with final allocations by the end of the implementation period. TMDLs to allocate additional contaminant loads between dischargers in the Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel Estuary subwatersheds may also be developed, if necessary. 2. Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters (including Consolidated Slip) Responsible parties can implement a variety of implementation strategies to meet the required WLAs, such as non-structural and structural BMPs, and/or diversion and treatment to reduce sediment transport from the nearshore watershed to the Greater Harbor waters. Phase I The purpose of Phase I implementation is to reduce the amount of sediment transport from point sources that directly or indirectly discharge to the Harbor waters. Phase I should include actions to be implemented throughout the nearshore watershed and specific implementation actions at the Ports. Important components of Phase I should be to secure the relationships and agreements between cooperating parties and to develop a detailed scope of work with priorities. Potential watershed-wide non-structural BMPs include more frequent and appropriately timed storm drain catch basin cleaning, improved street cleaning by upgrading to vacuum type sweepers, and educating residents and industries about good housekeeping practices. Structural BMPs may include the placement of stormwater treatment devices designed to reduce sediment loading, such as infiltration trenches, vegetated swales, and/or filter strips at critical points in the watershed. Structural BMPs may also include diversion and treatment facilities to divert runoff directly, or provide capture and storage of runoff and then diversion to a location for treatment. Treatment options to reduce sediment could include sand or media filters. Implementation actions at the Ports should be developed to address different sources that contribute loading to the Harbors such as Port-wide activities and associated control measures for water and sediment, control measures to reduce the discharges from various Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 31 - May 5, 2011 land uses in the Harbors, nearshore discharges, and on-water discharges. The implementation actions described in the Water Resources Action Plan (WRAP) adopted by the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach represent a range of activities that could be conducted to control discharges of polluted stormwater and contaminated sediments to the Harbors. To meet necessary reductions in sediment bed loads, a Sediment Management Plan shall be developed by the dischargers assigned a sediment bed load LA, the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the State Lands Commission. Phase I implementation elements for the improvement of the Harbors’ sediment quality should be conducted through the continuation of source reduction, source control, and sediment management. Below are proposed implementations actions that may be implemented in Phase I to improve sediment quality at the ports: - Removal of Contaminated Sediment within Areas of Known Concern. Planned removal programs are in place for IR Site 7 (former Navy facility in the Port of Long Beach) and Berth 240 (former Southwest Marine facility in the Port of Los Angeles). Contaminated sediment will be removed by Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles. - Sediment Management Plan, Prioritization Assessment for Contaminated Sediment Management. Sediment will be evaluated through the Sediment Quality Objective (SQO) process detailed in the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan (i.e., SQO Part 1 as amended). If chemicals within sediments are contributing to an impaired benthic community or toxicity, or fish tissue, then causative agent(s) will be determined using SQO recommended procedures, including SQO Part I (VII. F.). Impacted sediments will be included in the list of sites to be managed. The sites to be managed by the responsible parties will be prioritized for management and coupled with other planned projects when feasible. Prioritized sites shall include known hot spots, including but not limited to Consolidated Slip and Fish Harbor. For these prioritized sites, the sediment management plan shall include concrete actions and milestones, including numeric estimates of load reductions or removal, to remediate these priority areas and shall demonstrate that actions to address prioritized hot spots will be initiated and completed as early as possible during the 20-year TMDL implementation period. This process will prioritize management efforts on sites that have the greatest impact to the overall health of the benthic community and fish tissue, and allow sites with lower risks to be addressed in later phases when opportunities can be coupled to capital projects. As management actions are planned for a contaminated site, site-specific cleanup criteria will be determined following established protocols that are consistent with state and national policy and guidance. The site will then be managed and the improvements confirmed through a sediment monitoring program. - Superfund Sites. Two Superfund sites are located in Dominguez Channel Watershed: the Montrose Superfund Site (DDT) and the Del Amo Superfund Site (benzene). Montrose Superfund Site includes multiple operable units (OUs), which are identified as investigation areas potentially containing site-related contamination. These Superfund Sites are located in a community known as Harbor Gateway, which is situated mostly in the City of Los Angeles and partially in unincorporated land in Los Angeles County. Harbor Gateway lies within the Kenwood Drain subwatershed, which discharges stormwater into Torrance Lateral which flows downstream into saline waters of Dominguez Channel Estuary and Consolidated Slip. The Torrance Lateral, Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 32 - May 5, 2011 Dominguez Channel Estuary and Consolidated Slip (OU2) contain sediments contaminated with multiple pollutants including DDT (potentially from various sources). The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has been working with other government agencies and local agencies including the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County to ensure the protection of both the environment and public health in the areas surrounding these Superfund sites. In August 1999, USEPA and the State of California, which includes the Regional Board, entered into a consent decree concerning the Montrose Superfund site in a case entitled United States of America and State of California versus Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al., United States District Court Central District of California, Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH (JRx). The US EPA has not yet reached a final remedial decision with respect to certain of the Montrose Superfund Site Operable Units (OUs) that remain contaminated with DDT, including the on- and near-property soils (OU1), the current storm water pathway (OU2), and the “Neighborhood Areas” (OU4 and OU6). The TMDL, its waste load and load allocations, and other regulatory provisions of this TMDL may be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) as set forth in Section 121(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 9621(d)) for those OUs. Whether provisions within the TMDL are ARARs will be determined in accordance with CERCLA when USEPA develops Records of Decision for the Superfund sites. The TMDL for DDT should be taken into account in the course of the remedial decision-making process. US EPA Superfund does not need to make a remedial decision prior to individual or collective action (by City of LA and/or County of LA) to clean up sediments within the OU2 pathway. The City of Los Angeles and/or Los Angeles County, should they decide to take action that impacts one of the OUs, shall consult with US EPA’s Superfund Division in advance of such action. The goal of consultation is to ensure the proposed sediment cleanup will not aggravate the situation or further interfere with the OU2 site. Detection of DDT compounds in water or sediment samples collected within Torrance Lateral shall trigger additional monitoring, by parties to be determined by the Executive Officer, in coordination with EPA, to evaluate potential contribution from contaminated soils related to upstream Montrose operable units discharging via the Kenwood storm drain. Upon reconsideration of the TMDL, all monitoring results for DDT compounds collected by responsible parties or other entities shall be considered as part of source analysis and to determine potential future allocation(s) that may be necessary to minimize impacts to downstream waters and restore beneficial uses in TMDL waterbodies. Phase II Phase II should include the implementation of additional BMPs and site remedial actions in the nearshore watershed and in the Harbors, as determined to be effective based on the success of upstream source control, TMDL monitoring data evaluations, WRAP activities implemented during Phase I, and targeted source reduction activities as identified in Phase I. Responsible parties should develop, prioritize, and implement Phase II elements based on data from the TMDL monitoring program and other available information from special studies. Possible actions include additional structural and non-structural BMPs throughout the watershed. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 33 - May 5, 2011 Phase II should include the implementation of site-specific cleanup actions for areas identified as high priority in the Harbor waters and per the Sediment Management Plan. Phase III The purpose of Phase III is to implement secondary and additional remediation actions as necessary to be in compliance with final waste load and load allocations by the end of the TMDL implementation period. 3. Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River Responsible parties in these watersheds are implementing other TMDLs, which will directly or indirectly support the goals of this TMDL. Phase I Responsible parties for each watershed shall submit a Report of Implementation to describe how current activities support the downstream TMDL. Phases II and III Implementation actions may be developed and required in Phases II and III as necessary to meet the targets in the Greater Harbor waters. TMDLs to allocate contaminant loads between dischargers in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers watersheds may also be developed, if necessary. 4. Special Studies and Reconsideration of TMDL Targets, Allocations, and Schedule This TMDL recognizes that as work to understand these waters and the chemical, physical and biological processes, continues, the targets, allocations, and the flow threshold for wet-weather conditions and the implementation actions to reach those targets and allocations may need to be adjusted. Furthermore, if impairments are identified during flow conditions less than the 90th percentile flow in Dominguez Channel and/or Torrance Lateral, additional allocations for those flow conditions will be developed and applied at the TMDL reconsideration. In addition, it may be necessary to make adjustments to the TMDL to be responsive to new State policies including, but not limited to, SQO Part II; toxicity policy; possible changes to air quality criteria and other regulations affecting air quality. Optional special studies, which could result in changes to these TMDLs, include but are not limited to: studies to further refine the site specific link between sediment pollutant concentrations, depth of bed sediment contamination and fish tissue concentrations; foraging ranges of targeted fish; additional data to refine watershed and hydrodynamic models, including that collected pursuant to this TMDL; additional data on contaminant contributions of the Los Angeles River or San Gabriel River to Greater Harbor waters; stressor identifications; and additional diazinon data. Completion of studies to further refine the site specific link between sediment pollutant concentrations and fish tissue pollutant concentrations and evaluate the range and habitat of specific fish populations will be used to evaluate changes in TMDL targets, WLAs and LAs, and to guide future implementation actions. In addition, further characterization of direct air deposition loadings for heavy metals and legacy pesticides is an optional special study. Allocations of certain pollutants in certain Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 34 - May 5, 2011 waterbodies are confounded by the existing estimates of pollutant loading via direct air deposition onto the waterbodies. Additional monitoring of these pollutants at air sampling sites more closely resembling the respective waterbodies will help characterize these loadings. Limited data exist for dry deposition so this study could be extended over longer timeframes. Measurements of wet deposition for each pollutant may also be appropriate to estimate air deposition more completely. Study results could provide data to reconsider pollutant-specific allocations in this TMDL. Detection of DDT compounds in water or sediment samples collected within Torrance Lateral shall trigger additional monitoring, by parties to be determined by the Executive Officer, in coordination with EPA, to evaluate potential contribution from contaminated soils related to upstream Montrose operable units discharging via the Kenwood storm drain. Upon reconsideration of the TMDL, all monitoring results for DDT compounds collected by responsible parties or other entities shall be considered as part of source analysis and to determine potential future allocation(s) that may be necessary to minimize impacts to downstream waters and restore beneficial uses in TMDL waterbodies. As allocation-specific data are collected, interim targets for the end of Phase II may be identified. The TMDL will be reconsidered by the Regional Board at the end of Phase I to consider completed special studies or policy changes. 5. Compliance with Allocations and Attainment of Numeric Targets Compliance with the TMDL shall be determined through water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring and comparison with the TMDL waste load and load allocations and numeric targets. Compliance with the sediment TMDL for metals and PAH compounds shall be based on achieving the loads and waste load allocations or, alternatively, demonstrating attainment of the SQO Part 1 through the sediment triad/multiple lines of evidence approach outlined therein. Compliance with the TMDLs for bioaccumulative compounds shall be based on achieving the assigned loads and waste load allocations or, alternatively, by meeting fish tissue targets. If at any point during the implementation plan, monitoring data or special studies indicate that load and waste load allocations will be attained, but fish tissue targets may not be achieved, the Regional Board shall reconsider the TMDL to modify the waste load and load allocations to ensure that the fish tissue targets are attained. The compliance point for the stormwater WLAs shall be at the storm drain outfall of the permittee’s drainage area. Alternatively, if stormwater dischargers select a coordinated compliance monitoring option, the compliance point for the stormwater WLA may be at storm drain outfalls or at a point in the receiving water, which suitably represents the combined discharge of cooperating parties discharging to Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters. Depending on potential BMPs implemented, alternative stormwater compliance points may be proposed by responsible parties subject to approval by the Regional Board Executive Officer. The compliance point(s) for responsible parties receiving load allocations shall be in the receiving waters or the bed sediments of the Dominguez Channel and the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach waters. 6. Application of Allocations to Responsible Parties Responsible parties for monitoring and to attain LAs and WLAs for this TMDL include but are Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 35 - May 5, 2011 not limited to: 1. Dominguez Channel Responsible Parties • Dominguez Channel, Torrance Lateral, and Dominguez Channel Estuary MS4 Permittees Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Flood Control District Caltrans City of Carson City of Compton City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Hawthorne City of Inglewood City of Lawndale City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Torrance • Individual and General Stormwater Permit Enrollees • Other Non-stormwater Permittees • Dominguez Channel Estuary Subgroup for bed sediment and fish: Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Flood Control District Caltrans City of Carson City of Compton City of Gardena City of Los Angeles City of Long Beach City of Torrance 2. Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Responsible Parties • Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters MS4 Permittees Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Flood Control District Caltrans Bellflower City of Lakewood City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Paramount City of Signal Hill City of Rolling Hills City of Rolling Hills Estates Rancho Palos Verdes • City of Los Angeles (including the Port of Los Angeles) • City of Long Beach (including the Port of Long Beach) • State Lands Commission Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 36 - May 5, 2011 • Individual and General Stormwater Permit Enrollees • Other Non-stormwater Permittees, including City of Los Angeles (TIWRP) • Los Angeles River Estuary Subgroup for bed sediment and fish: Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Flood Control District City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Signal Hill Caltrans • Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup4 Consolidated Slip MS4 Permittees Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Flood Control District City of Los Angeles 3. Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River Watershed TMDLs Responsible Parties Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River metals TMDLs responsible parties (For list of responsible parties, see Chapter 7-13 herein and US EPA, “Total Maximum Daily Loads for Metals and Selenium: San Gabriel River and Impaired Tributaries”, March 26, 2007.) 4 US EPA is the regulatory oversight agency pursuant to CERCLA with respect to the two Superfund sites within the Consolidated Slip subarea, but is not identified as a Responsible Party under the TMDL. As the regulatory oversight agency, US EPA is responsible for choosing an appropriate remedy for these sites. Furthermore, under CERCLA, US EPA is responsible for assuring that the CERCLA PRPs clean up the site in compliance with CERCLA and applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) (CERCLA section 121(d)). Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 37 - May 5, 2011 Table 7-40.2 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL: Implementation Schedule Task Number Task Responsible Party Deadline 1 Interim allocations are achieved. All Responsible Parties Effective date of the TMDL 2 Submit a Monitoring Plan to the Los Angeles Regional Board for Executive Officer approval. Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup; Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Responsible Parties 20 months after effective date of the TMDL 3 Implement Monitoring Plan Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup; Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Responsible Parties 6 months after monitoring plan approved by Executive Officer. 4 Submit annual monitoring reports to the Los Angeles Regional Board. All Responsible parties 15 months after monitoring starts and annually thereafter 5 Submit an Implementation Plan and Contaminated Sediment Management Plan (CSMP). The Implementation Plan and CSMP shall be circulated for public review for 30 days. The CSMP shall include concrete milestones with numeric estimates of load reductions or removal, including milestones for remediating hot spots, including but not limited to Dominguez Channel Estuary, Consolidated Slip and Fish Harbor, for Executive Officer approval. The Executive Officer shall consider the Consent Decree for the Montrose Superfund site in determining whether to approve the CSMPs. Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup 2 years after effective date of the TMDL 6 Submit Report of Implementation to the Los Angeles Regional Board. Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Responsible Parties 2 years after effective date of the TMDL 7 Submit annual implementation reports to the Los Angeles Regional Board. Report on implementation progress and demonstrate progress toward meeting the assigned LAs and WLAs. All Responsible parties 3 years after effective date of the TMDL and annually thereafter 8 Complete Phase I of TMDL Implementation Plan and Sediment Management Plan. Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; 5 years after effective date of the TMDL Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008 - 38 - May 5, 2011 Task Number Task Responsible Party Deadline Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup 9 Submit updated Implementation Plan and Contaminated Sediment Management Plan. Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup 5 years after effective date of the TMDL 10 Regional Board will reconsider targets, WLAs, and LAs based on new policies, data or special studies. Regional Board will consider requirements for additional implementation or TMDLs for Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and interim targets and allocations for the end of Phase II. Regional Board 6 years after the effective date of the TMDL 11 Report on status of implementation and scope and schedule of remaining Phase II implementation actions to Regional Board. All Responsible parties 10 years after the effective date of the TMDL 12 Complete Phase II of TMDL Implementation Plan and Sediment Management Plan. Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup 15 years after effective date of the TMDL 13 Complete Phase III of TMDL Implementation Plan and Sediment Management Plan. Dominguez Channel Responsible parties; Greater Harbors Responsible Parties; Consolidated Slip Responsible Parties subgroup 20 years after effective date of the TMDL 14 Demonstrate attainment of LAs and WLAs using the means identified under Waste Load and Load Allocations in Table 7-40.1 All Responsible parties 20 years after effective date of the TMDL STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION ORDER NO. 01-182 NPDES PERMIT NO. CAS004001 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF DISCHARGES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES THEREIN, EXCEPT THE CITY OF LONG BEACH December 13, 2001 (Amended on September 14, 2006 by Order R4-2006-0074; August 9, 2007 by Order R4- 2007-0042; December 10, 2009 by Order R4-2009-0130; and October 19, 2010 and April 14, 2011 pursuant to the peremptory writ of mandate in L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724) - i - Table of Contents A. Existing Permit ................................................................................................................. 1 B. Nature of Discharges and Sources of Pollutant................................................................ 1 C. Permit Background........................................................................................................... 5 D. Permit Coverage .............................................................................................................. 6 E. Federal, State, and Regional Regulations........................................................................ 7 F. Implementation................................................................................................................20 G. Public Process ................................................................................................................22 Part 1. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS..................................................................................23 Part 2. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS.........................................................................24 Part 3. STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SQMP) IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................26 A. General Requirements....................................................................................................26 B. Best Management Practice Implementation....................................................................26 C. Revision of the Storm Water Quality Management Program...........................................26 D. Designation and Responsibilities of the Principal Permittee ............................................26 E. Responsibilities of the Permittees....................................................................................27 F. Watershed Management Committees (WMCs)...............................................................28 G. Legal Authority................................................................................................................29 Part 4. SPECIAL PROVISIONS............................................................................................30 A. General Requirements....................................................................................................31 B. Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP)......................................................31 C. Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program............................................................35 D. Development Planning Program......................................................................................42 E. Development Construction Program................................................................................50 F. Public Agency Activities Program....................................................................................53 G. Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program..........................................59 Part 5. DEFINITIONS...........................................................................................................61 Part 6. STANDARD PROVISIONS.......................................................................................72 A. Standard Requirements ..................................................................................................72 B. Regional Board Review...................................................................................................72 C. Public Review..................................................................................................................73 D. Duty to Comply................................................................................................................73 E. Duty to Mitigate [40 CFR 122.41 (d)]...............................................................................73 F. Inspection and Entry [40 CFR 122.41(i), CWC § 13267].................................................73 G. Proper Operation and Maintenance [40 CFR 122.41 (e), CWC § 13263(f)].....................74 H. Signatory Requirements [40 CFR 122.41(k) & 122.22]....................................................74 I. Reopener and Modification [40 CFR 122.41(f) & 122.62]................................................74 J. Severability......................................................................................................................75 K. Duty to Provide Information [40 CFR 122.41(h)]..............................................................75 L. Twenty-four Hour Reporting [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]..........................................................75 M. Bypass [40 CFR 122.41(m)]............................................................................................75 N. Upset [40 CFR 122.41(n)] ...............................................................................................76 O. Property Rights [40 CFR 122.41(g)]................................................................................77 P. Enforcement....................................................................................................................77 Q. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense [40 CFR 122.41(c)].................................78 R. Rescission.......................................................................................................................78 S. Expiration........................................................................................................................78 Part 7. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROVISIONS.......................................................79 - 1 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION ORDER NO. 01-182 NPDES PERMIT NO. CAS004001 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF DISCHARGES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES THEREIN, EXCEPT THE CITY OF LONG BEACH The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (hereinafter referred to as the Regional Board) finds: A. Existing Permit The Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the County of Los Angeles, and 84 incorporated cities within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (see Attachment A, List of Permittees), hereinafter referred to separately as Permittees and jointly as the Discharger, discharge or contribute to discharges of storm water and urban runoff from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), also called storm drain systems. The discharges flow to water courses within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and into receiving waters of the Los Angeles Region. These discharges are covered under countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. 96-054 adopted by this Regional Board on July 15, 1996, which replaced Order No. 90-079 adopted by this Regional Board on June 18, 1990. Order No. 96-054 also serves as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of municipal storm water. B. Nature of Discharges and Sources of Pollutant 1. Storm water discharges consist of surface runoff generated from various land uses in all the hydrologic drainage basins that discharge into water bodies of the State. The quality of these discharges varies considerably and is affected by the hydrology, geology, land use, season, and sequence and duration of hydrologic events. The primary constituents of concern currently identified by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report (1994-2000) are cyanide, indicator bacteria, total dissolved solids, turbidity, total suspended solids, nutrients, total aluminum, dissolved cadmium, copper, lead, total mercury, nickel, zinc, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. 2. Certain pollutants present in storm water and/or urban runoff may be derived from extraneous sources that Permittees have no or limited NPDES CAS004001 - 2 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 jurisdiction over. Examples of such pollutants and their respective sources are: PAHs which are products of internal combustion engine operation, nitrates, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and mercury from atmospheric deposition, lead from fuels, copper from brake pad wear, zinc from tire wear, dioxins as products of combustion, and natural- occurring minerals from local geology. However, the implementation of the measures set forth in this Order is intended to reduce the entry of these pollutants into storm water and their discharge to receiving waters. 3. Water quality assessments conducted by the Regional Board identified impairment, or threatened impairment, of beneficial uses of water bodies in the Los Angeles Region. The causes of impairments include pollutants of concern identified in municipal storm water discharges by the County of Los Angeles in the Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report (1994- 2000). Pollutants in storm water can have damaging effects on both human health and aquatic ecosystems. 4. The Los Angeles County Grand Jury, September 2000, completed an investigation into the health risks of swimming near beaches in Los Angeles County and made several recommendations to reduce public health risks (Final Report, Grand Jury, Los Angeles County, 1999-2000). The Grand Jury recommended that the Regional Board consider among other actions, (i) a focus on setting contaminant limits rather than programmatic evaluations, (ii) audit of MS4 Permittee programs; and (iii) clarifying enforcement responsibilities between the State and local governments. 5. Studies and research conducted by other Regional agencies, academic institutions, and universities have also identified storm water and urban runoff as significant sources of pollutants to surface waters in Southern California. See, e.g., [Surface Runoff to the Southern California Bight, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, (1992); Impacts of Urban Runoff on Santa Monica Bay and Surrounding Ocean Waters (Gersberg, R.M., 1995); State of the Bay 1998, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project; Storm Water Impact, In, Southern California Environmental Report Card 1999, Institute of the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles (Stenstrom, M.S., 1999); Distribution of Anthropogenic and Natural Debris on the Mainland Shelf of Southern California Bight, Shelly L. Moore and M. James Allen (1999); The Health Effects of Swimming in Ocean Water Contaminated by Storm Drain Runoff, Haile, R.W. et al. (1999); Huntington Beach Closure Investigation: Technical Review (University of Southern California, 2000); A Regional Survey of the Microbiological Water Quality Along the Shoreline of the Southern California Bight, Rachel T. Noble et al. (2001); Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report (1994-2000), County of Los Angeles (2001)]. 6. Development and urbanization increase pollutant load, volume, and discharge velocity. First, natural vegetated pervious ground cover is converted to impervious surfaces such as paved highways, streets, rooftops and parking lots. Natural vegetated soil can both absorb rainwater and remove pollutants providing an effective natural purification NPDES CAS004001 - 3 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 process. In contrast, pavement and concrete can neither absorb water nor remove pollutants, and thus the natural purification characteristics are lost. Second, urban development creates new pollution sources as the increased density of human population brings proportionately higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage waste, pesticides, household hazardous wastes, pet wastes, trash, and other anthropogenic pollutants. Development and urbanization especially threaten environmentally sensitive areas. Such areas have a much lower capacity to withstand pollutant shocks than might be acceptable in the general circumstance. In essence, development that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particular sensitive environment become significant. These environmentally sensitive areas designated by the State and/or the County of Los Angeles include Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), water bodies designated as supporting a RARE beneficial use, Significant Natural Areas (SNAs), and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs). 7. The increased volume, increased velocity, and discharge duration of storm water runoff from developed areas has the potential to greatly accelerate downstream erosion and impair stream habitat in natural drainages. Studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between the degree of imperviousness of an area and the degradation of its receiving waters. Significant declines in the biological integrity and physical habitat of streams and other receiving waters have been found to occur with as little as 10 percent conversion from natural to impervious surfaces. Percentage impervious cover is a reliable indicator and predictor of potential water quality degradation expected from new development. (Impervious Cover as An Urban Stream Indicator and a Watershed Management Tool, Schueler, T. and R. Claytor, In, Effects of Water Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems (1995), ASCE, New York; Leopold, L. B., (1973), River Channel Change with Time: An Example, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1845-1860; Hammer, T. R., (1972), Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization: Water Resources Research, v. 8, p. 1530-1540; Booth, D. B., (1991), Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System--Impacts, Solutions and Prognoses: The Northwest Environmental Journal, v. 7, p. 93-118; Klein, R. D., (1979), Urbanization and Stream Quality Impairment: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 15, p. 948-963; May, C. W., Horner, R. R., Karr, J. R., Mar, B. W., and Welch, E. B., (1997), Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion: Watershed Protection Techniques, v. 2, p. 483-494; Morisawa, M. and LaFlure, E. Hydraulic Geometry, Stream Equilibrium and Urbanization In Rhodes, D. P. and Williams, G. P. Adjustments to the Fluvial System p.333-350. (1979); Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt. Tenth Annual Geomorphology Symposia Series; and The Importance of Imperviousness: Watershed Protection Techniques, 1(3), Schueler, T. (1994).) 8. The County of Los Angeles has identified as the seven highest priority industrial and commercial critical source types, (i) wholesale trade (scrap recycling, auto dismantling); (ii) automotive repair/parking; (iii) fabricated NPDES CAS004001 - 4 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 metal products; (iv) motor freight; (v) chemical and allied products; (vi) automotive dealers/gas stations; (vii) primary metal products (Critical Source Selection and Monitoring Report, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works -Sept 1996). Monitoring conducted by Los Angeles County and the Regional Board demonstrates that the priority industrial sectors and auto repair facilities (one of the commercial sectors) on the list, contribute significant concentrations of heavy metals to storm water (Los Angeles County 1999-2000 Storm Water Monitoring Report, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works -July 2000; Compliance Assessment of the Auto Dismantling Industry; Evaluation of the California General Industrial Storm Water Permit, H. Chang, (2001), 70 pp., California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region). 9. The discharge of washwaters and contaminated storm water from industries and businesses specified in this Order for inspection by Permittees is an environmental threat and can also adversely impact public health and safety. For example, a review of industrial waste/ pretreatment records performed in 1995 in the County of Los Angeles on illicit discharges indicates that automotive service facilities and food service facilities sometimes discharge polluted washwaters to the MS4. The pollutants of concern in such washwaters include food waste, oil and grease, and toxic chemicals. Other storm water/industrial waste programs in California have reported similar observations. Illicit discharges from automotive service facilities and food service facilities have been identified elsewhere as a major cause of widespread contamination and water quality problems (Washtenaw County Statutory Drainage Board - 1987 Huron River Pollution Abatement Program). 10. Studies indicate that facilities with paved surfaces subject to frequent motor vehicular traffic (such as parking lots and fast food restaurants), or facilities that perform vehicle repair, maintenance, or fueling (automotive service facilities) are potential sources of pollutants of concern in storm water. [References: Pitt et al., Urban Storm Water Toxic Pollutants: Assessment, Sources, and Treatability, Water Environment Res., 67, 260 (1995); Results of Retail Gas Outlet and Commercial Parking Lot Storm Water Runoff Study, Western States Petroleum Association and American Petroleum Institute, (1994); Action Plan Demonstration Project, Demonstration of Gasoline Fueling Station Best Management Practices, Final Report, County of Sacramento (1993); Source Characterization, R. Pitt, In Innovative Urban Wet-Weather Flow Management Systems (2000) Technomic Press, Field, R et al. editors; Characteristics of Parking Lot Runoff Produced by Simulated Rainfall, , L.L. Tiefenthaler et al. Technical Report 343, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (2001).] 11. Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs) are points of convergence for vehicular traffic and are similar to parking lots and urban roads. Studies indicate that storm water discharges from RGOs have high concentrations of hydrocarbons and heavy metals. [The Quality of Trapped Sediments and Poor Water within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban MD, Schueler T. and NPDES CAS004001 - 5 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Shepp D. (1992), and Concentrations of Selected Constituents in Runoff from Impervious Surfaces in Four Urban Catchments of Different Landuse, Ranabal, F.I., and T.J. Gizzard (1995), In Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, Florida, pp-42-52]. Pilot studies indicate that treatment control best management practices installed at retail gasoline stations are effective in removing pollutants, reasonable in capital cost, easy to operate, and do not present safety risks [Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Task Product Memorandum – Evaluation of On-line Media Filters RPO-NPS-TPM59.00, Wayne County, MI, March 1999]. The Regional Board and the San Diego Regional Board have jointly prepared a Technical Report on the applicability of new development BMP design criteria for retail gasoline outlets, (Retail Gasoline Outlets: New Development Design Standards for Mitigation of Storm Water Impacts, (June 2001)). Retail Gasoline Outlets in Western U.S. States (such as Washington and Oregon) are already subject to numerical BMP design criteria, as well in other U.S. States. C. Permit Background 1. The essential components of the Storm Water Management Program, as established by federal regulations [40 CFR 122.26(d)] are: (i) Adequate Legal Authority, (ii) Fiscal Resources, (iii) Storm Water Quality Management Program (SQMP) - (Public Information and Participation Program, Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program, Development Planning Program, Development Construction Program, Public Agency Activities Program, Illicit Connection and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program), and (iv) Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. The Permittees have filed a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD), dated February 1, 2001, and applied for renewal of their waste discharge requirements that serves as an NPDES permit to discharge wastes to surface waters. The ROWD includes a proposed SQMP and a Monitoring Program. The proposed SQMP contains programs previously approved under Board Order No. 96-054 in the following areas: Public Information and Participation Development Planning Development Construction Public Agency Activities Illicit Connection/Illicit Discharge Elimination Program These programs are revised pursuant to the provisions of this Order after adoption. 3. The County of Los Angeles has previously conducted source identification and pollutant characterization consistent with 40 CFR 122.26(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) under its storm water Monitoring Program. The Monitoring Program submitted with the ROWD proposes to advance the assessment of receiving water impacts, identification of sources of pollution, evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and measurement of long term trends in mass emissions. NPDES CAS004001 - 6 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 4. The Regional Board has reviewed the ROWD and has determined it to be complete under the reapplication policy of MS4s issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (61 Fed. Reg. 41697). The Regional Board finds that the Permittees’ proposed SQMP, incorporating the additional and/or revised provisions contained in this Order would meet the minimum requirements of federal regulations. 5. The City of Los Angeles has conducted shoreline and nearshore water quality monitoring off the Santa Monica Bay since the 1950s under the monitoring program for the Hyperion Waste Water Treatment Plant (NPDES No. CA0109991). The monitoring results indicate that effluent from Hyperion's 5-Mile Outfall does not impinge the shoreline, and that elevated bacterial counts are associated with runoff from storm drains and discharges from piers. In 1994, the Regional Board approved the relocation of Hyperion's shoreline stations to implement a bay-wide, regional shoreline-monitoring program associated with storm drain outfalls in the Santa Monica Bay. The City of Los Angeles requested that the shoreline-monitoring requirement be incorporated in this Order. The shoreline pathogen monitoring requirements are outlined in the Monitoring Program for this Order. D. Permit Coverage 1. The requirements in this Order cover all areas within the boundaries of the Permittee municipalities (see Attachment A) over which they have regulatory jurisdiction as well as unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board. The Permittees serve a population of about 9.5 million [Reference: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (2001)] in an area of approximately 3,100 square miles. 2. Federal, state, regional or local entities within the Permittees' boundaries or in jurisdictions outside the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and not currently named in this Order, may operate storm drain facilities and/or discharge storm water to storm drains and watercourses covered by this Order. The Permittees may lack legal jurisdiction over these entities under state and federal constitutions. The Regional Board will coordinate with these entities to implement programs that are consistent with the requirements of this Order. The Regional Board will consider such facilities for coverage in 2003 under its NPDES permitting scheme pursuant to USEPA Phase II storm water regulations. 3. Sources of discharges into receiving waters in the County of Los Angeles but in jurisdictions outside its boundary include the following: About 34 square miles of unincorporated area in Ventura County, which drain into Malibu Creek and then to Santa Monica Bay, About 9 square miles of the City of Thousand Oaks, which also drain into Malibu Creek and then to Santa Monica Bay, and NPDES CAS004001 - 7 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 About 86 square miles of area in Orange County, which drain into Coyote Creek and then into the San Gabriel River. The Regional Board will ensure that storm water management programs for the areas in Ventura County and the City of Thousand Oaks that drain into Santa Monica Bay are consistent with the requirements of this Order. The Regional Board will coordinate with the Santa Ana Regional Board so that storm water management programs for the areas in Orange County that drain into Coyote Creek are consistent with the requirements of this Order. 4. This permit is intended to develop, achieve, and implement a timely, comprehensive, cost-effective storm water pollution control program to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) from the permitted areas in the County of Los Angeles to the waters of the U.S. subject to the Permittees' jurisdiction. 5. Permittees have expressed their intention to work cooperatively to control the contribution of pollutants from one portion of the MS4 to another portion of the system. Permittees may control the contribution of pollutants to the MS4 from non-permittee dischargers such as Caltrans, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other state and federal facilities, through interagency agreements. E. Federal, State, and Regional Regulations 1. The Water Quality Act of 1987 added Section 402(p) to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387). This section requires the USEPA to establish regulations setting forth NPDES requirements for storm water discharges in two phases. • The USEPA Phase I storm water regulations were directed at MS4s serving a population of 100,000 or more, including interconnected systems and storm water discharges associated with industrial activities, including construction activities. The Phase I Final Rule was published on November 16, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 47990). • The USEPA Phase II storm water regulations are directed at storm water discharges not covered in Phase I, including small MS4s (serving a population of less than 100,000), small construction projects (one to five acres), municipal facilities with delayed coverage under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and other discharges for which the USEPA Administrator or the State determines that the storm water discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard, or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. The Phase II Final Rule was published on December 8, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 68722). 2. The USEPA published an ‘Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality- Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits’ on August 26, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 43761). This policy discusses the appropriate kinds of NPDES CAS004001 - 8 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 water quality-based effluent limitations to be included in NPDES storm water permits to provide for the attainment of water quality standards. 3. The USEPA published an ‘Interpretative Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements’ for MS4 permits on August 9, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 41697). This policy requires that MS4 reapplication for reissuance for a subsequent five-year permit term contain certain basic information and information for proposed changes and improvements to the storm water management program and monitoring program. 4. The USEPA has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for enhancing coordination regarding the protection of endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the CWA’s Water Quality Standards and NPDES programs. Among other actions, the MOA establishes a framework for coordination of actions by the USEPA, the Services, and CWA delegated States on CWA permit issuance under Section 402 of the CWA [66 Fed. Reg. 11202 – 11217]. 5. USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A) and 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C) require that MS4 permittees implement a program to monitor and control pollutants in discharges to the municipal system from industrial and commercial facilities that contribute a substantial pollutant load to the MS4. The regulations require that permittees establish priorities and procedures for inspection of industrial facilities and priority commercial establishments. This permit, consistent with the USEPA policy, incorporates a cooperative partnership, including the specifications of minimum expectations, between the Regional Board and the Permittees for the inspection of industrial facilities and priority commercial establishments to control pollutants in storm water discharges (58 Fed. Reg. 61157). 6. Section 402 (p) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p) provides that MS4 permits must “require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design engineering method and such other provisions as the [EPA] Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” The State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Board) Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) has issued a memorandum interpreting the meaning of MEP to include technical feasibility, cost, and benefit derived with the burden being on the municipality to demonstrate compliance with MEP by showing that a BMP is not technically feasible in the locality or that BMPs costs would exceed any benefit to be derived (dated February 11, 1993). 7. The CWA authorizes the USEPA to permit a state to serve as the NPDES permitting authority in lieu of the USEPA. The State of California has in-lieu authority for an NPDES program. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the State Board, through the Regional Boards, to regulate and control the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The State Board entered into a MOA with the USEPA, on NPDES CAS004001 - 9 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 September 22, 1989, to administer the NPDES Program governing discharges to waters of the U.S. 8. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that the State identify a list of impaired water-bodies and develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waterbodies (33 U.S.C. §1313(d)(1)). A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water-body can receive, still meet applicable water quality standards and protect beneficial uses. The USEPA entered into a consent decree with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Heal the Bay, and the Santa Monica BayKeeper on March 22, 1999, under which the Regional Board must adopt all TMDLs for the Los Angeles Region within 13 years from that date. This permit incorporates a provision to implement and enforce approved load allocations for municipal storm water discharges and requires amending the SQMP after pollutants loads have been allocated and approved. 9. Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) requires coastal states with approved coastal zone management programs to address non-point pollution impacting or threatening coastal water quality. CZARA (16 U.S.C. § 1451-1465) amends the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, to address five sources of non-point pollution: agriculture, silviculture, urban, marinas, and hydromodification. This NPDES permit addresses the management measures required for the urban category, with the exception of septic systems. The Regional Board addresses septic systems through the administration of other programs. 10. On May 18, 2000, the USEPA established numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California (California Toxics Rule (CTR)) 65 Fed. Reg. 31682 (40 CFR 131.38), for the protection of human health and aquatic life. These apply as ambient water quality criteria for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries. The State Board adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (SIP) – 2000, on March 2, 2000, for implementation of the CTR (State Board Resolution No. 2000-15 as amended by Board Resolution No. 2000-030). This policy requires that discharges comply with TMDL-derived load allocations as soon as possible but no later than 20 years from the effective date of the policy. 11. The State Board adopted a revised Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) on July 23, 1997. The Ocean Plan contains water quality objectives which apply to all discharges to the coastal waters of California. 12. The State Board in In Re: California Department of Transportation (State Board Order WQ 2001-08), determined that the discharge of storm water to ASBS is subject to the prohibition in the Ocean Plan against the discharge of wastes to an ASBS. NPDES CAS004001 - 10 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 13. The Regional Board adopted an updated Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Los Angeles Region on June 13, 1994, 'Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, (1994).' The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of receiving waters and specifies both narrative and numerical water quality objectives for the receiving waters in Los Angeles County. 14. The Regional Board on September 19, 2001, adopted amendments to the Basin Plan, to incorporate TMDLs for trash in the Los Angeles River Watershed (Resolution No. R01-013) and Ballona Creek Watershed (Resolution No. R01-014). The amendments were subsequently approved by the State Board, the Office of Administrative Law, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Twenty-two cities1 (“Cities”) sued the Regional Board and State Board to set aside the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL. The trial court entered an order deciding some claims in favor of the Water Boards and some in favor of the Cities. Both sides appealed, and on January 26, 2006, the Court of Appeal decided every one of the Cities’ claims in favor of the Water Boards, except with respect to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance (City of Arcadia et al. v. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board et al. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392). The Court therefore declared the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL void, and issued a writ of mandate that ordered the Water Boards to set aside and not implement the TMDL, until it had been brought into compliance with CEQA. As a result of the appellate court’s decision, in 2006, the Regional Board set aside its 2001 action incorporating the TMDL into the Basin Plan (Resolution R06-013) (City of Arcadia et al. v. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board et al. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392). After conducting the required CEQA analysis, the Regional Board readopted the Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL on August 9, 2007 (Resolution No. R07-012). This TMDL was subsequently approved by the State Board (Resolution No. 2008-0024), the Office of Administrative Law (File No. 2008-0519-02 S), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and became effective on September 23, 2008. The Water Boards filed their final return to the writ of mandate on August 6, 2008, and on August 26, 2008, the superior court entered an order discharging the writ, and dismissing the case, thus concluding the legal challenges to the Trash TMDL. 15. The Regional Board on April 13, 1998, approved BMPs for sidewalk rinsing to minimize the discharge of wash waters to the storm drain system (Resolution No. 98-08). By the same resolution, the Regional Board prohibited the discharge of municipal street wash waters to the storm drain system. 1 The cities include Arcadia, Baldwin Park, Bellflower, Cerritos, Commerce, Diamond Bar, Downey, Irwindale, Lawndale, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, San Gabriel, Santa Fe Springs, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, South Pasadena, Vernon, West Covina, and Whittier. NPDES CAS004001 - 11 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 16. The Regional Board on April 13, 1998, approved recommended BMPs for industrial/commercial facilities (Resolution No. 98-08). 17. The Regional Board on April 22, 1999, approved a list of BMPs for use in development planning and development construction (Resolution No. 99- 03) 18. The Regional Board adopted and approved requirements for new development and significant redevelopment projects in Los Angeles County to control the discharge of storm water pollutants in post-construction storm water, on January 26, 2000, in Board Resolution No. R-00-02. The Regional Board Executive Officer issued the approved Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) on March 8, 2000. The State Board in large part affirmed the Regional Board action and SUSMPs in State Board Order No. WQ 2000-11 issued on October 5, 2000. • The State Board’s Chief Counsel has issued a statewide policy memorandum (dated December 26, 2000), which interprets the Order to provide broad discretion to Regional Boards and identifies potential future areas for inclusion in SUSMPs and the types of evidence and findings necessary. Such areas include ministerial projects, projects in environmentally sensitive areas, and water quality design criteria for RGOs. • The State Board’s Chief Counsel interprets the Order to encourage regional solutions and endorses a mitigation fund or “bank” that may be funded by developers who obtain waivers from the numerical design standards for new development and significant redevelopment. 19. 40 CFR 131.10(a) prohibits states from designating waste transport or waste assimilation as a use for any water of the U.S. Authorizing the construction of a storm water/ urban runoff treatment facility in a jurisdictional water body would be tantamount to accepting waste assimilation as an appropriate use for that water body. Furthermore, the construction and operation of a pollution control facility in a water body can impact the physical, chemical, and biological integrity as well as the beneficial uses of the water body. Therefore, storm water treatment and/or mitigation in accordance with SUSMPs and any other requirements of this Order must occur prior to the discharge of storm water into a water of the U.S. 20. The Regional Board supports a Watershed Management Approach to address water quality protection in the region. The objective of the Watershed Management Approach should be to provide a comprehensive and integrated strategy towards water resource protection, enhancement, and restoration while balancing economic and environmental impacts within a hydrologically defined drainage basin or watershed. It emphasizes cooperative relationships between regulatory agencies, the regulated community, environmental groups, and other NPDES CAS004001 - 12 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 stakeholders in the watershed to achieve the greatest environmental improvements with available resources. 21. To promote a watershed management approach, the County of Los Angeles is divided into six Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) as follows: Malibu Creek and Rural Santa Monica Bay WMA Ballona Creek and Urban Santa Monica Bay WMA Los Angeles River WMA San Gabriel River WMA Dominguez Channel/Los Angeles Harbor WMA, and Santa Clara River WMA Attachment A shows the list of Permittees under each WMA and some Permittees have expressed an intent to form sub-watershed groups within the WMA to promote regional solutions for the mitigation of storm water discharge pollution. 22. To facilitate compliance with federal regulations, the State Board has issued two statewide general NPDES permits for storm water discharges: one for storm water from industrial sites [NPDES No. CAS000001, General Industrial Activity Storm Water Permit (GIASP)] and the other for storm water from construction sites [NPDES No. CAS000002, General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (GCASP)]. The GCASP was reissued on August 19, 1999. The GIASP was reissued on April 17, 1997. Facilities discharging storm water associated with industrial activities and construction projects with a disturbed area of five acres or more are required to obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges, or to be covered by a statewide general permit by completing and filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Board. The USEPA guidance anticipates coordination of the state-administered programs for industrial and construction activities with the local agency program to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the MS4. The Regional Board is the enforcement authority in the Los Angeles Region for the two statewide general permits regulating discharges from industrial facilities and construction sites, and all NPDES storm water and non-storm water permits issued by the Regional Board. These industrial and construction sites and discharges are also regulated under local laws and regulations. 23. The State Board, on October 28, 1968, adopted Resolution No. 68-16, which established an anti-degradation policy for the State and Regional Boards. This policy restricts the degradation of surface waters and protects waterbodies where existing water quality is higher than is necessary for the protection of beneficial uses. 24. The State Board, on June 17, 1999, adopted Order No. WQ 99-05, which, in a precedential decision, identifies acceptable receiving water limitations language to be included in municipal storm water permits issued by the State and Regional Boards. The receiving water limitations included herein are consistent with the State Board Order, USEPA Policy, NPDES CAS004001 - 13 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 and the U.S. Appellate court decision in, Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th. Cir, 1999). The State Board OCC has determined that the federal court decision did not conflict with State Board Order No. WQ 99-05 (memorandum dated October 14, 1999) 25. California Water Code (CWC) § 13263(a) requires that waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Board shall implement any relevant water quality control plans that have been adopted; shall take into consideration the beneficial uses to be protected and the water quality objectives reasonably required for that purpose; other waste discharges; the need to prevent nuisance; and provisions of CWC § 13241. The Regional Board has considered the requirements of § 13263 and § 13241, and applicable plans, policies, rules, and regulations in developing these waste discharge requirements. 26. CWC § 13370 et seq. requires that waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Boards be consistent with provisions of the federal CWA and its amendments. 27. On March 12, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that it is necessary to obtain a NPDES permit for application of aquatic pesticides to waterways. (Headwaters, Inc. vs. Talent Irrigation District, 243 F.3d. 526 (9th Cir., 2001)) This decision is controlling in California for nonagricultural applications of pesticides to waterways. The State Board adopted a general NPDES permit (Order No. 2001-12-DWQ) on July 19, 2001, for public entities that discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S. associated with the application of aquatic pesticides for resource or pest management. Public entities that conduct such activities must seek coverage under the general permit. The Marina Del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacteria TMDL 28. [Intentionally left blank] 29. The Regional Board adopted the Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacteria TMDL (hereinafter “MDR Bacteria TMDL”) on August 7, 2003. The TMDL was subsequently approved by the SWRCB, the OAL, and the USEPA and became effective on March 18, 2004. 30. Tables 7-5.1, 7-5.2, and 7-5.3 of the Basin Plan set forth the pertinent provisions of the MDR Bacteria TMDL. 31. [Intentionally left blank] 32. [Intentionally left blank] NPDES CAS004001 - 14 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 33. On March 14, 2007, Marina del Rey watershed responsible agencies submitted to the Regional Board the results of a non-point source study conducted over a one year period between July 2005 and July 2006, which was required under the terms of the MDR TMDL. The study was designed to determine the relative bacterial loading to the harbor from sources including but not limited to storm drains, boats, birds, and other non-point sources. The study has not yet been peer reviewed, and is currently under review by Regional Board staff. 34. On January 8, 2007, as required by the MDR Bacterial TMDL, Marina del Rey watershed responsible agencies submitted to the Regional Board an implementation plan describing the strategy by which they intend to comply with the MDR Bacterial TMDL. This implementation plan was developed through a process that included both Regional Board staff and representatives from Heal the Bay and Santa Monica Baykeeper. 35. The Regional Board acknowledges the County’s timely submittals of reports required by the TMDL and implementation measures initiated thus far towards meeting water quality standards for bacteria in Marina del Rey. As a result of the adoption of the MDR Bacterial TMDL in 2003, the County has funded or received grants to initiate the following activities: • Marina Beach Water Quality Improvement Project, Phase I and Phase II through a CBI grant; • Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacterial TMDL Non-point Source Study; • Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers Beach and Back Basins Report of Small Drain Identification; • Marina del Rey Vessel Discharge Report; • Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacterial TMDL Coordinated Monitoring Plan; and • Three low-flow diversion projects, which were partially funded by a grant, two of which have been completed. In addition to participation in the above studies, the County and other Marina del Rey watershed responsible agencies continue to implement BMPs proposed in the January 8, 2007, Implementation Plan. 36. [Intentionally left blank]2 37. [Intentionally left blank] a) [Intentionally left blank] 2 [Intentionally left blank] NPDES CAS004001 - 15 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 b) [Intentionally left blank] c) [Intentionally left blank] d) [Intentionally left blank] 38. [Intentionally left blank] 39. [Intentionally left blank] Findings Related to the Incorporation of the Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL 40. The Regional Board adopted the Los Angeles River Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) on August 9, 2007 as an amendment to the region’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to address water quality impairments due to trash in the Los Angeles River Watershed that were identified in 1998 on the State’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. This TMDL was subsequently approved by the State Board, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the USEPA, and it became effective on September 23, 2008. 41. By its adoption of the Trash TMDL, the Regional Board determined that trash discharged to the Los Angeles River and its tributaries discourages recreational activity, degrades aquatic habitat, threatens wildlife through ingestion and entanglement, and also poses risks to human health. Existing beneficial uses impaired by trash in the Los Angeles River are contact recreation (REC-1) and non-contact recreation (REC-2); warm fresh water habitat (WARM); wildlife habitat (WILD); estuarine habitat (EST) and marine habitat (MAR); rare, threatened or endangered species (RARE); migration of aquatic organisms (MIGR) and spawning, reproduction and early development of fish (SPWN); commercial and sport fishing (COMM); wetland habitat (WET); and cold freshwater habitat (COLD). 42. The Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL identifies discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer system as the principal source of trash to the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. As such, WLAs were assigned to MS4 Permittees that discharge to the MS4 in the watershed. The WLAs are expressed as progressively decreasing allowable amounts of trash discharges from jurisdictional areas within the watershed. The Trash TMDL requires MS4 Permittees to make annual reductions of their discharges of trash to the Los Angeles River Watershed over a 9-year period, until the numeric target of zero trash discharged from the MS4 is achieved for the 2013-2014 storm year. The Basin Plan assigns MS4 Permittees within the Los Angeles River Watershed baseline Waste Load Allocations from which annual reductions are to be made. (See Basin Plan, Table 7-2.2.) The Basin Plan also specifies interim and final Waste Load Allocations as decreasing percentages of the Table 7-2.2 baseline NPDES CAS004001 - 16 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 WLAs, and specifies the corresponding “Compliance Points”. (See Basin Plan, Table 7-2.3.) 43. The Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL specifies that the WLAs shall be implemented through MS4 permits. Federal regulations require that NPDES permits be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available waste load allocation. (40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).) State law requires both that the Regional Board implement its Basin Plan when adopting waste discharge requirements (WDRs) and that NPDES permits apply “any more stringent effluent standards or limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans…” (Wat. Code §§ 13263, 13377). 44. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner ruled that the Clean Water Act grants the permitting agency discretion either to require “strict compliance” with water quality standards through the imposition of numeric effluent limitations, or to employ an iterative approach toward compliance with water quality standards, by requiring improved BMPs over time (Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159). In a precedential decision, the State Board acknowledged that the holding in Browner allows the issuance of MS4 permits that limit their provisions to BMPs that control pollutants to the MEP, and which do not require compliance with water quality standards. However, the Water Boards have declined to adopt that approach in light of the impacts of discharges from MS4s on waters throughout the State and Los Angeles region (see Order WQ 2001-15 and Part 2 of the LA County MS4 Permit). The State Board concluded and the Regional Board agrees that “where urban runoff is causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards, it is appropriate to require improvements to BMPs that address those exceedances” (Order WQ 2001-15, p. 8). 45. In a recent decision, the State Board also concluded that incorporation of the provisions of TMDLs into MS4 permits requires extra consideration. Specifically, the State Board held: “TMDLs, which take significant resources to develop and finalize, are devised with specific implementation plans and compliance dates designed to bring impaired waters into compliance with water quality standards. It is our intent that federally mandated TMDLs be given substantive effect. Doing so can improve the efficacy of California’s NPDES storm water permits.” The State Board stated that TMDLs should not be an “academic exercise”, and indicated that in some instances when implementing TMDLs, numeric effluent limitations may be an appropriate means of controlling pollutants in storm water, provided the Regional Board’s determination is adequately supported in the permit findings (Order WQ 2009-0008). The following paragraphs support the Regional Board’s determination to implement the Trash TMDL with numeric effluent limitations. 46. The Trash TMDL specified a specific formula for calculating and allocating annual reductions in trash discharges from each jurisdiction. NPDES CAS004001 - 17 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 The formula results in specified annual amounts of trash that may be discharged from each jurisdiction into the receiving waters. Translation of the compliance points described in the TMDL into jurisdiction-specific load reductions from the baseline levels, as specified in the TMDL, logically results in the articulation of an annual limit on the amount of a pollutant that may be discharged. The specification of allowable annual trash discharge amounts meets the definition of an “effluent limitation”, as that term is defined in subdivision (c) of section 13385.1 of the California Water Code. Specifically, the trash discharge limitations constitute a “numeric restriction … on the quantity [or] discharge rate … of a pollutant or pollutants that may be discharged from an authorized location.” While there may be other ways to incorporate the compliance points from the TMDL into permit conditions, the Regional Board is not aware of any other mechanisms that would result in actual compliance with the requirements of the TMDL as it was intended. 47. The process to establish the Trash TMDL was exceedingly lengthy, heavily litigated and scrutinized, and contained extensive analysis. The essence of this TMDL has been twice adopted by the Regional Board, and approved by the State Board, OAL, and the US EPA, and has been subject to considerable judicial review. Therefore, the assumptions underlying this TMDL have been thoroughly vetted by staff, stakeholders, other agencies, and the courts over a significant period of time. 48. In its resolution establishing the Trash TMDL, the Regional Board already determined that the implementation schedule was reasonable and feasible, and noted that the MS4 Permittees had notice of the trash impairment since at least 1998 (with its listing on the 1998 303(d) list) and had been required to attain water quality standards for trash in the receiving waters since this order was first adopted in December of 2001. (See e.g., Resolution R07-012, finding 14.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the Regional Board’s determination that the final waste load allocations were attainable and not inordinately expensive. (Cities of Arcadia, 135 Cal.App.4th at 1413 and 1427-1430.) Full capture systems, partial capture devices, and institutional controls are presently available to feasibly and practicably attain the interim and final effluent limitations, and it is anticipated that this order will precipitate additional innovations in control strategies and technologies, just as the adoption of the Trash TMDL resulted in the proffering and certification of seven full capture systems. 49. The Trash TMDL and this order include provisions that allow Permittees to be deemed in compliance with their effluent limitations through the installation of certain best management practices (certified full capture systems). Any Permittee that is deemed in compliance through the use of certified full capture systems would not be in violation of the effluent limitations even if some trash is discharged in excess of the annual limitations. 50. The Trash TMDL includes provisions requiring its reconsideration after a trash reduction of 50% has been achieved and sustained in the NPDES CAS004001 - 18 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 watershed, which provides an opportunity to reexamine some of the assumptions of the TMDL after tangible and meaningful progress has been made in the watershed. (See Basin Plan, Table 7-2.3, fn. 2.) Should this reconsideration result in a modification to the final waste load allocations, the permit will be reopened pursuant to Part 6., paragraph I.1.b, to ensure the effluent limitations contained in Tables 1a and 1b of Appendix 7-1 are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any revised waste load allocations. (40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).) 51. Depending upon the compliance strategy selected by each Permittee, compliance with the effluent limitations set forth in Appendix 7-1 may require a demonstration that the Permittee is in strict compliance with water quality standards. It remains the Permittee’s choice, however, to comply via certified full capture systems (which do not require a demonstration of strict compliance with water quality standards), or partial capture devices and/or institutional controls. 52. Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the Clean Water Act, requires MS4 Permittees to reduce the pollutants in their storm water discharges to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP). As set forth herein, “practicable” options presently exist to achieve compliance with the effluent limitations. Since the effluent limitations can be practicably achieved, their imposition is within the federally mandated MEP standard, and no analysis contemplated by City of Burbank v. SWRCB (2005) 35 Cal.4th 613 pursuant to Water Code section 13241 is necessary to support these effluent limitations. 53. In its discretion, the Regional Board may administratively impose civil liability of up to $10,000 for “each day in which the violation [of waste discharge requirements] occurs.” (Wat. C. § 13385, subd (c).) Not every storm event may result in trash discharges. The Los Angeles River Trash TMDL adopted by the Regional Board states that improperly deposited trash is mobilized during storm events of greater than 0.25 inches of precipitation. Therefore, violations of the effluent limitations are limited to the days of a storm event of greater than 0.25 inches. Once a Permittee has violated the annual effluent limitation, any subsequent discharges of trash during any day of a storm event of greater than 0.25 inches during the same storm year constitutes an additional “day in which the violation [of the effluent limitation] occurs”. 54. Unlike subdivision (c) of Water Code section 13385 where violations of effluent limitations are assessed on a per day basis, the mandatory minimum penalties subdivisions (Wat. Code § 13385, subd. (h) and (i)) require the Regional Board to assess mandatory minimum penalties for “each violation” of an effluent limitation. The effluent limitations in Appendix 7-1 are expressed as annual limitations. Therefore, there can be no more than one violation of each interim or final effluent limitation per year. Trash is considered a Group I pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, each annual violation of an effluent limitation in NPDES CAS004001 - 19 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Appendix 7-1 by forty percent or more would be considered a “serious violation” under subdivision (h). With respect to the final effluent limitation of zero trash, any detectable discharge of trash necessarily is a serious violation, in accordance with the State Board’s Enforcement Policy. Violations of the effluent limitations in Appendix 7-1 would not constitute “chronic” violations that would give rise to mandatory liability under subdivision (i) because four or more violations of the effluent limitations subject to a mandatory penalty cannot occur in a period of six consecutive months. 55. Therefore, the modifications to the Order include effluent limitations in a manner consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs from which they are derived as well as an allowance to comply with these effluent limitations [i.e. WLAs] through proper installation and maintenance of certified full capture systems. 56. Modifications consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL are therefore included in Parts 4 (Special Provisions) and 5 (Definitions) of this Order. Part 7 (Total Maximum Daily Load Provisions) is added to this Order and incorporates provisions to assure that Los Angeles County MS4 Permittees achieve the Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) and comply with other requirements of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) covering impaired waters impacted by the Permittees’ discharges. These modifications are made pursuant to 40 CFR sections 122.41(f), 122.44.(d)(1)(vii)(B), and 122.62, and Part 6.I.1 of this Order. Tables 7-2.1, 7-2.2, and 7-2.3 of the Basin Plan set forth the pertinent provisions of the Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL. The interim and final effluent limitations consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the waste load allocations, and related provisions required of Permittees within the watershed are provided in Part 7 of this Order. 57. Permittees identified as responsible agencies in the Trash TMDL may achieve compliance with interim and final effluent limitations through progressive installation of BMPs meeting the definition of “full capture” throughout their jurisdictions’ drainage areas. Alternatively, Permittees may install “partial capture” devices and/or implement institutional controls to meet their respective interim and final effluent limitations. Where partial capture devices are utilized as the sole trash control measure, the degree of compliance may be demonstrated based upon performance data specific to the jurisdictional area. However, compliance with the final effluent limitation cannot be achieved through the exclusive use of partial capture devices. Where a combination of partial capture devices and institutional controls are used, compliance shall be determined based on the approximation of jurisdiction-specific trash discharges. 58. The Executive Officer will develop a standard reporting form, consistent with these provisions, which shall be used by Permittees to report compliance with the effluent limitations on an annual basis. NPDES CAS004001 - 20 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 60. Pursuant to federal regulations at 40 CFR sections 124.8 and 125.56, a Fact Sheet was prepared to provide the basis for incorporating the Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL into this Order. This Fact Sheet is hereby incorporated by reference into these findings. F. Implementation 1. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) requires that public agencies consider the environmental impacts of the projects they approve for development. CEQA applies to projects that are considered discretionary and does not apply to ministerial projects, which involve the use of established standards or objective measurements. A ministerial project may be made discretionary by adopting local ordinance provisions or imposing conditions to create decision-making discretion in approving the project. In the alternative, Permittees may establish standards and objective criteria administratively for storm water mitigation for ministerial projects. For water quality purposes, the Regional Board considers that all new development and significant redevelopment activity in specified categories, that receive approval or permits from a municipality, are subject to storm water mitigation requirements. 2. The objective of this Order is to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters in Los Angeles County. To meet this objective, this Order requires that the SQMP specify BMPs that will be implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. Further, Permittees are to assure that storm water discharges from the MS4 shall neither cause nor contribute to the exceedance of water quality standards and objectives nor create conditions of nuisance in the receiving waters, and that the discharge of non-storm water to the MS4 has been effectively prohibited. 3. The SQMP required in this Order builds upon the programs established in Order Nos. 90-079, and 96-054, consists of the components recommended in the USEPA guidance manual, and was developed with the cooperation of representatives from the regulated community and environmental groups. The SQMP includes provisions that promote customized initiatives, both on a countywide and watershed basis, in developing and implementing cost-effective measures to minimize discharge of pollutants to the receiving water. The various components of the SQMP, taken as a whole rather than individually, are expected to reduce pollutants in storm water and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Provisions of the SQMP are fully enforceable under provisions of this Order. 4. The emphasis of the SQMP is pollution prevention through education, public outreach, planning, and implementation as source control BMPs first and then Structural and Treatment Control BMPs next. Successful implementation of the provisions of the SQMP will require cooperation NPDES CAS004001 - 21 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 and coordination of all public agencies in each Permittee’s organization, among Permittees, and with the regulated community. 5. The implementation of a Public Information and Participation Program is a critical component of a storm water management program. An informed and knowledgeable community is critical to the success of a storm water management program since it helps insure the following: (i) greater support for the program as the public gains a greater understanding of the reasons why it is necessary and important, and (ii) greater compliance with the program as the public becomes aware of the personal responsibilities expected of them and others in the community, including the individual actions they can take to protect or improve the quality of area waters. 6. This Order includes a Monitoring Program that incorporates Minimum Levels (MLs) established under the SIP. The SIP’s MLs represent the lowest quantifiable concentration for priority toxic pollutants that is measurable with the use of proper method-based analytical procedures and factoring out matrix interference. The SIP’s MLs therefore represent the best available science for determining MLs and are appropriate for a storm water monitoring program. The use of MLs allows the detection of toxic priority pollutants at concentrations of concern using recent advances in chemical analytical methods. 7. This Order provides flexibility for Permittees to petition the Regional Board Executive Officer to substitute a BMP under the SQMP with an alternative BMP, if they can provide information and documentation on the effectiveness of the alternative, equal to or greater than the prescribed BMP in meeting the objectives of this Order. 8. This Order contemplates that the Permittees are responsible for considering potential storm water impacts when making planning decisions in order to fulfill the Permittees’ CWA requirement to reduce the discharge of pollutants in municipal storm water to the MEP from new development and redevelopment activities. However, the Permittees retain authority to make the final land-use decisions and retain full statutory authority for deciding what land uses are appropriate at specific locations within each Permittee’s jurisdiction. This Order and its requirements are not intended to restrict or control local land use decision-making authority. 9. This Order is not intended to prohibit the inspection for or abatement of vectors by the State Department of Health Services or local vector agencies in accordance with Cal. Health and Safety Code § 2270 et seq. and §116110 et seq. Certain Treatment Control BMPs if not properly designed, operated or maintained may create habitats for vectors (e.g. mosquito and rodents). This Order contemplates that the Permittees will closely cooperate and collaborate with local vector control agencies and the State Department of Health Services for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of Treatment Control BMPs in order to minimize the risk to public health from vector borne diseases. NPDES CAS004001 - 22 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 G. Public Process 1. The Regional Board has notified the Permittees and interested agencies and persons of its intent to issue waste discharge requirements for this discharge, and has provided them with an opportunity to submit their written view and recommendations. 2. The Regional Board, in a public hearing, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge and to the tentative requirements. 3. The Regional Board has conducted public workshops to discuss drafts of the permit. On April 24, 2001, Regional Board staff conducted a workshop outlining the reasoning behind the changes proposed for the new permit and received input from the Permittees and the public regarding those proposed changes. On July 26, 2001, a second public workshop was held at a special Regional Board meeting. The Permittees and the public had another opportunity to express their opinions regarding the proposed changes to the permit in front of the Regional Board members. A significant number of working meetings with the Permittees and other interested parties have occurred throughout the period from the submittal of the ROWD and completion of the tentative draft, in an attempt to incorporate and address all the comments presented. 4. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the County of Los Angeles and the other municipalities are co-permittees as defined in 40 CFR 122.26 (b)(1). Los Angeles County Flood Control District will coordinate with the other municipalities and facilitate program implementation. Each Permittee is responsible only for a discharge for which it is the operator. 5. This Order shall serve as a NPDES Permit, pursuant to CWA § 402, or amendments thereto, and shall take effect 50 days from Order adoption provided the Regional Administrator of the USEPA has no objections. 6. The action to adopt an NPDES permit is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 3 of CEQA (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21100 et seq.), in accordance with CWC § 13389. 7. Pursuant to CWC §13320, any aggrieved party may seek review of this Order by filing a petition with the State Board. A petition must be sent to: State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California, 95812, within 30 days of adoption of the Order by the Regional Board. 8. This Order may be modified or alternatively revoked or reissued prior to its expiration date, in accordance with the procedural requirements of the NPDES program, and the CWC for the issuance of waste discharge requirements. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los Angeles County, and the Cities of Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Arcadia, Artesia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, NPDES CAS004001 - 23 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Bradbury, Burbank, Calabasas, Carson, Cerritos, Claremont, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, El Monte, El Segundo, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Huntington Park, Industry, Inglewood, Irwindale, La Cañada Flintridge, La Habra Heights, Lakewood, La Mirada, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Norwalk, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Temple City, Torrance, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, and Whittier, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the CWC and regulations adopted thereunder, and the provisions of the CWA, as amended, and regulations and guidelines adopted thereunder, shall comply with the following: Part 1. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS Part 1. A. The Permittees shall effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges into the MS4 and watercourses, except where such discharges: 1. Are covered by a separate individual or general NPDES permit for non-storm water discharges; or 2. Fall within one of the categories below, and meet all conditions when specified by the Regional Board Executive Officer: a) Category A - Natural flow: (1) Natural springs and rising ground water; (2) Flows from riparian habitats or wetlands; (3) Stream diversions, permitted by the State Board; and (4) Uncontaminated ground water infiltration [as defined by 40 CFR 35.2005(20)]. b) Category B - Flows from emergency fire fighting activity. c) Category C - Flows incidental to urban activities: (1) Reclaimed and potable landscape irrigation runoff; (2) Potable drinking water supply and distribution system releases (consistent with American Water Works Association guidelines for dechlorination and suspended solids reduction practices); (3) Drains for foundations, footings, and crawl spaces; (4) Air conditioning condensate; NPDES CAS004001 - 24 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (5) Dechlorinated/debrominated swimming pool discharges; (6) Dewatering of lakes and decorative fountains; (7) Non-commercial car washing by residents or by non-profit organizations; and (8) Sidewalk rinsing. The Regional Board Executive Officer may add or remove categories of non- storm water discharges above. Furthermore, in the event that any of the above categories of non-storm water discharges are determined to be a source of pollutants by the Regional Board Executive Officer, the discharge will no longer be exempt from this prohibition unless the Permittee implements conditions approved by the Regional Board Executive Officer to ensure that the discharge is not a source of pollutants. Notwithstanding the above, the Regional Board Executive Officer may impose additional prohibitions of non-storm water discharges in consideration of antidegradation policies and TMDLs. Part 1. B. [Intentionally left blank]3,4 Part 2. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS 1. Discharges from the MS4 that cause or contribute to the violation of Water Quality Standards or water quality objectives are prohibited. 2. Discharges from the MS4 of storm water, or non-storm water, for which a Permittee is responsible for, shall not cause or contribute to a condition of nuisance. 3. The Permittees shall comply with Part 2.1. and 2.2. through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharges in accordance with the SQMP and its components and other requirements of this Order including any modifications. The SQMP and its components shall be designed to achieve compliance with receiving water limitations. If exceedances of Water Quality Objectives or Water Quality Standards (collectively, Water Quality Standards) persist, notwithstanding implementation of the SQMP and its components and other requirements of this permit, the Permittee shall assure compliance with discharge prohibitions and receiving water limitations by complying with the following procedure: a) Upon a determination by either the Permittee or the Regional Board that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable Water Quality Standard, the Permittee shall promptly notify and thereafter submit a Receiving Water Limitations (RWL) Compliance Report (as 3 [Intentionally left blank] 4 [Intentionally left blank] NPDES CAS004001 - 25 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 described in the Program Reporting Requirements, Section I of the Monitoring and Reporting Program) to the Regional Board that describes BMPs that are currently being implemented and additional BMPs that will be implemented to prevent or reduce any pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedances of Water Quality Standards. This RWL Compliance Report may be incorporated in the annual Storm Water Report and Assessment unless the Regional Board directs an earlier submittal. The RWL Compliance Report shall include an implementation schedule. The Regional Board may require modifications to the RWL Compliance Report. b) Submit any modifications to the RWL Compliance Report required by the Regional Board within 30 days of notification. c) Within 30 days following the approval of the RWL Compliance Report, the Permittee shall revise the SQMP and its components and monitoring program to incorporate the approved modified BMPs that have been and will be implemented, an implementation schedule, and any additional monitoring required. d) Implement the revised SQMP and its components and monitoring program according to the approved schedule. 4. So long as the Permittee has complied with the procedures set forth above and is implementing the revised SQMP and its components, the Permittee does not have to repeat the same procedure for continuing or recurring exceedances of the same receiving water limitations unless directed by the Regional Board to develop additional BMPs. 5. [Intentionally left blank]5 6. During Summer Dry Weather there shall be no discharges of bacteria from MS4s into Marina del Rey Harbor Basins D, E, or F, including Mothers’ Beach that cause or contribute to exceedances of the applicable bacteria objectives. The applicable bacteria objectives include both the single sample and geometric mean bacteria objectives set to protect the Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) beneficial use, as set forth in the Basin Plan.6 5 [Intentionally left blank] 6 Samples collected for determining compliance with the receiving water limitations of Part 2.6 shall be processed in accordance with the sampling procedures and analytical methodology set forth in the Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacterial TMDL Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan dated April 13, 2007 and the Monitoring and Reporting Program CI 6948. NPDES CAS004001 - 26 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Part 3. STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SQMP) IMPLEMENTATION A. General Requirements 1. Each Permittee shall, at a minimum, implement the SQMP. The SQMP is an enforceable element of this Order. The SQMP shall be implemented no later than February 1, 2002, unless a later date has been specified for a particular provision in this Order. 2. The SQMP shall, at a minimum, comply with the applicable storm water program requirements of 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2). The SQMP and its components shall be implemented so as to reduce the discharges of pollutants in storm water to the MEP. 3. Each Permittee shall implement additional controls, where necessary, to reduce the discharges of pollutants in storm water to the MEP. 4. Permittees that modify the countywide SQMP (i.e., implement additional controls, implement different controls than described in the countywide SQMP, or determine that certain BMPs in the countywide SQMP are not applicable in the area under its jurisdiction), shall develop a local SQMP, no later than August 1, 2002. The local SQMP shall be customized to reflect the conditions in the area under the Permittee's jurisdiction and shall specify activities being implemented under the appropriate elements described in the countywide SQMP. B. Best Management Practice Implementation The Permittees shall implement or require the implementation of the most effective combination of BMPs for storm water/urban runoff pollution control. When implemented, BMPs are intended to result in the reduction of pollutants in storm water to the MEP. C. Revision of the Storm Water Quality Management Program The Permittees shall revise the SQMP, at the direction of the Regional Board Executive Officer, to incorporate program implementation amendments so as to comply with regional, watershed specific requirements, and/or waste load allocations developed and approved pursuant to the process for the designation and implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies. D. Designation and Responsibilities of the Principal Permittee The Los Angeles County Flood Control District is hereby designated as the Principal Permittee. As such, the Principal Permittee shall: 1. Coordinate and facilitate activities necessary to comply with the requirements of this Order, but is not responsible for ensuring compliance of any individual Permittee; NPDES CAS004001 - 27 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 2. Coordinate permit activities among Permittees and act as liaison between Permittees and the Regional Board on permitting issues; 3. Provide personnel and fiscal resources for the necessary updates of the SQMP and its components; 4. Provide technical and administrative support for committees that will be organized to implement the SQMP and its components; 5. Convene the Watershed Management Committees (WMCs) constituted pursuant to Part F, below, upon designation of representatives; 6. Implement the Countywide Monitoring Program required under this Order and evaluate, assess and synthesize the results of the monitoring program; 7. Provide personnel and fiscal resources for the collection, processing and submittal to the Regional Board of annual reports and summaries of other reports required under the SQMP; and 8. Comply with the "Responsibilities of the Permittees" in Part 3.E., below. E. Responsibilities of the Permittees Each Permittee is required to comply with the requirements of this Order applicable to discharges within its boundaries (see Findings D.1, D.2. and D.3.) and not for the implementation of the provisions applicable to the Principal Permittee or other Permittees. Each Permittee shall, within its geographic jurisdiction: 1. Comply with the requirements of the SQMP and any modifications thereto; 2. Coordinate among its internal departments and agencies, as appropriate, to facilitate the implementation of the requirements of the SQMP applicable to such Permittee in an efficient and cost-effective manner; 3. Designate a technically knowledgeable representative to the appropriate WMC; 4. Participate in intra-agency coordination (e.g. Fire Department, Building and Safety, Code Enforcement, Public Health, etc.) necessary to successfully implement the provisions of this Order and the SQMP. 5. Prepare an annual Budget Summary of expenditures applied to the storm water management program. This summary shall identify the storm water budget for the following year, using estimated percentages and written explanations where necessary, for the specific categories noted below: a) Program management • Administrative costs b) Program Implementation NPDES CAS004001 - 28 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Where information is available, provide an estimated percent breakdown of expenditures for the categories below: • Illicit connection/illicit discharge • Development planning • Development construction • Construction inspection activities • Industrial/Commercial inspection activities • Public Agency Activities • Maintenance of Structural BMPs and Treatment Control BMPs • Municipal Street Sweeping • Catch basin clean-up • Trash collection • Capital costs c) Public Information and Participation d) Monitoring Program e) Miscellaneous Expenditures 6. Each Permittee, in addition to the Budget Summary, shall report any supplemental dedicated budgets for the same categories. F. Watershed Management Committees (WMCs) 1. Each WMC shall be comprised of a voting representative from each Permittee in the WMA. 2. The WMC’s chair and secretary shall be chosen by the WMC upon Order adoption and on an annual basis, thereafter. In the absence of volunteer Permittee(s) for the positions, the Principal Permittee shall assume those roles until the WMC chooses members of the committee for the positions. 3. Each WMC shall: a) Facilitate cooperation and exchange of information among Permittees; b) Establish additional goals and objectives and associated deadlines for the WMA, as the program implementation progresses; c) Prioritize pollution control efforts based on beneficial use impairment(s), watershed characteristics and analysis of results from studies and the monitoring program; d) Develop and/or update and monitor the adequate implementation, on an annual basis, of the tasks identified for the WMA; e) Assess the effectiveness of, prepare revisions for, and recommend appropriate changes to the SQMP and its components; NPDES CAS004001 - 29 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 f) Continue to prioritize the Industrial/Commercial critical sources for investigation, outreach and follow-up; and g) Meet four times per year and, as necessary. G. Legal Authority 1. Permittees shall possess the necessary legal authority to prohibit non-storm water discharges to the storm drain system, including, but not limited to: a) Illicit discharges and illicit connections and require removal of illicit connections; b) The discharge of wash waters to the MS4 from the cleaning of gas stations, auto repair garages, or other types of automotive service facilities; c) The discharge of runoff to the MS4 from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning, mobile carpet cleaning, and other such mobile commercial and industrial operations; d) The discharge of runoff to the MS4 from areas where repair of machinery and equipment which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; e) The discharge of runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other hazardous substances, and uncovered receptacles containing hazardous materials; f) The discharge of chlorinated/ brominated swimming pool water and filter backwash to the MS4; g) The discharge of runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas to the MS4; h) Washing impervious surfaces in industrial/commercial areas that results in a discharge of runoff to the MS4; i) The discharge of concrete or cement laden wash water from concrete trucks, pumps, tools, and equipment to the MS4; and j) Dumping or disposal of materials into the MS4 other than storm water, such as: (1) Litter, landscape debris and construction debris; (2) Any state or federally banned or unregistered pesticides; (3) Food and food processing wastes; and (4) Fuel and chemical wastes, animal wastes, garbage, batteries, and other materials that have potential adverse impacts on water quality. NPDES CAS004001 - 30 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 2. The Permittees shall possess adequate legal authority to: a) Require persons within their jurisdiction to comply with conditions in Permittees' ordinances, permits, contracts, model programs, or orders (i.e. hold dischargers to its MS4 accountable for their contributions of pollutants and flows); b) Utilize enforcement mechanisms to require compliance with Permittees ordinances, permits, contracts, or orders; c) Control pollutants, including potential contribution, in discharges of storm water runoff associated with industrial activities (including construction activities) to its MS4 and control the quality of storm water runoff from industrial sites (including construction sites). This requirement applies to Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs; d) Carry out all inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance and non-compliance with permit conditions, including the prohibition of illicit discharges to the MS4. Permittees must possess authority to enter, sample, inspect, review and copy records, and require regular reports from industrial facilities (including construction sites) discharging polluted or with the potential to discharge polluted storm water runoff into its MS4; e) Require the use of BMPs to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to MS4s to MEP; and f) Require that Treatment Control BMPs be properly operated and maintained to prevent the breeding of vectors. 3. Each Permittee shall, no later than November 1, 2002, amend and adopt (if necessary), a Permittee-specific storm water and urban runoff ordinance to enforce all requirements of this permit. 4. Each Permittee shall submit no later than December 2, 2002, a new or updated statement by its legal counsel that the Permittee has obtained all necessary legal authority to comply with this Order through adoption of ordinances and/or municipal code modifications. Part 4. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Maximum Extent Practicable Standard This permit, and the provisions herein, are intended to develop, achieve, and implement a timely, comprehensive, cost-effective storm water pollution control program to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water to the MEP from the permitted areas in the County of Los Angeles to the waters of the State. NPDES CAS004001 - 31 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 A. General Requirements 1. Best Management Practice Substitution The Regional Board Executive Officer may approve any site-specific BMP substitution upon petition by a Permittee(s), if the Permittee can document that: a) The proposed alternative BMP or program will meet or exceed the objective of the original BMP or program in the reduction of storm water pollutants; or b) The fiscal burden of the original BMP or program is substantially greater than the proposed alternative and does not achieve a substantially greater improvement in storm water quality; and, c) The proposed alternative BMP or program will be implemented within a similar period of time. B. Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) The Principal Permittee shall implement a Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) that includes, but is not limited to, the requirements listed in this section. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for developing and implementing the Public Education Program, as described in the SQMP, and shall coordinate with Permittees to implement specific requirements. The objectives of the PIPP are as follows: • To measurably increase the knowledge of the target audiences regarding the MS4, the impacts of storm water pollution on receiving waters, and potential solutions to mitigate the problems caused; • To measurably change the waste disposal and runoff pollution generation behavior of target audiences by encouraging implementation of appropriate solutions; and • To involve and engage socio-economic groups and ethnic communities in Los Angeles County to participate in mitigating the impacts of storm water pollution. The Principal Permittee shall convene an advisory committee to provide input and assistance in meeting the goals and objectives of the public education campaign. The advisory committee shall be consulted during the process of developing the PIPP campaign, and shall provide comments and advice during the process of preparing a Request For Proposals for a storm water public education contractor. The committee may participate as a part of a working group that evaluates contractor proposals and other tasks as appropriate. The committee shall be comprised of representatives of the environmental community, Permittee cities, Regional Board staff, and experts in the fields of public education and marketing. The Principal Permittee shall ensure that the committee meets at least once a year. NPDES CAS004001 - 32 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 1. Residential Program a) "No Dumping" Message Each Permittee shall mark all storm drain inlets that they own with a legible “no dumping” message. In addition, signs with prohibitive language discouraging illegal dumping must be posted at designated public access points to creeks, other relevant water bodies, and channels no later than February 2, 2004. Signage and storm drain messages shall be legible and maintained as necessary during the term of the permit. b) Countywide Hotline The 888-CLEAN-LA hotline will serve as the general public reporting contact for reporting clogged catch basin inlets and illicit discharges/dumping, faded or lack of catch basin stencils, and general storm water management information. Each Permittee may establish its own hotline if preferred. Permittees shall include this information, updated when necessary, in public information, and the government pages of the telephone book, as they are developed or published. The Principal Permittee shall compile a list of the general public reporting contacts from all Permittees and make this information available on the web site (888CleanLA.com) and upon request. Permittees shall provide the Principal Permittee with their reporting contacts no later than March 1, 2002. Permittees are responsible for providing current, updated information to the Principal Permittee. c) Outreach and Education (1) The Principal Permittee shall continue to implement the following activities that were components of the first five- year PIPP: (i) Advertising; (ii) Media relations; (iii) Public service announcements; (iv) "How To" instructional material distributed in a targeted and activity-related manner; (v) Corporate, community association, environmental organization and entertainment industry tie-ins; and (vi) Events targeted to specific activities and population subgroups. (2) The Principal Permittee shall develop a strategy to educate ethnic communities and businesses through culturally effective methods. Details of this strategy should be incorporated into the Public Education Program, and implemented, no later than February 3, 2003. NPDES CAS004001 - 33 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (3) The Principal Permittee shall enhance the existing outreach efforts to residents and businesses related to the proper disposal of cigarette butts. (4) Each Permittee shall conduct educational activities within its jurisdiction and participate in countywide events. (5) The Principal Permittee shall organize Public Outreach Strategy meetings for Permittees on a quarterly basis, beginning no later than May 1, 2002. The Principal Permittee shall provide guidance for Permittees to augment the countywide outreach and education program. Permittees shall coordinate regional and local outreach and education to reduce duplication of efforts. Permittees are encouraged to include other interested parties in the outreach strategy to strengthen and coordinate educational efforts. (6) The Principal Permittee shall ensure that a minimum of 35 million impressions per year are made on the general public about storm water quality via print, local TV access, local radio, or other appropriate media. (7) The Principal Permittee, in cooperation with the Permittees, shall provide schools within each School District in the County with materials, including, but not limited to, videos, live presentations, and other information necessary to educate a minimum of 50 percent of all school children (K-12) every 2 years on storm water pollution. (8) Permittees shall provide the contact information for their appropriate staff responsible for storm water public education activities to the Principal Permittee no later than April 1, 2002, and changes to contact information no later than 30 days after a change occurs. (9) The Principal Permittee shall develop a strategy to measure the effectiveness of in-school educational programs. The protocol shall include assessment of students' knowledge of storm water pollution problems and solutions before and after educational efforts are conducted. The protocol shall be developed and submitted to the Regional Board Executive Officer for approval no later than May 1, 2002. It shall be implemented upon approval. (10) In order to ensure that the PIPP is demonstrably effective in changing the behavior of the public, the Principal Permittee shall develop a behavioral change assessment strategy no later than May 1, 2002. The strategy shall be developed based on sociological data and studies (such NPDES CAS004001 - 34 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 as the County Segmentation Study). The Principal Permittee shall submit the assessment strategy to the Regional Board Executive Office for approval. It shall be implemented on approval. d) Pollutant-Specific Outreach The Principal Permittee, in cooperation with Permittees, shall coordinate to develop outreach programs that focus on the watershed-specific pollutants listed in Table 1 no later than February 3, 2003. Metals may be appropriately addressed through the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program (e.g. distribute education materials on appropriate BMPs for metal waste management to facilities that have been identified as a potential source, such as metal fabricating facilities). Region-wide pollutants may be included in the Principal Permittee's mass media outreach efforts. Table 1. Watershed Target Pollutants for Outreach Ballona Creek Trash, Indicator Bacteria, Metals, PAHs Malibu Creek Trash, Nutrients (Nitrogen), Indicator Bacteria, Sediments Los Angeles River Trash, Nutrients (Nitrogen), Indicator Bacteria, Metals, Pesticides, PAHs San Gabriel River Trash, Nutrients (Nitrogen), Indicator Bacteria, Metals Santa Clara River Nutrients (Nitrogen), Coliform Dominguez Channel Trash, Indicator Bacteria, PAHs Each Permittee shall make outreach materials available to the general public and target audiences, such as schools, community groups, contractors and developers, and at appropriate public counters and events. Outreach material shall include information on pollutants, sources of concern, and source abatement measures. 2. Businesses Program a) Corporate Outreach The Principal Permittee shall develop and implement a Corporate Outreach program to educate and inform corporate managers about storm water regulations. The program shall target RGOs and restaurant chains. At a minimum, this program shall include: (1) Conferring with corporate management to explain storm water regulations; (2) Distribution and discussion of educational material regarding storm water pollution and BMPs, and provide NPDES CAS004001 - 35 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 managers with suggestions to facilitate employee compliance with storm water regulations. Corporate Outreach for all RGOs and restaurant chain corporations shall be conducted not less than twice during the permit term, with the first outreach contact to begin no later than February 3, 2003. b) Business Assistance Program The Principal Permittee and Permittees may implement a Business Assistance Program to provide technical resource assistance to small businesses to advise them on BMPs implementation to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. Programs may include: (1) On-site technical assistance or consultation via telephone to identify and implement storm water pollution prevention methods and best management practices; and (2) Making available, distributing, and discussing of applicable BMP and educational materials. C. Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program Each Permittee shall require implementation of pollutant reduction and control measures at industrial and commercial facilities, with the objective of reducing pollutants in storm water runoff. Except as specified in other sections of this Order, pollutant reduction and control measures can be used alone or in combination, and can include Structural and Source Control BMPs, and operation and maintenance procedures, which can be applied before, during, and/or after pollution generating activities. At a minimum, the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program shall include requirements to: (1) track, (2) inspect, and (3) ensure compliance at industrial and commercial facilities that are critical sources of pollutants in storm water. 1. Track Critical Sources a) Each Permittee shall maintain a watershed-based inventory or database of all facilities within its jurisdiction that are critical sources of storm water pollution. Critical sources to be tracked are summarized below, and also specified in Attachment B: (1) Commercial Facilities • restaurants; • automotive service facilities; and • RGOs and automotive dealerships. (2) USEPA Phase I Facilities (Tier 1 and 2) (3) Other Federally-mandated Facilities [as specified in 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C)] NPDES CAS004001 - 36 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 • municipal landfills; • hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recovery facilities; and • facilities subject to SARA Title III (also known as EPCRA). b) Each Permittee shall include the following minimum fields of information for each industrial and commercial facility: • name of facility and name of owner/operator; • address; • coverage under the GIASP or other individual or general NPDES permits; and • a narrative description including SIC codes that best reflects the industrial activities at and principal products of each facility. The Regional Board encourages Permittees to add other fields of information, such as material usage and/or industrial output, and discrepancies between SIC Code designations (as reported by facility operators) and the actual type of industrial activity has the potential to pollute storm water. In addition, the Regional Board recommends use of an automated database system, such as a Geographical Information System (GIS) or Internet-based system; however, this is not required. c) Each Permittee shall update its inventory of critical sources at least annually. The update may be accomplished through collection of new information obtained through field activities or through other readily available intra-agency informational databases (e.g. business licenses, pretreatment permits, sanitary sewer hook-up permits). 2. Inspect Critical Sources Each Permittee shall inspect all facilities in the categories and at a level and frequency as specified in the following subsections. a) Commercial Facilities (1) Restaurants Frequency of Inspections: Twice during the 5-year term of the Order, provided that the first inspection occurs no later than August 1, 2004, and that there is a minimum interval of one year in between the first compliance inspection and the second compliance inspection. Level of inspections: Each Permittee, in cooperation with its appropriate department (such as health or public works), shall inspect all restaurants within its jurisdiction to confirm that storm water BMPs are being effectively NPDES CAS004001 - 37 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 implemented in compliance with State law, County and municipal ordinances, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and the SQMP. At each restaurant, inspectors shall verify that the restaurant operator: • has received educational materials on storm water pollution prevention practices; • does not pour oil and grease or oil and grease residue onto a parking lot, street or adjacent catch basin; • keeps the trash bin area clean and trash bin lids closed, and does not fill trash bins with washout water or any other liquid; • does not allow illicit discharges, such as discharge of washwater from floormats, floors, porches, parking lots, alleys, sidewalks and street areas (in the immediate vicinity of the establishment), filters or garbage/trash containers; • removes food waste, rubbish or other materials from parking lot areas in a sanitary manner that does not create a nuisance or discharge to the storm drain. (2) Automotive Service Facilities Frequency of Inspections: Twice during the 5-year term of the Order, provided that the first inspection occurs no later than August 1, 2004, and that there is a minimum interval of one year in between the first compliance inspection and the second compliance inspection. Level of inspections: Each Permittee shall inspect all automotive service facilities within its jurisdiction to confirm that storm water BMPs are effectively implemented in compliance with County and municipal ordinances, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and the SQMP. At each automotive service facility, inspectors shall verify that each operator: • maintains the facility area so that it is clean and dry and without evidence of excessive staining; • implements housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills and leaks; • properly discharges wastewaters to a sanitary sewer and/or contains wastewaters for transfer to a legal point of disposal; • is aware of the prohibition on discharge of non-storm water to the storm drain; • properly manages raw and waste materials including proper disposal of hazardous waste; NPDES CAS004001 - 38 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 • protects outdoor work and storage areas to prevent contact of pollutants with rainfall and runoff; • labels, inspects, and routinely cleans storm drain inlets that are located on the facility’s property; and • trains employees to implement storm water pollution prevention practices. (3) Retail Gasoline Outlets and Automotive Dealerships Frequency of Inspection: Twice during the 5-year term of the Order, provided that the first inspection occurs no later than August 1, 2004, and that there is a minimum interval of one year in between the first compliance inspection and the second compliance inspection. Level of Inspection: Each Permittee shall confirm that BMPs are being effectively implemented at each RGO and automotive dealership within its jurisdiction, in compliance with the SQMP, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and the Stormwater Quality Task Force Best Management Practice Guide for RGOs. At each RGO and automotive dealership, inspectors shall verify that each operator: • routinely sweeps fuel-dispensing areas for removal of litter and debris, and keeps rags and absorbents ready for use in case of leaks and spills; • is aware that washdown of facility area to the storm drain is prohibited; • is aware of design flaws (such as grading that doesn’t prevent run-on, or inadequate roof covers and berms), and that equivalent BMPs are implemented; • inspects and cleans storm drain inlets and catch basins within each facility’s boundaries no later than October 1st of each year; • posts signs close to fuel dispensers, which warn vehicle owners/operators against “topping off” of vehicle fuel tanks and installation of automatic shutoff fuel dispensing nozzles; • routinely checks outdoor waste receptacle and air/water supply areas, cleans leaks and drips, and ensures that only watertight waste receptacles are used and that lids are closed; and • trains employees to properly manage hazardous materials and wastes as well as to implement other storm water pollution prevention practices. NPDES CAS004001 - 39 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 b) Phase I Facilities Permittees need not inspect facilities that have been inspected by the Regional Board within the past 24 months. For the remaining Phase I facilities that the Regional Board has not inspected, each Permittee shall conduct compliance inspections as specified below. Frequency of Inspection Facilities in Tier 1 Categories: Twice during the 5-year term of the Order, provided that the first inspection occurs no later than August 1, 2004, and that there is a minimum interval of one year in between the first compliance inspection and the second compliance inspection. Facilities in Tier 2 Categories: Twice during the 5-year term of the permit, provided that the first inspection occurs no later than August 1, 2004. Permittees need not perform additional inspections at those facilities determined to have no risk of exposure of industrial activity to storm water. For those facilities that do have exposure of industrial activities to storm water, a Permittee may reduce the frequency of additional compliance inspections to once every 5 years, provided that the Permittee inspects at least 20% of the facilities in Tier 2 each year. Level of Inspection: Each Permittee shall confirm that each operator: • has a current Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number for facilities discharging storm water associated with industrial activity, and that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is available on-site, and • is effectively implementing BMPs in compliance with County and municipal ordinances, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and the SQMP. c) Other Federally-mandated Facilities Frequency of Inspection: Twice during the 5-year term of the Order, provided that the first inspection occurs no later than August 1, 2004, and that there is a minimum interval of one year in between the first compliance inspection and the second compliance inspection. Level of Inspection: Each Permittee shall confirm that each operator: NPDES CAS004001 - 40 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 • has a current Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number for facilities discharging storm water associated with industrial activity, and that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is available on-site, and • is effectively implementing BMPs in compliance with County and municipal ordinances, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and the SQMP. 3. Ensure Compliance of Critical Sources a) BMP Implementation: In the event that a Permittee determines that a BMP specified by the SQMP or Regional Board Resolution 98-08 is infeasible at any site, that Permittee shall require implementation of other BMPs that will achieve the equivalent reduction of pollutants in the storm water discharges. Likewise, for those BMPs that are not adequate to achieve water quality objectives, Permittees may require additional site-specific controls, such as Treatment Control BMPs. b) Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Impaired Waters: For critical sources that are in ESAs or that are tributary to CWA § 303(d) impaired water bodies, Permittees shall consider requiring operators to implement additional controls to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff that are causing or contributing to the exceedences of Water Quality Objectives. c) Progressive Enforcement: Each Permittee shall implement a progressive enforcement policy to ensure that facilities are brought into compliance with all storm water requirements within a reasonable time period as specified below. (1) In the event that a Permittee determines, based on an inspection conducted above, that an operator has failed to adequately implement all necessary BMPs, that Permittee shall take progressive enforcement action which, at a minimum, shall include a follow-up inspection within 4 weeks from the date of the initial inspection. (2) In the event that a Permittee determines that an operator has failed to adequately implement BMPs after a follow-up inspection, that Permittee shall take further enforcement action as established through authority in its municipal code and ordinances or through the judicial system. (3) Each Permittee shall maintain records, including inspection reports, warning letters, notices of violations, and other enforcement records, demonstrating a good faith effort to bring facilities into compliance. NPDES CAS004001 - 41 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 d) Interagency Coordination (1) Referral of Violations of the SQMP, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and Municipal Storm Water Ordinances: A Permittee may refer a violation(s) to the Regional Board provided that that Permittee has made a good faith effort of progressive enforcement. At a minimum, a Permittee’s good faith effort must include documentation of: • Two follow-up inspections, and • Two warning letters or notices of violation. (2) Referral of Violations of the GIASP, including Requirements to File a Notice of Intent: For those facilities in violation of the GIASP, Permittees may escalate referral of such violations to the Regional Board after one inspection and one written notice to the operator regarding the violation. In making such referrals, Permittees shall include, at a minimum, the following documentation: • Name of the facility; • Operator of the facility; • Owner of the facility; • Industrial activity being conducted at the facility that is subject to the GIASP; and • Records of communication with the facility operator regarding the violation, which shall include at least an inspection report and one written notice of the violation. Permittees shall, at a minimum, make such referrals on a quarterly basis. (3) Investigation of Complaints Regarding Facilities – Transmitted by the Regional Board Staff: Each Permittee shall initiate, within one business day, investigation of complaints (other than non-storm water discharges) regarding facilities within its jurisdiction. The initial investigation shall include, at a minimum, a limited inspection of the facility to confirm the complaint to determine if the facility is effectively complying with the SQMP and municipal storm water/urban runoff ordinances, and to oversee corrective action. (4) Support of Regional Board Enforcement Actions: As directed by the Regional Board Executive Officer, Permittees shall support Regional Board enforcement actions by: assisting in identification of current owners, operators, and lessees of facilities; providing staff, when available, for joint inspections with Regional Board NPDES CAS004001 - 42 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 inspectors; appearing as witnesses in Regional Board enforcement hearings; and providing copies of inspection reports and other progressive enforcement documentation. (5) Participation in a Task Force: The Permittees, Regional Board, and other stakeholders may form a Storm Water Task Force, the purpose of which is to communicate concerns regarding special cases of storm water violations by industrial and commercial facilities and to develop a coordinated approach to enforcement action. D. Development Planning Program The Permittees shall implement a development-planning program that will require all Planning Priority development and Redevelopment projects to: • Minimize impacts from storm water and urban runoff on the biological integrity of Natural Drainage Systems and water bodies in accordance with requirements under CEQA (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21100), CWC § 13369, CWA § 319, CWA § 402(p), CWA § 404, CZARA § 6217(g), ESA § 7, and local government ordinances ; • Maximize the percentage of pervious surfaces to allow percolation of storm water into the ground; • Minimize the quantity of storm water directed to impervious surfaces and the MS4; • Minimize pollution emanating from parking lots through the use of appropriate Treatment Control BMPs and good housekeeping practices; • Properly design and maintain Treatment Control BMPs in a manner that does not promote the breeding of vectors; and • Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the development site. 1. Peak Flow Control The Permittees shall control post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates, velocities, and duration (peak flow control) in Natural Drainage Systems (i.e., mimic pre-development hydrology) to prevent accelerated stream erosion and to protect stream habitat. Natural Drainage Systems are located in the following areas: a) Malibu Creek; b) Topanga Canyon Creek; c) Upper Los Angeles River; d) Upper San Gabriel River; NPDES CAS004001 - 43 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 e) Santa Clara River; and f) Los Angeles County Coastal streams (see Basin Plan Table 2-1). The Principal Permittee in consultation with Permittees shall develop numerical criteria for peak flow control, based on the results of the Peak Discharge Impact Study (see Monitoring Program Section II.I). Each Permittee shall, no later than February 1, 2005, implement numerical criteria for peak flow control. A Permittee or group of Permittees may substitute for the countywide peak flow control criteria with a Hydromodification Control Plan (HCP), on approval by the Regional Board, in the following circumstances: (1) Stream or watershed-specific conditions indicate the need for a different peak flow control criteria, and the alternative numerical criteria is developed through the application of hydrologic modeling and supporting field observations; or (2) A watershed-wide plan has been developed for implementation of control measures to reduce erosion and stabilize drainage systems on a watershed basis. 2. Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) a) Each Permittee shall amend codes and ordinances not later than August 1, 2002 to give legal effect to SUSMP changes contained in this Order. Changes to SUSMP requirements shall take effect not later than September 2, 2002. b) Each Permittee shall require that a single-family hillside home: (1) Conserve natural areas; (2) Protect slopes and channels; (3) Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage; (4) Divert roof runoff to vegetated areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability; and (5) Direct surface flow to vegetated areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability. c) Each Permittee shall require that a SUSMP as approved by the Regional Board in Board Resolution No. R 00-02 be implemented for the following categories of developments: (1) Ten or more unit homes (includes single family homes, multifamily homes, condominiums, and apartments); (2) A 100,000 or more square feet of impervious surface area industrial/ commercial development; NPDES CAS004001 - 44 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (3) Automotive service facilities (SIC 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, and 7536-7539); (4) Retail gasoline outlets; (5) Restaurants (SIC 5812); (6) Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more of surface area or with 25 or more parking spaces; and (7) Redevelopment projects in subject categories that meet Redevelopment thresholds. d) Each Permittee shall submit an ESA Delineation Map for its jurisdictional boundary, based on the Regional Board’s ESA Definition, no later than June 3, 2002, for approval by the Regional Board Executive Officer in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Coastal Commission. e) Each Permittee shall require the implementation of SUSMP provisions no later than September 2, 2002, for all projects located in or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA, where the development will: (1) Discharge storm water and urban runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and (2) Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface area. 3. Numerical Design Criteria The Permittees shall require that post-construction Treatment Control BMPs incorporate, at a minimum, either a volumetric or flow based treatment control design standard, or both, as identified below to mitigate (infiltrate, filter or treat) storm water runoff: a) Volumetric Treatment Control BMP (1) The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined as the maximized capture storm water volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or (2) The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook – Industrial/ Commercial, (1993); or NPDES CAS004001 - 45 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (3) The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch storm event, prior to its discharge to a storm water conveyance system; or (4) The volume of runoff produced from a historical-record based reference 24-hour rainfall criterion for “treatment” (0.75 inch average for the Los Angeles County area) that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads achieved by the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. b) Flow Based Treatment Control BMP (1) The flow of runoff produced from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity; or (2) The flow of runoff produced from a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for Los Angeles County; or (3) The flow of runoff produced from a rain event that will result in treatment of the same portion of runoff as treated using volumetric standards above. 4. Applicability of Numerical Design Criteria The Permittees shall require the following categories of Planning Priority Projects to design and implement post-construction treatment controls to mitigate storm water pollution: a) Single-family hillside residential developments of one acre or more of surface area; b) Housing developments (includes single family homes, multifamily homes, condominiums, and apartments) of ten units or more; c) A 100,000 square feet or more impervious surface area industrial/ commercial development; d) Automotive service facilities (SIC 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534 and 7536-7539) [5,000 square feet or more of surface area]; e) Retail gasoline outlets [5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area and with projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles]. Subsurface Treatment Control BMPs which may endanger public safety (i.e., create an explosive environment) are considered not appropriate; f) Restaurants (SIC 5812) [5,000 square feet or more of surface area]; g) Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more of surface area or with 25 or more parking spaces; NPDES CAS004001 - 46 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 h) Projects located in, adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA that meet threshold conditions identified above in 2.e; and i) Redevelopment projects in subject categories that meet Redevelopment thresholds. 5. Not later than March 10, 2003, each Permittee shall require the implementation of SUSMP and post-construction control requirements for the industrial/commercial development category to projects that disturb one acre or more of surface area. 6. Site Specific Mitigation Each Permittee shall, no later than September 2, 2002, require the implementation of a site-specific plan to mitigate post-development storm water for new development and redevelopment not requiring a SUSMP but which may potentially have adverse impacts on post-development storm water quality, where one or more of the following project characteristics exist: a) Vehicle or equipment fueling areas; b) Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, including washing and repair; c) Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage; d) Outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials; e) Outdoor manufacturing areas; f) Outdoor food handling or processing; g) Outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter; or h) Outdoor horticulture activities. 7. Redevelopment Projects The Permittees shall apply the SUSMP, or site specific requirements including post-construction storm water mitigation to all Planning Priority Projects that undergo significant Redevelopment in their respective categories. a) Significant Redevelopment means land-disturbing activity that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Where Redevelopment results in an alteration to more than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post development storm water quality control requirements, the entire project must be mitigated. Where Redevelopment results in an alteration to less than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of NPDES CAS004001 - 47 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post development storm water quality control requirements, only the alteration must be mitigated, and not the entire development. b) Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of facility or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. c) Existing single family structures are exempt from the Redevelopment requirements. 8. Maintenance Agreement and Transfer Each Permittee shall require that all developments subject to SUSMP and site specific plan requirements provide verification of maintenance provisions for Structural and Treatment Control BMPs, including but not limited to legal agreements, covenants, CEQA mitigation requirements, and or conditional use permits. Verification at a minimum shall include: a) The developer's signed statement accepting responsibility for maintenance until the responsibility is legally transferred; and either b) A signed statement from the public entity assuming responsibility for Structural or Treatment Control BMP maintenance and that it meets all local agency design standards; or c) Written conditions in the sales or lease agreement, which requires the recipient to assume responsibility for maintenance and conduct a maintenance inspection at least once a year; or d) Written text in project conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) for residential properties assigning maintenance responsibilities to the Home Owners Association for maintenance of the Structural and Treatment Control BMPs; or e) Any other legally enforceable agreement that assigns responsibility for the maintenance of post-construction Structural or Treatment Control BMPs. 9. Regional Storm Water Mitigation Program A Permittee or Permittee group may apply to the Regional Board for approval of a regional or sub-regional storm water mitigation program to substitute in part or wholly SUSMP requirements. Upon review and a determination by the Regional Board Executive Officer that the proposal is technically valid and appropriate, the Regional Board may consider for approval such a program if its implementation will: a) Result in equivalent or improved storm water quality; NPDES CAS004001 - 48 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 b) Protect stream habitat; c) Promote cooperative problem solving by diverse interests; d) Be fiscally sustainable and has secure funding; and e) Be completed in five years including the construction and start-up of treatment facilities. Nothing in this provision shall be construed as to delay the implementation of SUSMP requirements, as approved in this Order. 10. Mitigation Funding The Permittees may propose a management framework, for endorsement by the Regional Board Executive Officer, to support regional or sub- regional solutions to storm water pollution, where any of the following situations occur: a) A waiver for impracticability is granted; b) Legislative funds become available; c) Off-site mitigation is required because of loss of environmental habitat; or d) An approved watershed management plan or a regional storm water mitigation plan exists that incorporates an equivalent or improved strategy for storm water mitigation. 11. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Document Update Each Permittee shall incorporate into its CEQA process, with immediate effect, procedures for considering potential storm water quality impacts and providing for appropriate mitigation when preparing and reviewing CEQA documents. The procedures shall require consideration of the following: a) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff; b) Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm water runoff; c) Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas; d) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit; e) Potential for the discharge of storm water to cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies; NPDES CAS004001 - 49 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 f) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm; and g) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. 12. General Plan Update a) Each Permittee shall amend, revise or update its General Plan to include watershed and storm water quality and quantity management considerations and policies when any of the following General Plan elements are updated or amended: (i) Land Use, (ii) Housing, (iii) Conservation, and (iv) Open Space. b) Each Permittee shall provide the Regional Board with the draft amendment or revision when a listed General Plan element or the General Plan is noticed for comment in accordance with Cal. Govt. Code § 65350 et seq. 13. Targeted Employee Training Each Permittee shall train its employees in targeted positions (whose jobs or activities are engaged in development planning) regarding the development planning requirements on an annual basis beginning no later than August 1, 2002, and more frequently if necessary. For Permittees with a population of 250,000 or more (2000 U.S. Census), training shall be completed no later than February 3, 2003. 14. Developer Technical Guidance and Information a) Each Permittee shall develop and make available to the developer community SUSMP (development planning) guidelines immediately. b) The Principal Permittee in partnership with Permittees shall issue no later than February 2, 2004, a technical manual for the siting and design of BMPs for the development community in Los Angeles County. The technical manual may be adapted from the revised California Storm Water Quality Task Force Best Management Practices Handbooks scheduled for publication in September 2002. The technical manual shall at a minimum include: (1) Treatment Control BMPs based on flow-based and volumetric water quality design criteria for the purposes of countywide consistency; (2) Peak Flow Control criteria to control peak discharge rates, velocities and duration; (3) Expected pollutant removal performance ranges obtained from national databases, technical reports and the scientific literature; NPDES CAS004001 - 50 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (4) Maintenance considerations; and (5) Cost considerations. E. Development Construction Program 1. Each Permittee shall implement a program to control runoff from construction activity at all construction sites within its jurisdiction. The program shall ensure the following minimum requirements are effectively implemented at all construction sites: a) Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate Treatment Control or Structural BMPs; b) Construction-related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff; c) Non-storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and d) Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes. 2. For construction sites one acre and greater, each Permittee shall comply with all conditions in section E.1. above and shall: a) Require the preparation and submittal of a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Local SWPPP), for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for construction projects. The Local SWPPP shall include appropriate construction site BMPs and maintenance schedules. (A Local SWPPP may substitute for the State SWPPP if the Local SWPPP is at least as inclusive in controls and BMPs as the State SWPPP). The Local SWPPP must include the rationale used for selecting or rejecting BMPs. The project architect, or engineer of record, or authorized qualified designee, must sign a statement on the Local SWPPP to the effect: “As the architect/engineer of record, I have selected appropriate BMPs to effectively minimize the negative impacts of this project’s construction activities on storm water quality. The project owner and contractor are aware that the selected BMPs must be installed, monitored, and maintained to ensure their effectiveness. The BMPs not selected for implementation are redundant or deemed not applicable to the proposed construction activity.” NPDES CAS004001 - 51 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 The landowner or the landowner’s agent shall sign a statement to the effect: “I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to update the Local SWPPP to reflect current conditions, or failing to properly and/or adequately implement the Local SWPPP may result in revocation of grading and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.” The Local SWPPP certification shall be signed by the landowner as follows, for a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer which means (a) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager of the construction activity if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures; for a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor; or for a municipality or other public agency: by an elected official, a ranking management official (e.g., County Administrative Officer, City Manager, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, District Manager), or the manager of the construction activity if authority to sign Local SWPPPs has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with established agency policy. b) Inspect all construction sites for storm water quality requirements during routine inspections a minimum of once during the wet season. The Local SWPPP shall be reviewed for compliance with local codes, ordinances, and permits. For inspected sites that have not adequately implemented their Local SWPPP, a follow-up inspection to ensure compliance will take place within 2 weeks. If compliance has not been attained, the Permittee will take additional actions to achieve compliance (as specified in municipal codes). If compliance has not been achieved, and the site is also covered under a statewide general construction storm water permit, each Permittee shall enforce their local ordinance requirements, and if non-compliance continues the Regional Board shall be notified for further joint enforcement actions. c) Require, no later than March 10, 2003, prior to issuing a grading permit for all projects less than five acres requiring coverage under a statewide general construction storm water permit, proof of a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) Number for filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage and a certification that a NPDES CAS004001 - 52 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 SWPPP has been prepared by the project developer. A Local SWPPP may substitute for the State SWPPP if the Local SWPPP is at least as inclusive in controls and BMPs as the State SWPPP. 3. For sites five acres and greater, each Permittee shall comply with all conditions in Sections E.1. and E.2. and shall: a) Require, prior to issuing a grading permit for all projects requiring coverage under the state general permit, proof of a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) Number for filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the GCASP and a certification that a SWPPP has been prepared by the project developer. A Local SWPPP may substitute for the State SWPPP if the Local SWPPP is at least as inclusive in controls and BMPs as the State SWPPP. b) Require proof of an NOI and a copy of the SWPPP at any time a transfer of ownership takes place for the entire development or portions of the common plan of development where construction activities are still on-going. c) Use an effective system to track grading permits issued by each Permittee. To satisfy this requirement, the use of a database or GIS system is encouraged, but not required. 4. GCASP Violation Referrals a) Referral of Violations of the SQMP, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, and municipal storm water ordinances: A Permittee may refer a violation(s) to the Regional Board provided that the Permittee has made a good faith effort of progressive enforcement. At a minimum, a Permittee's good faith effort must include documentation of: • Two follow-up inspections within 3 months, and • Two warning letters or notices of violation. b) Referral of Violations of GCASP Filing Requirements: For those projects subject to the GCASP, Permittees shall refer non-filers (i.e., those projects which cannot demonstrate that they have a WDID number) to the Regional Board, within 15 days of making a determination. In making such referrals, Permittees shall include, at a minimum, the following documentation: • Project location; • Developer; • Estimated project size; and • Records of communication with the developer regarding filing requirements. 5. Each Permittee shall train employees in targeted positions (whose jobs or activities are engaged in construction activities including construction inspection staff) regarding the requirements of the storm water management program no later than August 1, 2002, and annually NPDES CAS004001 - 53 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 thereafter. For Permittees with a population of 250,000 or more (2000 U.S. Census), initial training shall be completed no later than February 3, 2003. Each Permittee shall maintain a list of trained employees. F. Public Agency Activities Program Each Permittee shall implement a Public Agency program to minimize storm water pollution impacts from public agency activities. Public Agency requirements consist of: •••• Sewage Systems Maintenance, Overflow, and Spill Prevention •••• Public Construction Activities Management •••• Vehicle Maintenance/Material Storage Facilities/Corporation Yards Management •••• Landscape and Recreational Facilities Management •••• Storm Drain Operation and Management •••• Streets and Roads Maintenance •••• Parking Facilities Management • Public Industrial Activities Management • Emergency Procedures • Treatment Feasibility Study 1. Sewage System Maintenance, Overflow, and Spill Prevention a) Each Permittee shall implement a response plan for overflows of the sanitary sewer system within their respective jurisdiction, which shall consist at a minimum of the following: (1) Investigation of any complaints received; (2) Upon notification, immediate response to overflows for containment; and (3) Notification to appropriate sewer and public health agencies when a sewer overflows to the MS4. b) In addition to 1.a.1, 1.a.2, and 1.a.3 above, for those Permittees, which own and/or operate a sanitary sewer system, the Permittee shall also implement the following requirements: (1) Procedures to prevent sewage spills or leaks from sewage facilities from entering the MS4; and (2) Identify, repair, and remediate sanitary sewer blockages, exfiltration, overflow, and wet weather overflows from sanitary sewers to the MS4. NPDES CAS004001 - 54 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 2. Public Construction Activities Management a) Each Permittee shall implement the Development Planning Program requirements (Permit Part 4.D) at public construction projects. b) Each Permittee shall implement the Development Construction Program requirements (Permit Part 4.E) at Permittee owned construction sites. c) Each Permittee shall obtain coverage under the GCASP for public construction sites 5 acres or greater (or part of a larger area of development) except that a municipality under 100,000 in population (1990 U.S. Census) need not obtain coverage under a separate permit until March 10, 2003. d) Each Permittee, no later than March 10, 2003, shall obtain coverage under a statewide general construction storm water permit for public construction sites for projects between one and five acres. 3. Vehicle Maintenance/Material Storage Facilities/Corporation Yards Management a) Each Permittee, consistent with the SQMP, shall implement SWPPPs for public vehicle maintenance facilities, material storage facilities, and corporation yards which have the potential to discharge pollutants into storm water. b) Each Permittee shall implement BMPs to minimize pollutant discharges in storm water including but not be limited to: (1) Good housekeeping practices; (2) Material storage control; (3) Vehicle leaks and spill control; and (4) Illicit discharge control. c) Each Permittee shall implement the following measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the MS4: (1) For existing facilities, that are not already plumbed to the sanitary sewer, all vehicle and equipment wash areas (except for fire stations) shall either be: (i) Self-contained; (ii) Equipped with a clarifier; (iii) Equipped with an alternative pre-treatment device; or NPDES CAS004001 - 55 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (iv) Plumbed to the sanitary sewer. (2) For new facilities, or during redevelopment of existing facilities (including fire stations), all vehicle and equipment wash areas shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer and be equipped with a pre-treatment device in accordance with requirements of the sewer agency. 4. Landscape and Recreational Facilities Management Each Permittee shall implement the following requirements: a) A standardized protocol for the routine and non-routine application of pesticides, herbicides (including pre-emergents), and fertilizers; b) Consistency with State Board’s guidelines and monitoring requirements for application of aquatic pesticides to surface waters (WQ Order No. 2001-12 DWQ); c) Ensure no application of pesticides or fertilizers immediately before, during, or immediately after a rain event or when water is flowing off the area to be applied; d) Ensure that no banned or unregistered pesticides are stored or applied; e) Ensure that staff applying pesticides are certified by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, or are under the direct supervision of a certified pesticide applicator; f) Implement procedures to encourage retention and planting of native vegetation and to reduce water, fertilizer, and pesticide needs; g) Store fertilizers and pesticides indoors or under cover on paved surfaces or use secondary containment; h) Reduce the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials to reduce the potential for spills; and i) Regularly inspect storage areas. 5. Storm Drain Operation and Management a) Each Permittee shall designate catch basin inlets within its jurisdiction as one of the following: Priority A: Catch basins that are designated as consistently generating the highest volumes of trash and/or debris. Priority B: Catch basins that are designated as consistently generating moderate volumes of trash and/or debris. NPDES CAS004001 - 56 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Priority C: Catch basins that are designated as generating low volumes of trash and/or debris. b) Permittees subject to a trash TMDL (Ballona Creek WMA) shall continue to implement the requirements listed below until trash TMDL implementation measures are adopted. Thereafter, the subject Permittees shall implement programs in conformance with the TMDL implementation schedule, which shall include an effective combination of measures such as street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, installation of treatment devices and trash receptacles, or other BMPs. Default requirements include: (1) Inspection and cleaning of catch basins between May 1 and September 30 of each year; (2) Additional cleaning of any catch basin that is at least 40% full of trash and/or debris; (3) Record keeping of catch basins cleaned; and (4) Recording of the overall quantity of catch basin waste collected. If the implementation phase for the Los Angeles River and Ballona Creek Trash TMDLs has not begun by October 2003, subject Permittees shall implement the requirements described below in subsection 5(c), until such time programs in conformance with the subject Trash TMDLs are being implemented. Permittees subject to the Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL shall implement the requirements set forth in Part 7. Total Maximum Daily Load Provisions, subsection 1 “TMDL for Trash in the Los Angeles River Watershed”. c) Permittees not subject to a trash TMDL shall: (1) Clean catch basins according to the following schedule: Priority A: A minimum of three times during the wet season and once during the dry season every year. Priority B: A minimum of once during the wet season and once during the dry season every year. Priority C: A minimum of once per year. In addition to the schedule above, between February 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, Permittees shall ensure that any catch basin that is at least 40% full of trash and/or debris shall be cleaned out. After July 1, 2003, Permittees shall NPDES CAS004001 - 57 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 ensure that any catch basin that is at least 25% full of trash and debris shall be cleaned out. (2) For any special event that can be reasonably expected to generate substantial quantities of trash and litter, include provisions that require for the proper management of trash and litter generated, as a condition of the special use permit issued for that event. At a minimum, the municipality who issues the permit for the special event shall arrange for either temporary screens to be placed on catch basins or for catch basins in that area to be cleaned out subsequent to the event and prior to any rain event. (3) Place trash receptacles at all transit stops within its jurisdiction that have shelters no later than August 1, 2002, and at all other transit stops within its jurisdiction no later than February 3, 2003. All trash receptacles shall be maintained as necessary. d) Each Permittee shall inspect the legibility of the catch basin stencil or label nearest the inlet. Catch basins with illegible stencils shall be recorded and re-stenciled or re-labeled within 180 days of inspection. e) Each Permittee shall implement BMPs for Storm Drain Maintenance that include: (1) A program to visually monitor Permittee-owned open channels and other drainage structures for debris at least annually and identify and prioritize problem areas of illicit discharge for regular inspection; (2) A review of current maintenance activities to assure that appropriate storm water BMPs are being utilized to protect water quality; (3) Removal of trash and debris from open channel storm drains shall occur a minimum of once per year before the storm season; (4) Minimize the discharge of contaminants during MS4 maintenance and clean outs; and (5) Proper disposal of material removed. 6. Streets and Roads Maintenance a) Each Permittee shall designate streets and/or street segments within its jurisdiction as one of the following: Priority A: Streets and/or street segments that are designated as consistently generating the highest volumes of trash and/or debris. NPDES CAS004001 - 58 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Priority B: Streets and/or street segments that are designated as consistently generating moderate volumes of trash and/or debris. Priority C: Streets and/or street segments that are designated as generating low volumes of trash and/or debris. b) Each Permittee shall perform street sweeping of curbed streets according to the following schedule: Priority A: These streets and/or street segments shall be swept at least two times per month. Priority B: Each Permittee shall ensure that each street and/or street segments is swept at least once per month. Priority C: These streets and/or street segments shall be swept as necessary but in no case less than once per year. c) Each Permittee shall require that: (1) Sawcutting wastes be recovered and disposed of properly and that in no case shall waste be left on a roadway or allowed to enter the storm drain; (2) Concrete and other street and road maintenance materials and wastes shall be managed to prevent discharge to the MS4; and (3) The washout of concrete trucks and chutes shall only occur in designated areas and never discharged to storm drains, open ditches, streets, or catch basins. d) Each Permittee shall, no later than August 1, 2002, train their employees in targeted positions (whose interactions, jobs, and activities affect storm water quality) regarding the requirements of the storm water management program to: (1) Promote a clear understanding of the potential for maintenance activities to pollute storm water; and (2) Identify and select appropriate BMPs. For Permittees with a population of 250,000 or more (2000 U.S. Census) training shall be completed no later than February 1, 2003. 7. Parking Facilities Management Permittee-owned parking lots exposed to storm water shall be kept clear of debris and excessive oil buildup and cleaned no less than 2 times per month and/or inspected no less than 2 times per month to determine if NPDES CAS004001 - 59 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 cleaning is necessary. In no case shall a Permittee-owned parking lot be cleaned less than once a month. 8. Public Industrial Activities Management Each Permittee shall, for any municipal activity considered a discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity, obtain separate coverage under the GIASP except that a municipality under 100,000 in population (1990 U.S. Census) need not file the Notice Of Intent to be covered by said permit until March 10, 2003 (with the exception of power plants, airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills). 9. Emergency Procedures Each Permittee shall repair essential public services and infrastructure in a manner to minimize environmental damage in emergency situations such as: earthquakes; fires; floods; landslides; or windstorms. BMPs shall be implemented to the extent that measures do not compromise public health and safety. After initial emergency response or emergency repair activities have been completed, each Permittee shall implement BMPs and programs as required under this Order. 10. Treatment Feasibility Study The Permittees in cooperation with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County shall conduct a study to investigate the possible diversion of dry weather discharges or the use of alternative Treatment Control BMPs to treat flows from their jurisdiction which may impact public health and safety and/or the environment. The Permittees shall collectively review their individual prioritized lists and create a watershed based priority list of drains for potential diversion or treatment and submit the priority listing to the Regional Board Executive Officer, no later than July 1, 2003. G. Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program Permittees shall eliminate all illicit connections and illicit discharges to the storm drain system, and shall document, track, and report all such cases in accordance with the elements and performance measures specified in the following subsections. 1. General a) Implementation: Each Permittee must develop an Implementation Program which specifies how each Permittee is implementing revisions to the IC/ID Program of the SQMP. This Implementation Program must be documented, and available for review and approval by the Regional Board Executive Officer, upon request. NPDES CAS004001 - 60 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 b) Tracking: All Permittees shall, no later than February 3, 2003, develop and maintain a listing of all permitted connections to their storm drain system. All Permittees shall map at a scale and in a format specified by the Principal Permittee all illicit connections and discharges on their baseline maps, and shall transmit this information to the Principal Permittee. No later than February 3, 2003, the Principal Permittee shall use this information as well as results of baseline and priority screening for illicit connections (as set forth in subsection 2 below) to start an annual evaluation of patterns and trends of illicit connections and illicit discharges, with the objectives of identifying priority areas for elimination of illicit connections and illicit discharges. c) Training: All Permittees shall train all targeted employees who are responsible for identification, investigation, termination, cleanup, and reporting of illicit connections and discharges. For Permittees with a population of less than 250,000 (2000 U.S. Census), training shall be completed no later than August 1, 2002. For Permittees with a population of 250,000 or more (2000 U.S. Census), training shall be completed no later than February 3, 2003. Furthermore, all Permittees shall conduct refresher training on an annual basis thereafter. 2. Illicit Connections a) Screening for Illicit Connections (1) Field Screening: All Permittees shall field Screen the storm drain system for illicit connections in accordance with the following schedule: (i) Open channels: No later than February 3, 2003; (ii) Underground pipes in priority areas: No later than February 1, 2005; and (iii) Underground pipes with a diameter of 36 inches or greater: No later than December 12, 2006. Permittees shall report, to the Principal Permittee, on the location and length of open channels or underground pipes that have been Screened vis a vis the entire storm drain network, and on the status of suspected, confirmed, and terminated illicit connections. Permittees shall maintain a list containing all permitted connections and the status of connections under investigation for possible illicit connection. (2) Permit Screening: No later than December 12, 2006, Permittees shall complete a review of all permitted connections to the storm drain system, to confirm compliance with Part 1 (Discharge Prohibition). NPDES CAS004001 - 61 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 b) Response to Illicit Connections (1) Investigation: Upon discovery or upon receiving a report of a suspected illicit connection, Permittees shall initiate an investigation within 21 days, to determine the source of the connection, the nature and volume of discharge through the connection, and the responsible party for the connection. (2) Termination: Upon confirmation of the illicit nature of a storm drain connection, Permittees shall ensure termination of the connection within 180 days, using enforcement authority as needed. 3. Illicit Discharges a) Abatement and Cleanup: Permittees shall respond, within one business day of discovery or a report of a suspected illicit discharge, with activities to abate, contain, and clean up all illicit discharges, including hazardous substances. b) Investigation: Permittees shall investigate illicit discharges as soon as practicable (during or immediately following containment and cleanup activities), and shall take enforcement action as appropriate. Part 5. DEFINITIONS The following are definitions for terms applicable to this Order: "Adverse Impact" means a detrimental effect upon water quality or beneficial uses caused by a discharge or loading of a pollutant or pollutants. "Anti-degradation policies" means the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Water in California (State Board Resolution No. 68-16) which protects surface and ground waters from degradation. In particular, this policy protects waterbodies where existing quality is higher than that necessary for the protection of beneficial uses including the protection of fish and wildlife propagation and recreation on and in the water. "Applicable Standards and Limitations" means all State, interstate, and federal standards and limitations to which a “discharge” or a related activity is subject under the CWA, including “effluent limitations, "water quality standards, standards of performance, toxic effluent standards or prohibitions, “best management practices,” and pretreatment standards under sections 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 403 and 404 of CWA. “Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS)” means all those areas of this state as ASBS, listed specifically within the California Ocean Plan or so designated by the State Board which, among other areas, includes the area from Mugu Lagoon to Latigo Point: Oceanwater within a line originating from Laguna Point at 34° 5’ 40” north, 119° 6’30” west, thence southeasterly following the mean high tideline to a point at Latigo Point defined by the intersection of the meanhigh tide line and a line extending due south of Benchmark 24; thence NPDES CAS004001 - 62 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 due south to a distance of 1000 feet offshore or to the 100 foot isobath, whichever distance is greater; thence northwesterly following the 100 foot isobath or maintaining a 1,000-foot distance from shore, whichever maintains the greater distance from shore, to a point lying due south of Laguna Point, thence due north to Laguna Point. "Authorized Discharge" means any discharge that is authorized pursuant to an NPDES permit or meets the conditions set forth in this Order. “Automotive Service Facilities” means a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 5511, 7532-7534, or 7536- 7539. For inspection purposes, Permittees need not inspect facilities with SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 5511, provided that these facilities have no outside activities or materials that may be exposed to storm water. “Baseline Waste Load Allocation” means the Waste Load Allocation assigned to a Permittee before reductions are required. The progressive reductions in the Waste Load Allocations are based on a percentage of the Baseline Waste Load Allocation. The Baseline Waste Load Allocation for each jurisdiction was calculated based on the annual average amount of trash discharged to the storm drain system from a representative sampling of land use areas, as determined during the Baseline Monitoring Program. The Baseline Waste Load Allocations are incorporated into the Basin Plan at Table 7-2.2. "Basin Plan" means the Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region, Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, adopted by the Regional Board on June 13, 1994 and subsequent amendments. "Beneficial Uses" means the existing or potential uses of receiving waters in the permit area as designated by the Regional Board in the Basin Plan. "Best Management Practices (BMPs)" means methods, measures, or practices designed and selected to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to surface waters from point and nonpoint source discharges including storm water. BMPs include structural and nonstructural controls, and operation and maintenance procedures, which can be applied before, during, and/or after pollution producing activities. "Commercial Development" means any development on private land that is not heavy industrial or residential. The category includes, but is not limited to: hospitals, laboratories and other medical facilities, educational institutions, recreational facilities, plant nurseries, car wash facilities, mini-malls and other business complexes, shopping malls, hotels, office buildings, public warehouses and other light industrial complexes. "Construction" means constructing, clearing, grading, or excavation that results in soil disturbance. Construction includes structure teardown. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility; emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety; interior remodeling with no outside exposure of construction material or construction waste to storm water; mechanical permit work; or sign permit work. "Control" means to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or prohibit by technological, legal, contractual or other means, the discharge of pollutants from an activity or activities. NPDES CAS004001 - 63 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 “Daily Generation Rate (DGR)” means the estimated amount of trash deposited within a representative drainage area during a 24-hour period, derived from the amount of trash collected from streets and catch basins in the area over a 30-day period. "Dechlorinated/Debrominated Swimming Pool Discharge" means swimming pool discharges which have no measurable chlorine or bromine and do not contain any detergents, wastes, or additional chemicals not typically found in swimming pool water. The term does not include swimming pool filter backwash. “Development” means any construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment or reconstruction of any public or private residential project (whether single-family, multi-unit or planned unit development); industrial, commercial, retail and other non-residential projects, including public agency projects; or mass grading for future construction. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety. “Directly Adjacent” means situated within 200 feet of the contiguous zone required for the continued maintenance, function, and structural stability of the environmentally sensitive area. “Director” means the Director of a municipality and Person(s) designated by and under the Director’s instruction and supervision. “Discharge” means when used without qualification the “discharge of a pollutant.” “Discharging Directly” means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely or predominantly of flows from the subject, property, development, subdivision, or industrial facility, and not commingled with the flows from adjacent lands. “Discharge of a Pollutant” means: any addition of any “pollutant” or combination of pollutants to “waters of the United States” from any “point source” or, any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters of the “contiguous zone” or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as a means of transportation. The term discharge includes additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from: surface runoff which is collected or channeled by man; discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by a State, municipality, or other person which do not lead to a treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances, leading into privately owned treatment works. "Disturbed Area" means an area that is altered as a result of clearing, grading, and/or excavation. “Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)” means an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments (California Public Resources Code § 30107.5). Areas subject to storm water mitigation requirements are: areas designated as Significant Ecological Areas by the County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Significant Areas Study, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (1976) and amendments); an area designated as a Significant Natural Area NPDES CAS004001 - 64 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 by the California Department of Fish and Game’s Significant Natural Areas Program, provided that area has been field verified by the Department of Fish and Game; an area listed in the Basin Plan as supporting the "Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)" beneficial use; and an area identified by a Permittee as environmentally sensitive. “Full Capture System” means any single device or series of devices, certified by the Executive Officer, that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area. The Rational Equation is used to compute the peak flow rate: Q = C × I × A, Where: Q = design flow rate (cubic feet per second, cfs); C = runoff coefficient (dimensionless); I = design rainfall intensity (inches per hour, as determined per the Los Angeles County rainfall isohyetal maps relevant to the Los Angeles River watershed),7 and A = sub-drainage area (acres). "General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (GCASP)" means the general NPDES permit adopted by the State Board which authorizes the discharge of storm water from construction activities under certain conditions. "General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit (GIASP)" means the general NPDES permit adopted by the State Board which authorizes the discharge of storm water from certain industrial activities under certain conditions. “Hillside” means property located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, where the development contemplates grading on any natural slope that is 25% or greater and where grading contemplates cut or fill slopes. “Illicit Connection” means any man-made conveyance that is connected to the storm drain system without a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples include channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the storm drain system. “Illicit Discharge” means any discharge to the storm drain system that is prohibited under local, state, or federal statutes, ordinances, codes, or regulations. The term illicit discharge includes all non storm-water discharges except discharges pursuant to an NPDES permit, discharges that are identified in Part 1, “Discharge Prohibitions” of this order, and discharges authorized by the Regional Board Executive Officer. "Illicit Disposal" means any disposal, either intentionally or unintentionally, of material(s) or waste(s) that can pollute storm water. 7 The isohyetal map may be updated annually by the Los Angeles County hydrologist to reflect additional rain data gathered during the previous year. Annual updates published by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works are prospectively incorporated by reference into this Order. NPDES CAS004001 - 65 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 "Industrial/Commercial Facility" means any facility involved and/or used in the production, manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution, exchange or sale of goods and/or commodities, and any facility involved and/or used in providing professional and non-professional services. This category of facilities includes, but is not limited to, any facility defined by the Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC). Facility ownership (federal, state, municipal, private) and profit motive of the facility are not factors in this definition. “Infiltration” means the downward entry of water into the surface of the soil. "Inspection" means entry and the conduct of an on-site review of a facility and its operations, at reasonable times, to determine compliance with specific municipal or other legal requirements. The steps involved in performing an inspection, include, but are not limited to: 1. Pre-inspection documentation research.; 2. Request for entry; 3. Interview of facility personnel; 4. Facility walk-through. 5. Visual observation of the condition of facility premises; 6. Examination and copying of records as required; 7. Sample collection (if necessary or required); 8. Exit conference (to discuss preliminary evaluation); and, 9. Report preparation, and if appropriate, recommendations for coming into compliance. In the case of restaurants, a Permittee may conduct an inspection from the curbside, provided that such "curbside" inspection provides the Permittee with adequate information to determine an operator's compliance with BMPs that must be implemented per requirements of this Order, Regional Board Resolution 98-08, County and municipal ordinances, and the SQMP. “Institutional Controls” means programmatic trash control measures that do not require construction or structural modifications to the MS4. Examples include street sweeping, public education, and clean out of catch basins that discharge to storm drains. "Large Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)" means all MS4s that serve a population greater than 250,000 (1990 Census) as defined in 40 CFR 122.26 (b)(4). The Regional Board designated Los Angeles County as a large MS4 in 1990, based on: (i) the U.S. Census Bureau 1990 population count of 8.9 million, and (ii) the interconnectivity of the MS4s in the incorporated and unincorporated areas within the County. "Local SWPPP" means the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required by the local agency for a project that disturbs one or more acres of land. "Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)" means the standard for implementation of storm water management programs to reduce pollutants in storm water. CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) requires that municipal permits "shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. See also State Board Order WQ 2000-11 at page 20. NPDES CAS004001 - 66 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 "Method Detection Limit (MDL)" means the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero, as defined in 40 CFR 136, Appendix B. "Minimum Level (ML)" means the concentration at which the entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point. The ML is the concentration in a sample that is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed by a specific analytical procedure, assuming that all the method specified sample weights, volumes, and processing steps have been followed. “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)” means a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, alleys, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) owned by a State, city, county, town or other public body, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water, which is not a combined sewer, and which is not part of a publicly owned treatment works, and which discharges to Waters of the United States. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)” means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under CWA §307, 402, 318, and 405. The term includes an “approved program.” "Natural Drainage Systems" means unlined or unimproved (not engineered) creeks, streams, rivers or similar waterways. “New Development” means land disturbing activities; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or structure, creation of impervious surfaces; and land subdivision. “Non-Storm Water Discharge” means any discharge to a storm drain that is not composed entirely of storm water. "Nuisance" means anything that meets all of the following requirements: (1) is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property; (2) affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.; (3) occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes. “Parking Lot” means land area or facility for the parking or storage of motor vehicles used for businesses, commerce, industry, or personal use, with a lot size of 5,000 square feet or more of surface area, or with 25 or more parking spaces. “Partial Capture Device” means any structural trash control device that has not been certified by the Executive Officer as meeting the “full capture” performance requirements. "Permittee(s)" means Co-Permittees and any agency named in this Order as being responsible for permit conditions within its jurisdiction. Permittees to this Order include the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los Angeles County, and the cities of Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Arcadia, Artesia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, NPDES CAS004001 - 67 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Bradbury, Burbank, Calabasas, Carson, Cerritos, Claremont, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, El Monte, El Segundo, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Huntington Park, Industry, Inglewood, Irwindale, La Canada Flintridge, La Habra Heights, Lakewood, La Mirada, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Norwalk, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Temple City, Torrance, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, and Whittier. “Planning Priority Projects” means those projects that are required to incorporate appropriate storm water mitigation measures into the design plan for their respective project. These types of projects include: 1. Ten or more unit homes (includes single family homes, multifamily homes, condominiums, and apartments) 2. A 100,000 or more square feet of impervious surface area industrial/ commercial development (1 ac starting March 2003) 3. Automotive service facilities (SIC 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539) 4. Retail gasoline outlets 5. Restaurants (SIC 5812) 6. Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more of surface area or with 25 or more parking spaces 7. Redevelopment projects in subject categories that meet Redevelopment thresholds 8. Projects located in or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA, which meet thresholds; and 9. Those projects that require the implementation of a site-specific plan to mitigate post-development storm water for new development not requiring a SUSMP but which may potentially have adverse impacts on post-development storm water quality, where the following project characteristics exist: a) Vehicle or equipment fueling areas; b) Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, including washing and repair; c) Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage; d) Outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials; e) Outdoor manufacturing areas; f) Outdoor food handling or processing; g) Outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter; or h) Outdoor horticulture activities. NPDES CAS004001 - 68 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 "Pollutants" means those "pollutants" defined in CWA §502(6) (33.U.S.C.§1362(6)), and incorporated by reference into California Water Code §13373. "Potable Water Distribution Systems Releases" means sources of flows from drinking water storage, supply and distribution systems including flows from system failures, pressure releases, system maintenance, distribution line testing, fire hydrant flow testing; and flushing and dewatering of pipes, reservoirs, vaults, and minor non-invasive well maintenance activities not involving chemical addition(s). It does not include wastewater discharges from activities that occur at wellheads, such as well construction, well development (i.e., aquifer pumping tests, well purging, etc.), or major well maintenance. "Project" means all development, redevelopment, and land disturbing activities. The term is not limited to "Project" as defined under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code §21065). “Rain Event” means any rain event greater than 0.1 inch in 24 hours except where specifically stated otherwise. "Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)" means a beneficial use for waterbodies in the Los Angeles Region, as designated in the Basin Plan (Table 2-1), that supports 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. "Receiving Waters" means all surface water bodies in the Los Angeles Region that are identified in the Basin Plan. “Redevelopment” means land-disturbing activity that results in the creation, addition, or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Redevelopment includes, but is not limited to: the expansion of a building footprint; addition or replacement of a structure; replacement of impervious surface area that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities related to structural or impervious surfaces. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety. “Regional Administrator” means the Regional Administrator of the Regional Office of the USEPA or the authorized representative of the Regional Administrator. “Restaurant” means a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (SIC Code 5812). "Retail Gasoline Outlet" means any facility engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. "Runoff" means any runoff including storm water and dry weather flows from a drainage area that reaches a receiving water body or subsurface. During dry weather it is typically comprised of base flow either contaminated with pollutants or uncontaminated, and nuisance flows. "Screening" means using proactive methods to identify illicit connections through a continuously narrowing process. The methods may include: performing baseline monitoring of open channels, conducting special investigations using a prioritization approach, analyzing NPDES CAS004001 - 69 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 maintenance records for catch basin and storm drain cleaning and operation, and verifying all permitted connections into the storm drains. Special investigation techniques may include: dye testing, visual inspection, smoke testing, flow monitoring, infrared, aerial and thermal photography, and remote control camera operation. “Sidewalk Rinsing” means pressure washing of paved pedestrian walkways with average water usage of 0.006 gallons per square foot, with no cleaning agents, and properly disposing of all debris collected, as authorized under Regional Board Resolution No. 98-08. "Significant Ecological Area (SEA)" means an area that is determined to possess an example of biotic resources that cumulatively represent biological diversity, for the purposes of protecting biotic diversity, as part of the Los Angeles County General Plan.8 Areas are designated as SEAs, if they possess one or more of the following criteria: 1. The habitat of rare, endangered, and threatened plant and animal species. 2. Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either one of a kind, or are restricted in distribution on a regional basis. 3. Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either one of a kind or are restricted in distribution in Los Angeles County. 4. Habitat that at some point in the life cycle of a species or group of species, serves as a concentrated breeding, feeding, resting, migrating grounds and is limited in availability either regionally or within Los Angeles County. 5. Biotic resources that are of scientific interest because they are either an extreme in physical/geographical limitations, or represent an unusual variation in a population or community. 6. Areas important as game species habitat or as fisheries. 7. Areas that would provide for the preservation of relatively undisturbed examples of natural biotic communities in Los Angeles County. 8. Special areas.9 "Significant Natural Area (SNA)" means an area defined by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Significant Natural Areas Program, as an area that contains an important example of California's biological diversity. The most current SNA maps, reports, and descriptions can be downloaded from the DFG website at ftp://maphost.dfg.ca.gov/outgoing/whdab/sna/. These areas are identified using the following biological criteria only, irrespective of any administrative or jurisdictional considerations: 1. Areas supporting extremely rare species or habitats. 2. Areas supporting associations or concentrations of rare species or habitats. 3. Areas exhibiting the best examples of rare species and habitats in the state. 8 The 61 existing SEAs represent the findings of a study that was completed in 1976 by England and Nelson, Environmental Consultants, as amended through the adoption of a revised Los Angeles County General Plan in 1980. The results of an update study to evaluate existing SEAs within unincorporated Los Angeles County is currently being proposed to the Los Angeles County Planning Commission (Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area Update Study 2000, Background Report, PCR Services Corporation). The Update Study 2000, which contains existing and proposed SEA boundaries, can be downloaded from the Los Angeles County Department of Planning website at http://planning.co.la.ca.us/drp_revw.html#SEA 9 These criteria from the 1976 study have been modified in the Update Study 2000. NPDES CAS004001 - 70 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 “Site” means the land or water area where any “facility or activity” is physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility or activity. “Source Control BMP” means any schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, managerial practices or operational practices that aim to prevent storm water pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. “SQMP” means the Los Angeles Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. “State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (State SWPPP)” means a plan, as required by a State General Permit, identifying potential pollutant sources and describing the design, placement and implementation of BMPs, to effectively prevent non-stormwater Discharges and reduce Pollutants in Stormwater Discharges during activities covered by the General Permit. “Storm Water” means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage. “Storm Water Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity” means industrial discharge as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) “Stormwater Quality Management Program” means the Los Angeles Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, which includes descriptions of programs, collectively developed by the Permittees in accordance with provisions of the NPDES Permit, to comply with applicable federal and state law, as the same is amended from time to time. “Structural BMP” means any structural facility designed and constructed to mitigate the adverse impacts of storm water and urban runoff pollution (e.g. canopy, structural enclosure). The category may include both Treatment Control BMPs and Source Control BMPs. "SUSMP" means the Los Angeles Countywide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. The SUSMP shall address conditions and requirements of new development. “Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)” means the sum of the individual waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. "Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE)" means a set of procedures to identify the specific chemical(s) responsible for toxicity. These procedures are performed in three phases (characterization, identification, and confirmation) using aquatic organism toxicity tests. "Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)" means a study conducted in a step-wise process to identify the causative agents of effluent or ambient toxicity, isolate the sources of toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity control options, and then confirm the reduction in toxicity. “Treatment” means the application of engineered systems that use physical, chemical, or biological processes to remove pollutants. Such processes include, but are not limited to, filtration, gravity settling, media absorption, biodegradation, biological uptake, chemical oxidation and UV radiation. NPDES CAS004001 - 71 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 “Treatment Control BMP” means any engineered system designed to remove pollutants by simple gravity settling of particulate pollutants, filtration, biological uptake, media absorption or any other physical, biological, or chemical process. "USEPA Phase I Facilities" means facilities in specified industrial categories that are required to obtain an NPDES permit for storm water discharges, as required by 40 CFR 122.26(c). These categories include: i. facilities subject to storm water effluent limitation guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards (40 CFR N) ii. manufacturing facilities iii. oil and gas/mining facilities iv. hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities v. landfills, land application sites, and open dumps vi. recycling facilities vii. steam electric power generating facilities viii. transportation facilities ix. sewage of wastewater treatment works x. light manufacturing facilities "Vehicle Maintenance/Material Storage Facilities/Corporation Yards" means any Permittee owned or operated facility or portion thereof that: i. Conducts industrial activity, operates equipment, handles materials, and provides services similar to Federal Phase I facilities; ii. Performs fleet vehicle service/maintenance on ten or more vehicles per day including repair, maintenance, washing, and fueling; iii. Performs maintenance and/or repair of heavy industrial machinery/equipment ; and iv. Stores chemicals, raw materials, or waste materials in quantities that require a hazardous materials business plan or a Spill Prevention, Control , and Counter- measures (SPCC) plan. “Water Quality Standards and Water Quality Objectives” means water quality criteria contained in the Basin Plan, the California Ocean Plan, the National Toxics Rule, the California Toxics Rule, and other state or federally approved surface water quality plans. Such plans are used by the Regional Board to regulate all discharges, including storm water discharges. “Waters of the State” means any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within boundaries of the state. “Waters of the United States" or "Waters of the U.S.” means: a. All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; b. All interstate waters, including interstate “wetlands”; c. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, “wetlands,” sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: NPDES CAS004001 - 72 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 1. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; 2. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or 3. Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; d. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition; e. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition; f. The territorial sea; and g. “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraph (a) through (f) of this definition. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.22(m), which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies only to man-made bodies of water, which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with USEPA. “Wet Season” means the calendar period beginning October 1 through April 15. Part 6. STANDARD PROVISIONS A. Standard Requirements 1. Each Permittee shall comply with all provisions and requirements of this permit. 2. Should a Permittee discover a failure to submit any relevant facts or that it submitted incorrect information in a report, it shall promptly submit the missing or correct information. 3. Each Permittee shall report all instances of non-compliance not otherwise reported at the time monitoring reports are submitted. 4. This Order includes the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program, and SUSMP(Regional Board Resolution No. R00-02), which are a part of the permit and must be complied with in the same manner as with the rest of the requirements in the permit. B. Regional Board Review Any formal determination or approval made by the Regional Board Executive Officer pursuant to the provisions of this Order may be reviewed by the Regional Board. A Permittee(s) or a member of the public may request such review upon petition within 30 days of the effective date of the notification of such decision to the Permittee(s) and interested parties on file at the Regional Board. NPDES CAS004001 - 73 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 C. Public Review 1. All documents submitted to the Regional Board in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Order shall be made available to members of the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 (as amended) and the Public Records Act (Cal. Government Code § 6250 et seq.). 2. All documents submitted to the Regional Board Executive Officer for approval shall be made available to the public for a 30-day period to allow for public comment. D. Duty to Comply 1. Each Permittee must comply with all of the terms, requirements, and conditions of this Order. Any violation of this order constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act, its regulations and the California Water Code, and is grounds for enforcement action, Order termination, Order revocation and reissuance, denial of an application for reissuance; or a combination thereof [40 CFR 122.41(a), CWC § 13261, 13263, 13265, 13268, 13300, 13301, 13304, 13340, 13350]. 2. A copy of these waste discharge specifications shall be maintained by each Permittee so as to be available during normal business hours to Permittee employees and members of the public. 3. Any discharge of wastes at any point(s) other than specifically described in this Order is prohibited, and constitutes a violation of the Order. E. Duty to Mitigate [40 CFR 122.41 (d)] Each Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. F. Inspection and Entry [40 CFR 122.41(i), CWC § 13267] The Regional Board, USEPA, and other authorized representatives shall be allowed: 1. Entry upon premises where a regulated facility is located or conducted, or where records are kept under conditions of this Order; 2. Access to copy any records, at reasonable times, that are kept under the conditions of this Order; 3. To inspect at reasonable times any facility, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Order; and, NPDES CAS004001 - 74 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 4. To photograph, sample, and monitor at reasonable times for the purpose of assuring compliance with this Order, or as otherwise authorized by the CWA and the CWC. G. Proper Operation and Maintenance [40 CFR 122.41 (e), CWC § 13263(f)] The Permittees shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment (and related appurtenances) that are installed or used by the Permittees to achieve compliance with this Order. Proper operation and maintenance includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar system that are installed by a Permittee only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Order. H. Signatory Requirements [40 CFR 122.41(k) & 122.22] Except as otherwise provided in this Order, all applications, reports, or information submitted to the Regional Board shall be signed by the Director of Public Works, City Engineer, or authorized designee and certified as set forth in 40 CFR 122.22. I. Reopener and Modification [40 CFR 122.41(f) & 122.62] 1. This Order may only be modified, revoked, or reissued, prior to the expiration date, by the Regional Board, in accordance with the procedural requirements of the CWC and CCR Title 23 for the issuance of waste discharge requirements, 40 CFR 122.62, and upon prior notice and hearing, to: a) Address changed conditions identified in the required reports or other sources deemed significant by the Regional Board; b) Incorporate applicable requirements or statewide water quality control plans adopted by the State Board or amendments to the Basin Plan; c) Comply with any applicable requirements, guidelines, and/or regulations issued or approved pursuant to CWA Section 402(p); and/or, d) Consider any other federal, or state laws or regulations that became effective after adoption of this Order. 2. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this Order may be terminated or modified for cause, including, but not limited to: a) Violation of any term or condition contained in this Order; b) Obtaining this Order by misrepresentation, or failure to disclose all relevant facts; or, c) A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge. NPDES CAS004001 - 75 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 3. The filing of a request by the Principal Permittee or Permittees for a modification, revocation and re-issuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any condition of this Order. 4. This Order may be modified to make corrections or allowances for changes in the permitted activity listed in this section, following the procedures at 40 CFR 122.63, if processed as a minor modification. Minor modifications may only: a) Correct typographical errors, or b) Require more frequent monitoring or reporting by the Permittee. J. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable; and if any provision of this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected. K. Duty to Provide Information [40 CFR 122.41(h)] The Permittees shall furnish, within a reasonable time, any information the Regional Board or USEPA may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Order. The Permittees shall also furnish to the Regional Board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order. L. Twenty-four Hour Reporting [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]10 1. The Permittees shall report to the Regional Board any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time any Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within five days of the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times and, if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. 2. The Regional Board may waive the required written report on a case-by- case basis. M. Bypass [40 CFR 122.41(m)]11 10 This provision applies to incidents where effluent limitations (numerical or narrative) as provided in this Order or in the Los Angeles County SQMP are exceeded, and which endanger public health or the environment. NPDES CAS004001 - 76 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Bypass (the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility) is prohibited. The Regional Board may take enforcement action against Permittees for bypass unless: 1. Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage. (Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities that causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources that can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.); 2. There were no feasible alternatives to bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated waste, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass that could occur during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; 3. The Permittee submitted a notice at least ten days in advance of the need for a bypass to the Regional Board; or, 4. Permittees may allow a bypass to occur that does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. In such a case, the above bypass conditions are not applicable. The Permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required. N. Upset [40 CFR 122.41(n)]12 Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 1. A Permittee that wishes to establish the affirmative defense of an upset in an action brought for non compliance shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: a) An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; b) The permitted facility was being properly operated by the time of the upset; 11 This provision applies to the operation and maintenance of storm water controls and BMPs as provided in this Order or in the SQMP. 12 Supra. See footnote number 3. NPDES CAS004001 - 77 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 c) The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required; and, d) The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required. 2. No determination made before an action for noncompliance, such as during administrative review of claims that non-compliance was caused by an upset, is final administrative action subject to judicial review. 3. In any enforcement proceeding, the Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. O. Property Rights [40 CFR 122.41(g)] This Order does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. P. Enforcement 1. Violation of any of the provisions of the NPDES permit or any of the provisions of this Order may subject the violator to any of the penalties described herein, or any combination thereof, at the discretion of the prosecuting authority; except that only one kind of penalties may be applied for each kind of violation. The CWA provides the following: a) Criminal Penalties for: (1) Negligent Violations: The CWA provides that any person who negligently violates permit conditions implementing § 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day for each violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. (2) Knowing Violations: The CWA provides that any person who knowingly violates permit conditions implementing § 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 is subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. (3) Knowing Endangerment: The CWA provides that any person who knowingly violates permit conditions implementing § 301, 302, 307, 308, 318, or 405 and who knows at that time that he is placing another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury is subject to a fine of not more than $250,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both. (4) False Statement: NPDES CAS004001 - 78 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under the Act or who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under the Act, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both. If a conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four years, or by both. (See CWA § 309(c)(4)) b) Civil Penalties The CWA provides that any person who violates a permit condition implementing § 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $27,500 per day for each violation. 2. The CWC provides that any person who violates a waste discharge requirement provision of the CWC is subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day, $10,000 per day, or $25,000 per day of violation; or when the violation involves the discharge of pollutants, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10 per gallon per day or $25 per gallon per day of violation; or some combination thereof, depending on the violation or combination of violations. Q. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense [40 CFR 122.41(c)] It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this Order. R. Rescission Regional Board Order No. 96-054 is hereby rescinded. S. Expiration This Order expires on December 12, 2006. The Permittees must submit a Report of Waste Discharges and a proposed Storm Water Quality Management Program in accordance with CCR Title 23 as application for reissuance of waste discharge requirements no later than June 12, 2006. NPDES CAS004001 - 79 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Part 7. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROVISIONS The provisions of this Part implement and are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of Waste Load Allocations from TMDLs for which some or all of the Permittees in this Order are responsible. 1. TMDL for Trash in the Los Angeles River Watershed A. Waste Load Allocations: Each Permittee identified in Appendix 7-1 shall comply with the interim and final effluent limitations set forth in Appendix 7-1 hereto.13 B. Compliance: (1) Permittees may comply with the effluent limitations using any lawful means. Such compliance options are broadly classified as full capture, partial capture, or institutional controls, as described below, and any combination of these may be employed to achieve compliance: (a) Full Capture Systems: 1) The Basin Plan authorizes the Executive Officer to certify full capture systems, which are systems that meet the operating and performance requirements as described in this Order, and the procedures identified in “Procedures and Requirements for Certification of a Best Management Practice for Trash Control as a Full Capture System.” (See Appendix 7-2.)14 2) Permittees are authorized to comply with their effluent limitations through certified full capture systems provided the requirements of paragraph 3), immediately below, and any conditions in the certification, continue to be met. 3) Permittees may comply with their effluent limitations through progressive installation of full capture systems throughout their jurisdiction until all areas draining to the Los Angeles River system are addressed. For purposes of this Permit, attainment of the effluent limitations shall be conclusively presumed for any drainage area to the Los Angeles River (or its tributaries)15 where certified full capture systems treat all drainage from the area, provided that the full capture systems are adequately sized and maintained, and that maintenance records are up-to-date and available for inspection by the Regional Board. i. A Permittee relying entirely on full capture systems shall be deemed in compliance with its final effluent limitation if it demonstrates that all drainage areas 13 The interim and final effluent limitations set forth in Appendix 7-1 are equivalent to the Compliance Points identified in Table 7-2.3 of the Basin Plan. 14 The Regional Board currently recognizes eight full capture systems. These are: Vortex Separation Systems (VSS) and seven other Executive Officer certified full capture systems, including specific types or designs of trash nets; two gross solids removal devices (GSRDs); catch basin brush inserts and mesh screens; vertical and horizontal trash capture screen inserts; and a connector pipe screen device. 15 Tributaries to the Los Angeles River include, but are not limited to, Pacoima Wash, Tujunga Wash, Burbank Western Channel, Verdugo Wash, Arroyo Seco, Rio Hondo, and Compton Creek. NPDES CAS004001 - 80 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 under its jurisdiction are serviced by appropriate certified full capture systems as described in paragraph (a)(3). ii. A Permittee relying entirely on full capture systems shall be deemed in compliance with its interim effluent limitations: 1. By demonstrating that full capture systems treat the percentage of drainage areas in the watershed that corresponds to the required trash abatement. 2. Alternatively, a Permittee may propose a schedule for jurisdiction-wide installation of full capture systems, targeting first the areas of greatest trash generation ( based upon the information on drainage area and litter generation rates by land use provided in Appendices I and III of the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL Staff Report) for the Executive Officer’s approval. The Executive Officer shall not approve any such schedule that does not result in timely compliance with the final effluent limitations. A Permittee shall be deemed in compliance with its interim effluent limitations provided it is fully in compliance with any such approved schedule. (b) Partial Capture Devices and Institutional Controls: Permittees may comply with their interim and final effluent limitations through the installation of partial capture devices and the application of institutional controls.16 1) Trash discharges from areas serviced solely by partial capture devices may be estimated based on demonstrated performance of the device(s) in the jurisdictional area.17 That is, trash reduction is equivalent to the partial capture devices’ trash removal efficiency multiplied by the percentage of drainage area serviced by the devices. 2) Except as provided in subdivision 3), below, trash discharges from areas addressed by institutional controls and/or partial capture devices (where site-specific performance data is not available) shall be calculated using a mass balance approach, based on the daily generation rate (DGR) for a representative area.18 The DGR shall be determined from direct measurement of 16 While interim effluent limitations may be complied with using partial capture devices, compliance with final effluent limitations cannot be achieved with the exclusive use of partial capture devices. 17 Performance shall be demonstrated under different conditions (e.g. low to high trash loading). 18 The area should be representative of the land uses within the jurisdiction and shall be approved by the Executive Officer prior to the 30-day collection period. NPDES CAS004001 - 81 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 trash deposited in the drainage area during any thirty-day period between June 22nd and September 22nd exclusive of rain events19, and shall be re-calculated every year thereafter. The DGR shall be calculated as the total amount of trash collected during this period divided by 30 (the length of the collection period). DGR = (Amount of trash collected during a 30-day collection period20) / (30 days) The DGR for the applicable area of the jurisdiction shall be extrapolated from that of the representative drainage area. A mass balance equation shall be used to estimate the amount of trash discharged during a storm event.21 The Storm Event Trash Discharge for a given rain event in a Permittee’s drainage area shall be calculated by multiplying the number of days since the last street sweeping by the DGR and subtracting the amount of any trash recovered in the catch basins.22 For each day of a storm event that generates precipitation greater than 0.25 inches, the Permittee shall calculate a Storm Event Trash Discharge. Storm Event Trash Discharge = [(Days since last street sweeping*DGR)] – [Amount of trash recovered from catch basins]23 The sum of the Storm Event Trash Discharges for the storm year shall be the Permittee’s calculated annual trash discharge. Total Storm Year Trash Discharge = Storm Event Trash Discharges from Drainage Area 3) The Executive Officer may approve alternative compliance monitoring approaches for calculating total storm year trash discharge, upon finding that the program will provide a scientifically-based estimate of the amount of trash discharged from the MS4. (c) Combined Compliance Approaches: 19 Provided no special events are scheduled that may affect the representative nature of that collection period. 20 Between June 22nd and September 22nd 21 Amount of trash shall refer to the uncompressed volume (in gallons) or drip-dry weight (in pounds) of trash collected. 22 Any negative values shall be considered to represent a zero discharge. 23 When more than one storm event occurs prior to the next street sweeping the discharge shall be calculated from the date of the last assessment. NPDES CAS004001 - 82 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 Permittees may comply with their interim and final effluent limitations through a combination of full capture systems, partial capture devices, and institutional controls. Permittees relying on a combination of approaches shall demonstrate compliance with the interim and final effluent limitations as specified in (a)(3) in areas where full capture systems are installed and as specified in (b)(2) in areas where partial capture devices and institutional controls are applied. (2) Permittees that are not in compliance with the applicable interim and/or final effluent limitations as identified in Appendix 7-1 shall be in violation of this permit. (a) Permittees relying on partial capture devices and/or institutional controls that have violated their interim or final effluent limitations as identified in Appendix 7-1 shall be presumed to have violated the applicable limitation for each day of each storm event that generated precipitation greater than 0.25 inches during the applicable storm year, except those storm days on which they establish that their cumulative Storm Event Trash Discharges have not exceeded the applicable effluent limitation. (b) For Permittees relying on full capture systems who have failed to demonstrate that the full capture systems for any drainage area are adequately sized and maintained, and that maintenance records are up-to-date and available for inspection by the Regional Board, and that they are in compliance with any conditions of their certification, shall be presumed to have discharged trash in an amount that corresponds to the percentage of the baseline waste load allocation represented by the drainage area in question. 1) A Permittee may overcome this presumption by demonstrating (using any of the methods authorized in this Part 7.1.B(1)(b)) that the actual or calculated discharge for that drainage area is in compliance with the applicable interim or final effluent limitations as specified in Appendix 7-1. (3) Each Permittee shall be held liable for violations of the Effluent Limitations assigned to its jurisdiction in Appendix 7-1. Any Permittee whose compliance strategy includes full or partial capture devices and who chooses to install a full or partial capture device in the MS4 physical infrastructure of another public entity is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits to do so. If a Permittee believes it is unable to obtain the permits needed to install a full capture or partial capture device within another Permittee’s MS4 physical infrastructure, either Permittee may request the Executive Officer to hold a conference with the Permittees. Nothing in this Order shall affect the right of that public entity or a Permittee to seek indemnity or other recourse from the other as they deem appropriate. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as relieving a Permittee of any liability that the Permittee would otherwise have under this Order. C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements (pursuant to Water Code section 13383) NPDES CAS004001 - 83 - Order No. 01-182 Amended by Orders R4-2006-0074, R4-2007-0042, and R4-2009-0130, and further amended pursuant to L.A. Superior Court Case No. BS122724 (1) Within 60 days of adoption of Part 7, Section 1 (Los Angeles River Trash TMDL) and on October 31, 2010 and every year thereafter, each Permittee identified in Appendix 7-1 shall submit a TMDL Compliance Report detailing compliance with the interim and final effluent limitations. Reporting shall include the information specified below. The report shall be submitted on a reporting form to be specified by the Executive Officer. The report shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the Director of Public Works or other agency head (or their delegee) that is responsible for ensuring compliance with this permit. Permittees shall be charged with and shall demonstrate compliance with the relevant effluent limitations beginning with their October 31, 2010 TMDL Compliance Report. (a) Reporting Compliance based on Full Capture Systems: Permittees identified in Appendix 7-1 shall provide information on the number and location of full capture installations, the sizing of each full capture installation, the drainage areas addressed by these installations, and compliance with the applicable interim or final effluent limitation, in their TMDL Compliance Report. The Regional Board will periodically audit sizing, performance, and other data to validate that a system satisfies the criteria established for a full capture system and any conditions established by the Executive Officer in the certification. (b) Reporting Compliance based on Partial Capture Systems and/or Institutional Controls: (1) Using Performance Data Specific to the Jurisdictional Area: Permittees identified in Appendix 7-1 shall provide (i) site- specific performance data for the applicable device(s), (ii) information on the number and location of such installations, and the drainage areas addressed by these installations, and (iii) calculated compliance with the applicable effluent limitations, in their TMDL Compliance Report. (2) Using Direct Measurement of Trash Discharge: Permittees identified in Appendix 7-1 shall provide an accounting of DGR and trash removal via street sweeping, catch basin clean outs, etc., in a database to facilitate the calculation of discharge for each rain event. The database shall be maintained and provided to the Regional Board for inspection upon request. Permittees identified in Appendix 7-1 shall provide the annual DGR, calculated storm year discharge, and compliance with the applicable effluent limitation, in their TMDL Compliance Report. (c) Reporting Compliance based on Combined Compliance Approaches: Permittees identified in Appendix 7-1 shall provide the information specified in subsection (a) for areas where full capture systems are installed and that specified in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2), as appropriate, for areas where partial capture devices and institutional controls are applied. Permittees shall also provide information on compliance with the applicable effluent limitation based on the combined compliance approaches, in their TMDL Compliance Report 3031 Torrance Boulevard • Torrance, California 90503 • Phone: 310.618.5880 • Fax: 310.618.5891 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx City of Torrance, California MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN May 18, 2011 CAROLLO ENGINEERS i May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx City of Torrance, California MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN May 18, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Conditions and Characteristics .................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Study Site Location ........................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics ................................................................. 2 1.2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................... 3 1.2.4 Water Quality Issues ........................................................................ 4 1.3 Special Study Work Plan ................................................................................ 10 2.0 PRE-BMP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY ..................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Objectives of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study .......................................... 11 2.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) .................................. 12 3.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN ........................................................................................... 12 3.1 Sampling Locations and Access ..................................................................... 12 3.2 Sample Collection Frequency ......................................................................... 20 3.3 Selection of Analytical Parameters ................................................................. 20 3.4 Continuous Flow Monitoring ........................................................................... 21 3.5 The Sampling Team ....................................................................................... 21 4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES ................................................................... 22 4.1 Preparation for conducting the sampling ........................................................ 22 4.1.1 Sampling Equipment ...................................................................... 22 4.2 Sampling Method ............................................................................................ 23 4.3 Personal Safety .............................................................................................. 24 4.4 Clean Sampling Techniques ........................................................................... 24 4.5 Sample Packing and Shipping ........................................................................ 24 4.6 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................ 25 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ................................................. 25 5.1 Data Quality Objective .................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 Field Quality Control Samples ........................................................ 26 5.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ......................................................... 27 5.2.1 Equipment Blanks ........................................................................... 27 5.2.2 Field Duplicate Samples ................................................................. 27 5.2.3 Matrix Spike Samples ..................................................................... 27 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS ii May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 5.3 Laboratory Quality Control .............................................................................. 27 5.3.1 Method Blanks ................................................................................ 27 5.3.2 Matrix Spike and Laboratory Control Samples ............................... 27 6.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING ................................................................ 28 APPENDIX A – Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations APPENDIX B – Field Data Sheet APPENDIX C – Chain of Custody LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Waste Load Allocations ....................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Total Annual Nutrient Load Entering Machado Lake(1) ........................................ 4 Table 3 Schedule or Work Plan Elements ..................................................................... 11 Table 4 Sampling Location Characteristics .................................................................... 14 Table 5 Monitoring Constituents .................................................................................... 21 Table 6 Monitoring Constituents and Sample Container Requirements ........................ 23 Table 7 Quality Assurance Objective ............................................................................. 26 Table 8 Field Quality Control Sample Types .................................................................. 26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Map of Torrance ................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 Subregional Watersheds ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 2007 Satellite Imagery of Machado Lake and Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park Overview ............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5 General Location Map of Sampling Locations .................................................. 15 CAROLLO ENGINEERS 1 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx City of Torrance, California SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Field Sampling Plan (FSP) presents the approach and procedures to implement stormwater sampling activities in 2011 for a Special Study of the City of Torrance (City) storm drains discharging stormwater into Machado Lake. The field study sampling procedures, methods, and analyses for stormwater are described in this document. 1.1 Background The City is subject to the requirements of the Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) per the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board’s (Regional Board’s) Resolution R08-006. Under the Regional Board’s resolution, the City shall submit to the Regional Board’s Executive Officer a Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP) within 1 year of the effective date of the resolution or propose a Special Study Work Plan following the requirements of one of three optional studies. This Special Study Work Plan details the approach proposed by the City to perform Optional Study No. 3, to assess compliance with the Waste Load Allocations (WLA) on a mass basis for total nitrogen and total phosphorus originating from the City’s watersheds. The Special Study Work Plan proposes a pre-Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation Study including field sampling and data collection to be followed by submittals to the Regional Board including a BMP Evaluation and Selection Report, a MRP, and a BMP Implementation Report to be provided at a later date. Machado Lake is identified on the 1998 and 2002 Clean Water Act 300(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to eutrophic conditions, algae, ammonia, and odors. Resource agencies, local governments, project implementers, the scientific community, environmental groups, decision-makers at the city, county, state, and federal levels, and many others have continued to take meaningful steps towards the restoration of Machado Lake and its basin. Among these efforts, restoration activities are expanding through continued implementation of erosion control, stormwater management, and riparian restoration projects, development of the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL that is providing a quantitative, science-based approach for pollutant reduction, and a strong research/monitoring effort to evaluate key ecological processes and response to water quality improvement projects. The Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL allows for the establishment of annual mass-based WLAs for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) equivalent to monthly average concentrations of 0.1 mg/L TP and 1.0 mg/L TN, based on approved flow conditions. When the concentration based WLAs are met under the approved flow condition of 8.45 hm3, the annual mass of the TP discharged to the lake will be 845 kg and the annual mass of TN discharged to the lake will be 8,450 kg. The City of Torrance mass-based WLA will be proportional to the City owned area in the sub-watershed. The City of Torrance area CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 2 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx accounts for 35.6% of the Machado Lake Watershed. Table 1 lists the interim and final WLAs based on this area. Table 1 Waste Load Allocations Responsible Party Years after TMDL Effective Date TP (kg) TN (kg) City of Torrance 5 3,760 7,370 9.5 (final WLAs) 301 3,008 1.2 Site Conditions and Characteristics 1.2.1 Study Site Location The City is located about 15 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles (LA), in southern LA County, just north of the Palos Verdes Hills. The City was incorporated on May 12, 1921, and is just over 20.5 square miles in area. The City is bounded by Redondo Beach on the west and north, Lawndale and Gardena on the north, LA on the east, Lomita to the southeast, and Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates on the south. The City is also bounded by approximately 4,000 feet of Santa Monica Bay coastline. The City’s storm conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. Neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estate and Palos Verde Estate discharge stormwater into the City’s and/or LA County’s storm conveyance systems located within the City’s boundaries. Figure 1 shows a regional location map of the City. 1.2.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Machado Lake subwatershed is located in the southwestern area of the Dominguez Watershed and includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Carson, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, and the communities of unincorporated Los Angeles County, including Wilmington and Harbor City. However, much of the Machado Lake watershed consists of the hilly regions of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. This portion of the watershed is unique, as it consists of relatively steep hills with drainage into the canyons. The Machado Lake Watershed covers an area of approximately 20 square miles and is itself divided into six primary subdrainage areas. These subdrainages are the Walteria Lake, Project 77/510, Wilmington Drain, Project 643 (72-inch Storm Drain), Project 643 (Figueroa Drain), and Private Drain 553. Machado Lake, about 40 acres in area and the Machado Lake Wetlands (64 acres) are located within the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park in the southeastern corner of the Machado Lake Watershed. Both Machado Lake and the Machado Lake wetlands serve as flood retention basins for the Machado Lake Watershed. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 3 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 1.2.2.1 Storm Drain As the area is highly urbanized, drainage is primarily conducted through an extensive network of underground storm drain facilities. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works maintains the system of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The primary use of the Dominguez Channel and all other open channels in the Dominguez Watershed (including Wilmington Drain, Machado Lake, and Madrona Marsh) is flood protection. Machado Lake receives urban and storm water runoff from a complex network of storm drain systems. The first of three primary storm drain channels that flow into Machado Lake is the Wilmington Drain. Approximately 65 percent of the runoff from the Machado Lake Watershed flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. The other two primary storm drain channels are the Project No. 77 Drain and the Harbor City Relief Drain. Several smaller storm drains also discharges into Machado Lake, including Project No. 643’s Figueroa Street Outlet and a 72-inch storm drain outlet. Machado Lake discharges at the southern end by overflowing a concrete dam into the Machado Lake wetland. Water discharges from the wetland through the Harbor Outflow structure and into the West Basin of the Los Angeles Harbor. The Walteria Lake, located within the City’s boundaries, is owned and operated by LA County. It is approximately 1,005 acre-feet in capacity and receives raw stormwater mainly from Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates. Effluent from the lake is pumped at a maximum rate of 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) through a force main system into a 54-inch drain line that lies under Skypark Drive. The discharge eventually leaves the City near the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Amsler Street. Figure 2 shows the drainage basins and stormwater conveyance infrastructure in the City. The figure also shows nearby communities discharging stormwater into the City’s drainage system. 1.2.3 Land Use The City of Torrance is predominantly residential land use, with concentrations of industrial and commercial uses. This reflects the City’s history as a “company town,” where homes were built to house the local work force of industries. Residential development covered almost half of the City’s land area. Industrial uses occupied the second largest land area, at 22 percent. Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space uses represent the third largest land uses in the City, about 12 percent each. Torrance also had a limited supply of vacant land mostly within commercial and industrial areas. Given the built-out character of the community, only minor land use changes from baseline year 2010 conditions will occur over the long term. Residential uses are located throughout Torrance at varying development densities. The highest residential densities occur along major streets and near major transportation corridors, in older neighborhoods, and in apartment or condominium developments and Planned Development communities around Sepulveda Boulevard and Plaza Del Amo between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards. The lowest residential densities are largely CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 4 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx located in the western and southern portions of the City. Figure 3 identifies the land uses in Torrance. 1.2.4 Water Quality Issues Machado Lake, located in the Dominguez Channel watershed in southern LA County, is identified on the 1998 and 2002 Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to eutrophic conditions, algae, ammonia, and odors. The Machado Lake eutrophic, algae, and odor impairments are caused by excessive loading of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, to Machado Lake (Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft – April 2008). Ammonia is found to be at levels below the toxicity standards, but nevertheless, these concentrations contribute to the total nitrogen loading in the Lake. Table 2 provides a summary of the quantifiable loads entering Machado Lake on an annual basis (Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft – April 2008). Nutrient flux from the sediments and atmospheric nitrogen deposition are the two directly quantifiable non-point sources included as part of the total nutrient load. The total annual nitrogen and phosphorus loads are estimated to be 24,327 kg and 10,421 kg, respectively. Machado Lake is located in the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP), which is a 231 acres LA City Park serving the Wilmington and Harbor City areas. As shown on Figure 4, the park is located west of the Harbor freeway (110) and east of Vermont Avenue between the Tosco Refinery on the south and the Pacific Coast Highway on the North. Machado Lake is one of the last lake and wetland systems in LA; the area is approximately 103.5 acres in total size. The upper portion, which includes the open water area, is approximately 40 acres and the lower wetland portion is about 63.5 acres. Machado Lake is a shallow polymictic lake; the depth is generally 0.5 to 1.5 meters; the average depth is approximately 1.0 meter. The lake was originally developed as part of Harbor Regional Park in 1971 and intended for boating and fishing. Over the years water quality generally declined; boating was stopped and signs were posted warning of the risk of eating fish from the lake. Table 2 Total Annual Nutrient Load Entering Machado Lake(1) Source Total N (kg) Total P (kg) Ortho-P (kg) Inorg-N (kg) External Load 7,587 3,260 737 3,736 Sediment Flux 16,520 7,161 4,963 16,520 Atmospheric Deposition 220 Total Annual Load 24,327 10,421 5,700 20,256 Notes: 1. Source: Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, Revised Draft - April 2008. The dominant land use in the Machado Lake Watershed is high-density single-family residential, accounting for approximately 45 percent of the land use. Industrial, vacant, retail/commercial, multi-family residential, transportation, and educational institutions each account for 5 to 7 percent of the land use, while "all other" accounts for the remaining 23 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 5 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx percent. Machado Lake is a receiving body of urban and stormwater runoff from a network of storm drains throughout the watershed. As indicated on Figure 4, there are three discharge points into Machado Lake from the following storm drain channels:  Wilmington Drain.  Project No. 77.  Harbor City Relief Drain. Approximately 88 percent of the Machado Lake Watershed drainage area flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. I-110AnaheimNormandieVermontPacific Coast Wetland Area Machado Lake Golf CourseProject 77 Project 510 Figure 3 2007 Satellite Imagery of Machado Lake and Ken Malloy Harbor Park Overview 4 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 10 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 1.3 Special Study Work Plan This document provides the overall structure of the Special Study Work Plan with submittals to the Regional Board, as well as providing the initial Pre-BMP Implementation Study Plan (including a proposed field data collection and sampling plan). The Special Study Work Plan addresses the requirements of Optional Study No. 3 to assess compliance with WLAs for total nitrogen and total phosphorus originating from the City’s watersheds. The scope of work for this plan includes the following:  Pre-BMP Implementation Study Period - Including conducting dry weather sampling as outlined within this submittal as well as reviewing water quality models developed by LA County for wet weather events and Machado Lake.  BMP Evaluation and Selection Study Report - This study report is to be submitted at a later date (see proposed schedule of work plan elements), and will summarize the collected field data and the applicable results obtained from the regional water quality model being developed by LA County for wet weather conditions. The field data and the water quality model data will be used to assess compliance with WLAs under the TMDL. Based on the assessment of compliance, the BMP and Selection Study Report will identify and screen structural BMPs for mitigation to bring the City into compliance with the TMDL.  Monitoring and Reporting Plan - Subsequent to acceptance by the Regional Board of the findings and conclusions of the City’s BMP Evaluation and Selection Study Report, the City will submit an MRP specific to the needs for assessment of future compliance with the TMDL.  BMP Implementation Report - This report will summarize the monitoring data collected after 12 months of BMP implementation and will provide to the Regional Board an assessment of the success of the structural BMPs implemented by the City to support compliance with the TMDL. The actual start date for the sampling will be determined following the Regional Board’s approval of this Special Study Work Plan. Other conditions that may affect the sampling schedule are weather and equipment conditions and availability. The schedule for the work plan is summarized in Table 3. The Special Study Work Plan identifies the proposed tasks the City agrees to perform, their timelines, and the roles and responsibilities of various parties in completing the work. The purpose of this document is to serve as a starting point for work planning discussions between the City and the Regional Board. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 11 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Table 3 Schedule or Work Plan Elements ID Work Plan Element Schedule 1 Special Study Work Plan May, 2011 (submittal) 2 Regional Board Review/Approval June, 2011 (approval) 3 Pre-BMP Implementation Study July, 2011 – July, 2012 (field sampling) 4 BMP Evaluation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan September, 2011 (submittal) 5 Regional Review/Approval August, 2012 (approval) 6 BMP Implementation Nov., 2012 (implementation) 7 BMP Implementation Report Nov., 2013 (submittal) 2.0 PRE-BMP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 2.1 Introduction The Pre-BMP Implementation Study includes a 12-month FSP and evaluation of regional water quality models for wet weather conditions and Machado Lake to assess the City’s current compliance with WLAs. The FSP covers sample collection methods, analytical procedures, data analysis and reporting, and health and safety aspects. The FSP will generate a variety of data including discharge rates and flow volumes, the concentrations of chemical parameters, and the measurement of physical parameters. Utilizing the mass balance approach, the data will be used to estimate the mass of nutrients originating from the City as well as nearby agencies discharging stormwater into the City’s storm drain system. The data will also be examined for patterns and trends, comparing stormwater quality between different sampling locations over time. The Pre-BMP Implementation Study will be undertaken once approval is obtained from the Regional Board for the Special Study Work Plan. The remaining sections of this document contain the FSP providing field sampling methods and analytical procedures that will be used to collect dry weather water quality data and continuous flow data. 2.2 Objectives of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study The Pre-BMP Implementation Study will provide the City data needed to assess water quality impacts to the City’s drainage network. The objective of this study is to support the City’s compliance with the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL by performing Special Study No. 3. Data and information elements that are part of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study include: 1. Dry weather flow data including calculation of continuous volume data and water quality data obtained through field monitoring and sampling (data to be collected by implementing the FSP included within this document). CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 12 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 2. Estimates of wet weather stormwater quality impacts identified using an integrated water quality model developed by the City of Torrance. The water quality model is described in Section 2.2.1. 3. Identification of BMPs that will be implemented by the City to mitigate observed water quality impacts in the City’s outflows to Machado Lake. 2.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) In order to estimate wet weather stormwater quality impacts, the City has developed an integrated watershed modeling tool to simulate watershed hydrology, nutrient, sediment, and contaminant dynamics. This tool called Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT), incorporates existing and commonly used watershed models. The main models used by PLAT are PLOAD, Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds (P8), and U.S EPA SUSTAIN model. PLAT is based on spatially distributed inputs derived from high resolution satellite imagery. PLAT has four main components: pollutant hot-spots characterization, BMP screening, continuous simulation, and BMP design, optimization, and placement. The SUSTAIN model provides an optimization routine that helps identify the appropriate size of BMPs for treating stormwater runoff from respective source areas to meet TMDL reduction goals. The tool has been validated with results from the LA County Watershed Management Model System (WMMS). 3.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN The 12-month FSP is designed to collect continuous flow data and discrete dry weather water quality data to support the overall study objectives summarized in Section 2. 3.1 Sampling Locations and Access Site selection is a major challenge, given the scarcity of funding for sampling and laboratory analysis. The number of locations to be sampled was decided based on the program objectives, regulatory requirements, and the size and complexity of the drainage sub-basins and conveyance system. In addition, the frequency of sampling at each location was considered. As a first step in the selection process, the City’s watersheds, sub-basins and drainage system network were reviewed. Based on this review, nine locations were identified that could be used to characterize the flows in and out of each subbasin. Four of these locations are needed at a minimum to characterize the flows conveyed to Machado Lake. The final selection of sample locations was based on factors such as site permission, access, clustering, personal safety, equipment safety, and the likelihood that stormwater would flow at the location. Table 4 summarizes the proposed stormwater sampling locations, types, and characteristics. The general sampling locations are depicted on Figure 5. Appendix A shows detailed characteristics of each sampling location. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 13 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx At a minimum, four sampling locations will meet the objectives of this program. However, the City will sample five additional locations, Tor-S3, Tor-S6, Tor-S7, Tor-S8, and Tor-S9 as shown on Figure 4 because the results will support critical decisions including identifying sources originating outside of the City’s boundaries or sources not under the direct control of the City. The sampling locations Tor-S6, Tor-S7, Tor-S8, and Tor-S9 are discharge points for Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates. The sampling locations are described below. Tor-S1 This site is located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. The total upstream drainage area is approximately 63 acres. The drainage area is mainly residential and commercial land use. Residential and commercial land uses represent 36 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of the drainage area. This site is easily accessible and safe for conducting sampling during both dry and wet weather conditions. The storm sewer conveying stormwater to this site is a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe. This site is one of the four sites that will provide information on the amount of pollutants leaving the City limits. Sampling Site: TOR-S1 CAROLLO ENGINEERS 14 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIASPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN Table 4 Sampling Location Characteristics Sampling Location Name Description Land Use GPS Coordinates Associated Upstream Storm Drain Name Diameter (in) and Material Tor-S1 Located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. . Residential/ commercial 33° 49.3572’118° 18.5208’ City 36 RCP Tor-S2 Approximately 50 ft west of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. Mixed 33°48.093’ 118° 19.5252’ City 33 RCP Tor-S3 Effluent of Walteria Lake, approximately 100 ft east of Madison St. and Skypark Drive intersection. Mixed 33°48.6312 118° 20.8674’ Walteria Lake 54 Tor-S4 Approximately 210 ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. Mostly residential 33° 48.7056’118° 18.5196’ City 9’-2”Wx11’H RCB Tor-S5 About 25 ft west of intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). Residential/ Airport 33° 47.8956’118° 19.6872’ City 8’-9”Wx9’-7”HRCB Tor-S6 Approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. Mostly residential 33° 47.1822’118° 20.43’ Rolling Hills Estates 36 RCP Tor-S7 About 160 ft south and 280 ft east of Rolling Hills Road and Hawthorne Blvd. intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. Mostly residential 33° 47.6826118° 20.9232’ Rolling Hills Estates 10’x10’ RCB Tor-S8 About 500 ft northwest of Paseo De Las Tortugas and Mesa St. intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. Mostly residential 33° 48.0522’118° 21.4254’ Rolling Hills Estates 24 RCP Tor-S9 About 830 ft east and 120 ft south of Paseo de las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. Mostly residential 33° 48.2742’118° 21.7776’ Palos Verdes Estates 42 RCP CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 16 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S2 Tor-S2 is approximately 50 ft west of the intersection of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue. The total upstream drainage area is about 2,605 acres. The drainage area is a mixed land use, about 32 percent residential, 10 percent commercial and 11 percent industrial. The Torrance Airport accounts for 12 percent of the drainage area. Tor-S2 is easily accessible and safe for conducting sampling during both dry and wet weather conditions. Stormwater is conveyed to this site through an 8’ x 7’ reinforced concrete box. This site is one the four sites that will provide information to quantify the amount of pollutants leaving the City limits. Sampling Site: TOR-S2 Tor-S3 This site, which is approximately 100 ft east of Madison St. and Skypark Drive intersection, will assist the City in characterizing discharges from Walteria Lake. The total upstream drainage area is approximately 2,285 acres. This site is upstream of Tor-S2. Land use is mixed with 37 percent residential, 10 percent commercial and 9 percent industrial. A 54-inch pipe conveys stormwater to this site. The site is easily accessible and safe for all weather sampling. Sampling Site: TOR-S3 Sampling Site: TOR-S3 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 17 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S4 Tor-S4 is approximately 210 ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. The total drainage area upstream of this sampling location is approximately 1,014 acres. Residential land use represents nearly 60 percent of the drainage area. Commercial and industrial land uses represent only 9 percent of the drainage area. The storm drain serving this site is a 9’-2” x 11’ RCB. The site is safe for all weather sampling and it is easily accessible. Sampling Site: TOR-S4 Tor-S5 This site is about 25 ft west of the intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). This sampling site serves an upstream drainage area of approximately 661 acres. This site is mainly residential and airport land use; residential and airport land uses represent 43 and 24 percent of the drainage area, respectively. The storm drain discharging stormwater to this site is an 8’-9” x 9’-7’ RCB. This site is easily accessible and safe for sampling activities. Sampling Site: TOR-S5 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 18 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S6 Tor-S6 is located at approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. This site will monitor flow entering the City’s storm drain from Rolling Hills Estate. The sampling site is safe and easily accessible. Sampling Site: TOR-S6 Tor-S7 This site is about 160 ft south and 280 ft east of Rolling Hills Road and Hawthorne Blvd. intersection. It will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. The site is easily accessible and safe for sampling at all weather conditions. Sampling Site: TOR-S7 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 19 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Tor-S8 This site is located at about 500 ft northwest of Paseo De Las Tortugas and Mesa St. intersection. It will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. The site is easily accessible and safe for sampling at all weather conditions. Sampling Site: TOR-S8 Tor-S9 Tor-S9 is about 830 ft east and 120 ft south of Paseo de Las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. This site will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. The site is accessible and safe for sampling activities. Sampling Site: TOR-S9 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 20 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 3.2 Sample Collection Frequency The City’s sampling program consists of three major elements: 1. Monthly sampling during dry weather conditions for all sampling locations. Grab samples will be collected from each sampling location. Dry weather conditions must be preceded by at least 24 hours of no greater than trace precipitation or have an intensity of less than 0.1 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. 2. Samples will be collected from Tor-S3 during four discrete storm events and anytime time the LA County pumps stormwater from the Walteria Lake into the 54-inch storm drain. Pumping schedule will be obtained from LA County. 3. Continuous recording of stage or flow depth during dry weather periods for flow estimation will be collected from the proposed sample locations during dry weather flow conditions. Regarding Tor-S3, one grab sample for each of the four storm events will be collected under the following conditions: 1. Sampling will occur during a storm event with at least 0.1 inch of precipitation (defined as a “measurable” event). Weather forecasts will be evaluated before deciding whether or not to sample a particular rain event. The monitoring manager will periodically establish a modem connection with each sampling unit to monitor rainfall, flow rates, and sampling activity. The monitoring manager will download stored data from the National Weather Service as needed. 2. Sampling will not occur at a frequency greater than once every 72 hours. 3. Sampling will not occur unless there has been at least 72 hours of continuous dry weather immediately preceding the “measurable” event. 4. Grab samples will be collected from this location during approximately the first 30 minutes to 1 hour of stormwater discharge (where possible). The intention of the sample collection frequency and stormwater event requirements described above is to collect samples that are representative of runoff conditions from Tor-S3. No samples will be collected from the remaining eight sampling locations during storm events. The City’s Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) will be used to estimate nutrient loading for these sampling location during storm events. 3.3 Selection of Analytical Parameters The City proposes to use a mass based WLA compliance option to evaluate TMDL compliance. Samples submitted for nutrients will be tested for ammonia-N (NH3+), ammonium, nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate (PO4). Water samples submitted for conventional water parameters (general chemistry) will be tested for alkalinity, pH, chloride, total suspended solids (TSS), total solids, dissolved solids, turbidity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), and standard metals. The constituents to be sampled are listed in Table 5. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 21 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Table 5 Monitoring Constituents Analyte Method of Analysis Detection Limits NH3+ SM 4500-NH3-H 0.02 mg/l NO3 SM 4500-NO3-F 0.02 mg/l NO2 SM 4500-NO3-F 0.01 mg/l TKN EPA 351.3 0.1 mg/l TP EPA 365.4 0.06 mg/l PO4 SM 4500-P-F 0.01 mg/l TSS EPA 160.2 0.5 mg/l Turbidity n/a 0.01 NTU 3.4 Continuous Flow Monitoring Accurate assessment of flow is crucial to pollutant loads assessments and analysis. Continuous flow data will be collected as part of this sampling effort for all nine sampling locations. The primary benefit of these continuous monitoring sites is the ability to gauge the increase in flow due to a storm event and apply concentration data to calculate pollutant loading. Global Water’s FL16 Water Flow Logger will be used for flow data collection. The FL16 Water Flow Loggers will record over 81,000 depth, temperature, water flow and velocity readings in the drainage pipes. The specially engineered, non-fouling water level sensor works in depths as little as ½ inch and allows for deployment in manholes and other difficult to access areas without the need to enter the confined space. FL16 Water Flow Recorder’s user-friendly Windows-based software is tailored specifically for calculating water flows in partially filled sewer and drainage pipes using the Manning’s Equation, with pull-down menus for selecting and entering the necessary information. The Water Flow Recorder software has a unique calibration feature which allows users to view calculated water velocity, compare this to actual measured data, and adjust the water flow parameters to calibrate for the water flow conditions of a specific application. The flow measuring systems will be calibrated before data collection begins and that these will be re-calibrated monthly. 3.5 The Sampling Team Grab samples from the nine sampling locations will be collected by a contract lab retained by the City. Pre-labeled sample bottles will be provided by the certified laboratory that will be conducting the analyses. The Sampling Team will be responsible for ensuring that all required equipment is ready for field operation. They are also responsible for performing the entire field sampling activities and most of the sampling preparation. Any member of the Sampling Team may recommend canceling sampling if the predicted conditions do not materialize or if health or safety of the team could be imperiled due to site conditions or extreme weather. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 22 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES This section describes the sampling procedures, record keeping, sample handling, storage, and field quality control procedures that will be used during stormwater sampling. 4.1 Preparation for conducting the sampling Several things will be done to prepare to conduct stormwater sampling. First, the laboratory to analyze the samples will be contacted. The following information will be sought from the lab:  Type and size of bottles needed  Procedures to filling the bottles  Sample volume requirements  Labels or additional forms required  Explanation of the chain of custody form  Sample preservation requirements and/or holding time restrictions  Means of sample delivery to the lab  Overnight delivery requirements  Costs Once a lab has been selected the sampling equipment (sampling bottles from a lab, sampling instruments, and personal safety equipment) will be made ready, as well as the field sheet to document the required information. Table 6 lists constituents and sample container requirements. Field personnel will complete a field condition data sheet. The following items will be listed on the field sampling sheet and included in the stormwater discharge monitoring report:  Person who conducted the sampling  Date and time of discharge  Length of storm event  Time between sampled storm event and previous storm event (at least 72 hrs)  Total rainfall during storm event  Photo documentation A field data sheet is attached as Appendix B. 4.1.1 Sampling Equipment Monitoring equipment will be gathered ahead of time because opportunities to sample during rainfall events often come with little advanced notice. The following equipments will be required for the sampling efforts:  Field forms  Waterproof pens  Permanent markers CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 23 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx  Powder-free nitrile gloves  Clear glass jar for visual examinations  Sample containers  Sample preservatives  Sample container labels  COC forms  COC seals  Ice chests  Ice  Foul-weather gear  Manhole sampler Table 6 Monitoring Constituents and Sample Container Requirements Analyte Container Volume Preservation Holding Time NH3+ Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C H2SO4 PH < 2 28 days NO3 Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 48 hours NO2 Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 48 hours TKN Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 28 days TP Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C, H2SO4 PH <2 28 days PO4 Plastic 50 ml ≤ 6°C 48 hours TSS Plastic 200 ml ≤ 6°C 7 days 4.2 Sampling Method Water samples will be collected from storm sewer manhole and outfall sites. All samples will be collected as individual grabs. Samples will be collected directly into sample containers or with a laboratory-supplied container attached to a pole with duct tape or other means. Sampling containers will be held with container openings facing upstream to prevent contamination during sampling. Field personnel will wear powder-free nitrile disposable gloves. Each sample will be given a field identification, tagged, and kept cool at 4 degrees C. Chain-of-custody (COC) procedures will be observed and samples delivered to the laboratory within the allowable holding times for each parameter. It is assumed that sampling locations will have well-mixed conditions so that single grabs are representative of water quality. Field personnel will record the degree of turbulence or quiescence as well as the dimensions of the conveyance sampled and/or a description of water flowing in the conveyance. Field personnel will also record the date and time of sample collection and the flow rate. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 24 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx Sampling containers for direct grabs (either by hand or with pole attached to laboratory supplied container) will be pre-cleaned by the laboratory. It will be made certain that if a sample is transferred (either for collection purposes or to form grab-composite samples), that only laboratory-supplied containers are permitted to come in contact with the sample. 4.3 Personal Safety A Health and Safety Plan approved by the contract lab will be reviewed by the all field personnel before the sampling operations covered in this monitoring plan begin. Personal safety will be of primary concern while conducting all stormwater sampling related activities. All persons involved in the sampling operation will be made aware of the hazards associated with monitoring and should freely voice any concerns if potential hazards become apparent. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides regulations and guidance on occupational safety, many of which are directly applicable to the types of activities involved in stormwater monitoring. It is the direct responsibility of each person involved in the monitoring program to read the Health and Safety Plan and adhere to its requirements. The following list provides a few basic health and safety procedures that will help to create a safer sampling environment.  Do not sample alone, a minimum of two-person field crews will be used for stormwater sampling.  Do not enter a confined space without proper training, equipment, and surface support.  Never remove or replace manhole covers with your bare hands or feet.  Never leave an open manhole unattended.  Do not start staging or sampling until traffic control has been established. 4.4 Clean Sampling Techniques Clean sample collection techniques will be followed to minimize the potential for contamination of stormwater runoff samples. Care will be taken during all sampling operations to avoid contamination of the water samples by human, atmospheric, or other potential sources of contamination. The monitoring team should prevent contamination of any of the following items: composite bottles, lids, sample, tubing, and strainers. 4.5 Sample Packing and Shipping Monitoring personnel will deliver the samples to the laboratory. Sample bottles will be placed in coolers or some other package that is rigid enough to provide protection of the samples and is insulated to keep samples cold. During packing, the sample from one monitoring location will not be separated into separate shipping containers unless bottles of one size need to be shipped together because of container size. If samples from a location are separated a copy of the field-sampling sheet pertaining to the bottles will be enclosed in each shipping container. Prior to shipping, all sample bottles will be recorded on the packing lists, which will include the shipping date and the method of transporting the samples. Samples will be delivered to the analytical laboratory within 4 hours of sampling to ensure the maximum holding time for bacteria of 6 hours is not exceeded. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 25 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 4.6 Chain of Custody After samples have been obtained and the collection procedures properly documented, a written record of the COC of each sample will be made. This record ensures that samples will not be tampered with or inadvertently compromised in any way, and it also tracks the requested analysis for the analytical laboratory. COC refers to the documented account of changes in possession that occur for samples. The COC record tracks the sampling path from origin through laboratory analysis. Information necessary in the COC includes:  Name of the persons collecting the sample(s).  Date and time of sample collection.  Location of sample collection.  Names and signatures of all persons handling the samples in the field and in the laboratory.  Laboratory analysis requested and control information (e.g., duplicate or spiked samples etc.) and any special instructions (e.g., time sensitive analyses). To ensure that all necessary information is documented a COC form will accompany each sample or set of samples. COC forms will be printed on multipart carbonless paper so that all personnel handling the samples may obtain a copy. A COC record should accompany all sample shipments and the sample originator will retain a copy of the forms. When transferring custody of samples the transferee will sign and record the date and time of each transfer. Each person who takes custody will complete the appropriate portion of the chain of custody documentation. A sample COC form to be used for this field sampling is attached as Appendix C. 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 5.1 Data Quality Objective The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program will be implemented to satisfy the data quality objectives of the monitoring program. The primary data quality objectives are to obtain defensible data of acceptable sensitivity and quality to:  Evaluate the stormwater management program.  Evaluate stormwater quality.  Evaluate of BMP as corrective measure. The analytical laboratory selected for this study will evaluate the accuracy of its sample extraction and/or analytical procedures using spiked samples, which may include matrix spikes (MS), laboratory control samples (LCS) and surrogate spikes. Acceptable spike recoveries must fall within statistically derived laboratory “control limits.” Precision is the agreement among a set a replicate measurements of the same parameter. The analytical laboratory will evaluate precision by performing matrix spike duplicate (MSD), laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) and duplicate stormwater sample analyses (typically CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 26 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx performed for inorganic parameters only). The data quality objectives also include obtaining data that are comparable and representative of the water quality conditions at each monitoring location. Comparable data will be collected if comparable sampling, analysis, QA/QC and reporting procedures are implemented throughout the monitoring program. Representative samples will be collected by performing sampling activities compliant with the procedures described in this monitoring plan. Duplicate samples will be collected and the results will be used to evaluate representativeness. Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. Data are comparable if collection techniques, measurement procedures, methods, and reporting are equivalent for the samples within a sample set. Data quality assurance objectives are summarized in Table 7. Table 7 Quality Assurance Objective Analyte Units Precision Accuracy Reporting Limit Completeness NH3+ mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.10 mg/l 90% NO3 mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% NO2 mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% TKN mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% TP mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.1 mg/l 90% PO4 mg/l ±20% ±30% 0.025 mg/l 90% TSS mg/l ±20% ±30% 1 mg/l 90% 5.1.1 Field Quality Control Samples Field quality control samples will be collected at a 10% frequency in order to provide quality performance information for the sampling program. One in ten samples submitted for analysis will be one of three field QC sample types: field blank; field duplicate; and/or performance evaluation blank. Table 8 lists the quality performance goals that each of the three types of field QC sample types is intended to address. Table 8 Field Quality Control Sample Types Quality Performance Goal Field Blank Field Duplicate Performance Evaluation Blank Minimize false positive results X X Sample bottles free of contamination X No contamination introduced by sampling process X Measurement error attributable to sample inhomogeneity X CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 27 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx 5.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control This section summarizes the QA/QC procedures that will be implemented by field personnel to evaluate sample contamination, sampling precision, and matrix interference. 5.2.1 Equipment Blanks After the intermediate sample container or scoop is cleaned, an equipment blank will be collected by pouring reagent-grade water into the apparatus. The water will be transferred into sample bottles and analyzed for the full analytical suite. 5.2.2 Field Duplicate Samples Field duplicate samples will be collected to evaluate the precision and representativeness of the sample collection procedures as well as sample homogeneity. The duplicate sample will be collected using the specified manual grab sampling techniques. Twice the volume required for the analytical suite will be collected with each duplicate sample. For grab samples, intermediate sample containers will be used, and the volume collected will be apportioned equally between the intermediate containers. The water in each intermediate container will be poured into a discrete set of sample bottles. One set of bottles will be labeled with fictitious sample identification and submitted “blind” to the laboratory. 5.2.3 Matrix Spike Samples MS and MSD analyses will be performed by the laboratory using project samples. Field crews will submit twice the required sample volume for the sample selected as the matrix spike sample. Field personnel will identify the MS/MSD sample on the COC form. 5.3 Laboratory Quality Control This sub-section summarizes the QC procedures the laboratory will perform and report with the analytical data packages. These procedures are not inclusive of the QA/QC that is required for compliance with the analytical method. 5.3.1 Method Blanks A method blank is prepared using reagent-grade water, and is extracted and analyzed with each sample batch (typically 20 samples extracted and/or analyzed on a given day). Method blank results are used to identify potential sources of sample contamination resulting from laboratory procedures. Target analytes should not be detected in the method blank above the practical quantitative limit. 5.3.2 Matrix Spike and Laboratory Control Samples MS, MSDs, LCS, and LCSDs will be performed by the laboratory to evaluate the accuracy of the sample extraction and analysis procedures. MS/MSDs will also be performed to evaluate matrix interference. Matrix interference is the effect of the sample matrix on the analysis, which may partially or completely mask the response of the analytical instrumentation to the target analyte(s). Matrix interference may affect the accuracy of the extraction and/or analysis procedures to varying degrees, and may bias the sample results high or low. The CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 28 May 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan - Nutrient TMDL-edits.docx MS/MSD is prepared by adding known quantities of target analytes to a sample. The sample is then extracted and/or analyzed as a typical environmental sample, and the results are reported as percent recovery. 6.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING The sampling results will be reported by the laboratory as hard copy and as electronic files. Hard copy data will be entered into an electronic format, and checked at least once by a different person. Electronic submittal of results will be discussed with the analytical laboratory in advance of delivery and its format arranged. A separate record will be generated for each sample analysis. In addition, the key information such as station ID, sample date and time, name of sampler, name of constituent, all results, units, detection limits, methods used, name of the laboratory, and any field notes will be entered into the database. Additional information, such as compositing of multiple samples, or the use of grab will also be included. When reporting the laboratory results for each stormwater sample the following information will be provided:  Sample site.  Sample date and time.  Sample number (or identification).  Sampling technician(s).  Detection limit and reliability limit of analytical procedure(s).  Sample results with clearly specified units. The results of all samples collected under this plan will be submitted to Regional Board in a monitoring report. Monitoring report will include:  Introduction and background information  Documentation and summary of each sampling event, including photos  Electronic copies of field conditions data sheets  Summary discussion of results  Tabular results of all samples, including quality assurance quality control samples, in electronic format, (Excel)  Evaluation data quality based on QAPP requirements. APPENDIX A Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S1 223rd St. Plaza Del Alamo Western AveSanta Fe Ave. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S2 Crenshaw BlvdTextAmsler St. Skypark Dr. &M &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S4 Western Ave235th St. 263th St Schilling Ct.Walnut St.238th St. &M &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S5 251st St. Tor-S5 Tor-S2 Crenshaw Blvd.250th St. 248th St. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S6 Rolling Hills RdC renshaw Bl vd. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S7 Hawthorne Blvd.Rolling Hills Rd. &3 Legend &3 Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S8 &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S9 Paseo De Las Tortugas Vista Montana Vista Largo B Sampling Field Data City of Torrance, California 16 GENERAL CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORM EVIDENCE/PROPERTY CUSTODY Tracking Number Investigation ID Number NAME OF RECIPIENT FACILITY LOCATION NAME, TITLE AND CONTACT NUMBER OF PERSON FROM WHOM RECEIVED ADDRESS LOCATION FROM WHERE OBTAINED REASON OBTAINED DATE/TIME OBTAINED ITEM NO QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES (Include model, serial number, condition and unusual marks or scratches) CHAIN OF CUSTODY ITEM NO. DATE RELEASES BY RECEIVED BY PURPOSE OF CHANGE OF CUSTODY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 17 Chain-of-Custody (continued) ITEM NO. DATE RELEASES BY RECEIVED BY PURPOSE OF CHANGE OF CUSTODY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE FINAL DISPOSAL ACTION RELEASE TO OWNER OR OTHER (NAME/ORGANIZATION) DESTROY OTHER (Specify) FINAL DISPOSAL AUTHORITY ON THIS DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION INVOLVING; ITEM(S) (IS)(ARE) NO LONGER REQUIRED AS EVIDENCE AND MAY BE DOSPOSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. If articles must be retained do not sign, but explain in separate correspondence. (Typed or Printed Name & Organization) (Signature) (Date) WITNESS TO DESTRUCTION EVIDENCE THE ARTICLES LISTED AT ITEM NUMBERS (WAS)(WERE) DESTROYED BY THE EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN IN MY PRESENCE, ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE (Typed or Printed Name & Organization) (Signature) (pole) 3031 Torrance Boulevard • Torrance, California 90503 • Phone: 310.618.5880 • Fax: 310.618.5891 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx City of Torrance, California MACHADO LAKE PESTICIDES AND PCBS TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN August 31, 2011 CAROLLO ENGINEERS i August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx City of Torrance, California MACHADO LAKE PESTICIDES AND PCBS TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN August 31, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Conditions and Characteristics .................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Study Site Location ........................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics ................................................................. 3 1.2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................... 4 1.2.4 Water Quality Issues ........................................................................ 4 1.3 Special Study Work Plan ................................................................................ 10 2.0 PRE-BMP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY ..................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Objectives of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study .......................................... 11 2.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) .................................. 12 3.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN ........................................................................................... 12 3.1 Sampling Locations and Access ..................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Stormwater Composite Samples .................................................... 20 3.1.2 Stormwater Grab Samples ............................................................. 21 3.1.3 Sediment Trap Samples ................................................................. 21 3.1.4 Flow Measurements ....................................................................... 21 3.2 Sample Collection Frequency ......................................................................... 22 3.3 Selection of Analytical Parameters ................................................................. 22 3.4 The Sampling Team ....................................................................................... 24 4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES ................................................................... 24 4.1 Preparation for conducting the sampling ........................................................ 24 4.1.1 Sampling Equipment ...................................................................... 25 4.2 Sampling Method ............................................................................................ 27 4.3 Personal Safety .............................................................................................. 27 4.4 Clean Sampling Techniques ........................................................................... 27 4.5 Sample Packing and Shipping ........................................................................ 28 4.6 Chain of Custody ............................................................................................ 28 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ................................................. 29 5.1 Data Quality Objective .................................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Field Quality Control Samples ........................................................ 30 5.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ......................................................... 30 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS ii August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 5.2.1 Equipment Blanks ........................................................................... 30 5.2.2 Field Duplicate Samples ................................................................. 30 5.2.3 Matrix Spike Samples ..................................................................... 30 5.3 Laboratory Quality Control .............................................................................. 31 5.3.1 Method Blanks ................................................................................ 31 5.3.2 Matrix Spike and Laboratory Control Samples ............................... 31 6.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING ................................................................ 31 APPENDIX A – Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations APPENDIX B – Field Data Sheet APPENDIX C – Chain of Custody LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Waste Load Allocations for OC Pesticides and PCBs ........................................ 2 Table 2 Total Annual Pesticides and PCBs Load Entering Machado Lake(1) ................... 5 Table 3 Schedule or Work Plan Elements ..................................................................... 11 Table 4 Sampling Location Characteristics .................................................................... 14 Table 5 Monitoring Constituents .................................................................................... 24 Table 6 Monitoring Constituents and Sample Container Requirements ........................ 26 Table 7 Data Quality Assurance Objectives ................................................................... 29 Table 8 Field Quality Control Sample Types .................................................................. 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Map of Torrance ................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 Subregional Watersheds ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Existing Land Use of Torrance ............................................................................ 8 Figure 4 2007 Satellite Imagery of Machado Lake and Ken Malloy Harbor Park Overview ..................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 General Location Map of Sampling Locations .................................................. 15 Figure 6 Photo of Sediment Trap .................................................................................... 22 CAROLLO ENGINEERS 1 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx City of Torrance, California SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Field Sampling Plan (FSP) presents the approach and procedures to implement stormwater sampling activities in 2011 for a Special Study of the City of Torrance (City) storm drains discharging stormwater into Machado Lake. The field study sampling procedures, methods, and analyses for stormwater are described in this document. 1.1 Background The City is subject to the requirements of the Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) per the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board’s (Regional Board’s) Resolution R10-008. Under the Regional Board’s resolution, the City shall submit to the Regional Board’s Executive Officer a Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP) within 1’5 year of the effective date of the resolution or propose a Special Study Work Plan following the requirements of one of three optional studies. This Special Study Work Plan details the approach proposed by the City to perform Optional Study No. 3, to assess compliance with the Waste Load Allocations (WLA) on a mass basis for pesticides and PCBs originating from the City’s watersheds. The Special Study Work Plan proposes a pre-Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation Study including field sampling and data collection to be followed by submittals to the Regional Board including a BMP Evaluation and Selection Report, a MRP, and a BMP Implementation Report to be provided at a later date. Machado Lake is identified on the 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2008 Clean Water Act 300(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, Chem A (chemical group A), and PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) in tissue. Resource agencies, local governments, project implementers, the scientific community, environmental groups, decision-makers at the city, county, state, and federal levels, and many others have continued to take meaningful steps towards the restoration of Machado Lake and its basin. Among these efforts, restoration activities are expanding through continued implementation of erosion control, stormwater management, and riparian restoration projects, development of the Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL that is providing a quantitative, science-based approach for pollutant reduction, and a strong research/monitoring effort to evaluate key ecological processes and response to water quality improvement projects. The Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL allows for the establishment of WLAs as concentration-based allocations (equal to the sediment numeric targets) for suspended sediment-associated contaminants shown in Table 1. This approach ensures that targets in the lake will not be exceeded and applies the same standard throughout the watershed, instilling equal protection. Furthermore, because organochlorine (OC) pesticides and PCBs bioaccumulate, the risk to human health and the environment does not occur as the result of a single discharge event. Therefore, the WLAs are applied with a 3-year averaging period. The impacts of OC pesticides and PCBs are manifested over long time periods. Short-term CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 2 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx variations in pollutant concentrations are not likely to significantly impact the impairment and/or protection of beneficial uses. Thus, it is reasonable to evaluate discharges and improvements in water quality over a longer time period. The 3-year averaging period protects the beneficial uses of the lake over long time periods. The City of Torrance mass-based WLA will be proportional to the City owned area in the sub- watershed. The City of Torrance area accounts for 35.6% of the Machado Lake Watershed. Table 1 Waste Load Allocations for OC Pesticides and PCBs Responsible Party Pollutant WLA for Suspended Sediment-Associated Contaminants (ug/kg dry weight) MS4 Permittees1, Caltrans, General Construction and Industrial Stormwater Permits, and other Non- stormwater NPDES Permits Total PCB 59.8 DDT (all congeners) 4.16 DDE (all congeners) 3.16 DDD (all congeners) 4.88 Total DDT 5.28 Chlordane 3.24 Dieldrin 1.9 1WLA are applied with a 3-year averaging period 1.2 Site Conditions and Characteristics 1.2.1 Study Site Location The City is located about 15 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles (LA), in southern LA County, just north of the Palos Verdes Hills. The City was incorporated on May 12, 1921, and is just over 20.5 square miles in area. The City is bounded by Redondo Beach on the west and north, Lawndale and Gardena on the north, LA on the east, Lomita to the southeast, and Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates on the south. The City is also bounded by approximately 4,000 feet of Santa Monica Bay coastline. The City’s storm conveyance systems are interconnected with neighboring city systems. Neighboring cities located at generally higher elevation such as Rolling Hills Estate and Palos Verde Estate discharge stormwater into the City’s and/or LA County’s storm conveyance systems located within the City’s boundaries. Figure 1 shows a regional location map of the City. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 3 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 1.2.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Machado Lake subwatershed is located in the southwestern area of the Dominguez Watershed and includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Lomita, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Carson, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, and the communities of unincorporated Los Angeles County, including Wilmington and Harbor City. However, much of the Machado Lake watershed consists of the hilly regions of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills. This portion of the watershed is unique, as it consists of relatively steep hills with drainage into the canyons. The Machado Lake Watershed covers an area of approximately 20 square miles and is itself divided into six primary subdrainage areas. These subdrainages are the Walteria Lake, Project 77/510, Wilmington Drain, Project 643 (72-inch Storm Drain), Project 643 (Figueroa Drain), and Private Drain 553. Machado Lake, about 40 acres in area and the Machado Lake Wetlands (64 acres) are located within the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park in the southeastern corner of the Machado Lake Watershed. Both Machado Lake and the Machado Lake wetlands serve as flood retention basins for the Machado Lake Watershed. 1.2.2.1 Storm Drain As the area is highly urbanized, drainage is primarily conducted through an extensive network of underground storm drain facilities. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works maintains the system of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The primary use of the Dominguez Channel and all other open channels in the Dominguez Watershed (including Wilmington Drain, Machado Lake, and Madrona Marsh) is flood protection. Machado Lake receives urban and storm water runoff from a complex network of storm drain systems. The first of three primary storm drain channels that flow into Machado Lake is the Wilmington Drain. Approximately 65 percent of the runoff from the Machado Lake Watershed flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. The other two primary storm drain channels are the Project No. 77 Drain and the Harbor City Relief Drain. Several smaller storm drains also discharges into Machado Lake, including Project No. 643’s Figueroa Street Outlet and a 72-inch storm drain outlet. Machado Lake discharges at the southern end by overflowing a concrete dam into the Machado Lake wetland. Water discharges from the wetland through the Harbor Outflow structure and into the West Basin of the Los Angeles Harbor. The Walteria Lake, located within the City’s boundaries, is owned and operated by LA County. It is approximately 1,005 acre-feet in capacity and receives raw stormwater mainly from Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates. Effluent from the lake is pumped at a maximum rate of 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) through a force main system into a 54-inch drain line that lies under Skypark Drive. The discharge eventually leaves the City near the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Amsler Street. Figure 2 shows the drainage basins and stormwater conveyance infrastructure in the City. The figure also shows nearby communities discharging stormwater into the City’s drainage system. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 4 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 1.2.3 Land Use The City of Torrance is predominantly residential land use, with concentrations of industrial and commercial uses. This reflects the City’s history as a “company town,” where homes were built to house the local work force of industries. Residential development covered almost half of the City’s land area. Industrial uses occupied the second largest land area, at 22 percent. Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public/Open Space uses represent the third largest land uses in the City, about 12 percent each. Torrance also had a limited supply of vacant land mostly within commercial and industrial areas. Given the built-out character of the community, only minor land use changes from baseline year 2010 conditions will occur over the long term. Residential uses are located throughout Torrance at varying development densities. The highest residential densities occur along major streets and near major transportation corridors, in older neighborhoods, and in apartment or condominium developments and Planned Development communities around Sepulveda Boulevard and Plaza Del Amo between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards. The lowest residential densities are largely located in the western and southern portions of the City. Figure 3 identifies the land uses in Torrance. 1.2.4 Water Quality Issues Machado Lake, located in the Dominguez Channel watershed in southern LA County, is identified on the 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2008 Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies as impaired due to chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, Chem A, and PCBs in tissue. As part of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Core Monitoring Program, the Dominguez Channel watershed data collected in 2008-2009 did not detect OC pesticides and PCBs in any of the samples (Los Angeles County Stormwater Monitoring Report, 2008-09). While these data were not collected from the Machado Lake subwatershed specifically, they are representative of contaminant loadings from the Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area, which contains similar land uses and topography as the Machado Lake subwatershed. Based on these data, current stormwater discharge from the Machado Lake subwatershed appears to be a minimal source of contamination to the lake. However, it is possible for small amounts of contaminated sediment to accumulate to levels that cause impairment. These data, however, document the presence of contaminated sediment residing in Wilmington Drain and Project 77 drain. The locations of these drains are shown on Figure 4. If sediment is transported downstream to Machado Lake it would be a significant source of contaminated sediment. Table 2 shows the mass of contaminant loaded from each sub- drainage area. Machado Lake is located in the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park (KMHRP), which is a 231 acres LA City Park serving the Wilmington and Harbor City areas. As shown on Figure 4, the park is located west of the Harbor Freeway (110) and east of Vermont Avenue between the Tosco Refinery on the south and the Pacific Coast Highway on the North. Machado Lake is one of the last lake and wetland systems in LA; the area is approximately 103.5 acres in total CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 5 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx size. The upper portion, which includes the open water area, is approximately 40 acres and the lower wetland portion is about 63.5 acres. Machado Lake is a shallow polymictic lake; the depth is generally 0.5 to 1.5 meters; the average depth is approximately 1.0 meter. The lake was originally developed as part of Harbor Regional Park in 1971 and intended for boating and fishing. Over the years water quality generally declined; boating was stopped and signs were posted warning of the risk of eating fish from the lake. Table 2 Total Annual Pesticides and PCBs Load Entering Machado Lake(1) Pollutant Annual Load (g/year) Washington Drain Project 77 Chlordane 26.2 6.9 Total DDT 19.0 1.5 PCBs 19.8 - Notes: 1. Source: Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL, Revised Draft – September 2, 2010. The dominant land use in the Machado Lake Watershed is high-density single-family residential, accounting for approximately 45 percent of the land use. Industrial, vacant, retail/commercial, multi-family residential, transportation, and educational institutions each account for 5 to 7 percent of the land use, while "all other" accounts for the remaining 23 percent. Machado Lake is a receiving body of urban and stormwater runoff from a network of storm drains throughout the watershed. As indicated on Figure 4, there are three discharge points into Machado Lake from the following storm drain channels:  Wilmington Drain.  Project No. 77.  Harbor City Relief Drain. Approximately 88 percent of the Machado Lake Watershed drainage area flows through the Wilmington Drain into Machado Lake. Machado Lake is not the terminal point of the Machado Lake subwatershed. Machado Lake has the ability to overflow its dam into the lower wetlands, which discharge through a stormdrain to Los Angeles Harbor. I-110AnaheimNormandieVermontPacific Coast Wetland Area Machado Lake Golf CourseProject 77 Project 510 Figure 3 2007 Satellite Imagery of Machado Lake and Ken Malloy Harbor Park Overview 4 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 10 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 1.3 Special Study Work Plan This document provides the overall structure of the Special Study Work Plan with submittals to the Regional Board, as well as providing the initial Pre-BMP Implementation Study Plan (including a proposed field data collection and sampling plan). The Special Study Work Plan addresses the requirements of Optional Study No. 3 to assess compliance with WLAs for pesticides and PCBs originating from the City’s watersheds. The scope of work for this plan includes the following:  Pre-BMP Implementation Study Period - Includes three wet weather sampling each year for a period of two years.  BMP Evaluation and Selection Study Report - This study report is to be submitted at a later date (see proposed schedule of work plan elements), and will summarize the collected field data. The field data will be used to assess compliance with WLAs under the TMDL. Based on the assessment of compliance, the BMP and Selection Study Report will identify and screen structural BMPs for mitigation to bring the City into compliance with the TMDL.  Monitoring and Reporting Plan - Subsequent to acceptance by the Regional Board of the findings and conclusions of the City’s BMP Evaluation and Selection Study Report, the City will submit an MRP specific to the needs for assessment of future compliance with the TMDL.  BMP Implementation Report - This report will summarize the monitoring data collected after the of BMP implementation and will provide to the Regional Board an assessment of the success of the structural BMPs implemented by the City to support compliance with the TMDL. One wet weather sampling will be conducted each other year. The actual start date for the sampling will be determined following the Regional Board’s approval of this Special Study Work Plan. Other conditions that may affect the sampling schedule are weather and equipment conditions and availability. The schedule for the work plan is summarized in Table 3. The Special Study Work Plan identifies the proposed tasks the City agrees to perform, their timelines, and the roles and responsibilities of various parties in completing the work. The purpose of this document is to serve as a starting point for work planning discussions between the City and the Regional Board. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 11 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Table 3 Schedule or Work Plan Elements ID Work Plan Element Schedule 1 Special Study Work Plan January, 2012 (submittal) 2 Regional Board Review/Approval Feb, 2012 (approval) 3 Pre-BMP Implementation Study April, 2012 – March, 2013 (field sampling) 4 BMP Evaluation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan September, 2013 (submittal - Draft) March, 2014 (Submittal – Final) 5 Regional Review/Approval February, 2015 (approval) 6 BMP Implementation April, 2015 (implementation) 7 BMP Implementation Report September, 2019 (submittal) 2.0 PRE-BMP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 2.1 Introduction The Pre-BMP Implementation Study includes a 12-month FSP and evaluation of regional water quality models for wet weather conditions and Machado Lake to assess the City’s current compliance with WLAs. The FSP covers sample collection methods, analytical procedures, data analysis and reporting, and health and safety aspects. The FSP will generate a variety of data including discharge rates and flow volumes, the concentrations of chemical parameters, and the measurement of physical parameters. Utilizing the mass balance approach, the data will be used to estimate the mass of pesticides and PCBs originating from the City as well as nearby agencies discharging stormwater into the City’s storm drain system. The data will also be examined for patterns and trends, comparing stormwater quality between different sampling locations over time. The Pre-BMP Implementation Study will be undertaken once approval is obtained from the Regional Board for the Special Study Work Plan. The remaining sections of this document contain the FSP providing field sampling methods and analytical procedures that will be used to collect wet weather water quality data and continuous flow data. 2.2 Objectives of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study The Pre-BMP Implementation Study will provide the City data needed to assess water quality impacts to the City’s drainage network. The objective of this study is to support the City’s compliance with the Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL by performing Special Study No. 3. Data and information elements that are part of the Pre-BMP Implementation Study include: CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 12 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 1. Wet weather flow data including calculation of continuous volume data and water quality data obtained through field monitoring and sampling (data to be collected by implementing the FSP included within this document). 2. Estimates of wet weather stormwater quality impacts identified using an integrated water quality model developed by the City of Torrance. The water quality model is described in Section 2.2.1. 3. Identification of BMPs that will be implemented by the City to mitigate observed water quality impacts in the City’s outflows to Machado Lake. 2.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT) In order to estimate wet weather stormwater quality impacts, the City has developed an integrated watershed modeling tool to simulate watershed hydrology, pesticides and PCBs, sediment, and contaminant dynamics. This tool called Pollutant Loading and Analysis Tool (PLAT), incorporates existing and commonly used watershed models. The main models used by PLAT are PLOAD, Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds (P8), and U.S EPA SUSTAIN model. PLAT is based on spatially distributed inputs derived from high resolution satellite imagery. PLAT has four main components: pollutant hot-spots characterization, BMP screening, continuous simulation, and BMP design, optimization, and placement. The SUSTAIN model provides an optimization routine that helps identify the appropriate size of BMPs for treating stormwater runoff from respective source areas to meet TMDL reduction goals. The tool has been validated with results from the LA County Watershed Management Model System (WMMS). 3.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN The 12-month FSP is designed to collect continuous flow data and discrete wet weather water quality data to support the overall study objectives summarized in Section 2. 3.1 Sampling Locations and Access Site selection is a major challenge, given the scarcity of funding for sampling and laboratory analysis. The number of locations to be sampled was decided based on the program objectives, regulatory requirements, and the size and complexity of the drainage sub-basins and conveyance system. In addition, the frequency of sampling at each location was considered. As a first step in the selection process, the City’s watersheds, sub-basins and drainage system network were reviewed. Based on this review, nine locations were identified that could be used to characterize the flows in and out of each subbasin. Four of these locations are needed at a minimum to characterize the flows conveyed to Machado Lake. The final selection of sample locations was based on factors such as site permission, access, clustering, personal safety, equipment safety, and the likelihood that stormwater would flow at the location. Table 4 summarizes the proposed stormwater sampling locations, types, and CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 13 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx characteristics. The general sampling locations are depicted on Figure 5. Appendix A shows detailed characteristics of each sampling location. At a minimum, four sampling locations will meet the objectives of this program. However, the City will sample five additional locations, Tor-S3, Tor-S6, Tor-S7, Tor-S8, and Tor-S9 as shown on Figure 5 because the results will support critical decisions including identifying sources originating outside of the City’s boundaries or sources not under the direct control of the City. The sampling locations Tor-S6, Tor-S7, Tor-S8, and Tor-S9 are discharge points for Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates. The sampling locations are described below. Tor-S1 This site is located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. The total upstream drainage area is approximately 63 acres. The drainage area is mainly residential and commercial land use. Residential and commercial land uses represent 36 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of the drainage area. This site is easily accessible and safe for conducting sampling during both dry and wet weather conditions. The storm sewer conveying stormwater to this site is a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe. This site is one of the four sites that will provide information on the amount of pollutants leaving the City limits. Sampling Site: TOR-S1 CAROLLO ENGINEERS 14 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIASPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN Table 4 Sampling Location Characteristics Sampling Location Name Description Land Use GPS Coordinates Associated Upstream Storm Drain Name Diameter (in) and Material Tor-S1 Located 40 ft north and 80 ft east of the intersection of Plaza Del Amo and Western Avenue. . Residential/ commercial 33° 49.3572’118° 18.5208’ City 36 RCP Tor-S2 Approximately 50 ft west of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. Mixed 33°48.093’ 118° 19.5252’ City 33 RCP Tor-S3 Effluent of Walteria Lake, approximately 100 ft east of Madison St. and Skypark Drive intersection. Mixed 33°48.6312 118° 20.8674’ Walteria Lake 54 Tor-S4 Approximately 210 ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. Mostly residential 33° 48.7056’118° 18.5196’ City 9’-2”Wx11’H RCB Tor-S5 About 25 ft west of intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). Residential/ Airport 33° 47.8956’118° 19.6872’ City 8’-9”Wx9’-7”HRCB Tor-S6 Approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. Mostly residential 33° 47.1822’118° 20.43’ Rolling Hills Estates 36 RCP Tor-S7 About 160 ft south and 280 ft east of Rolling Hills Road and Hawthorne Blvd. intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. Mostly residential 33° 47.6826118° 20.9232’ Rolling Hills Estates 10’x10’ RCB Tor-S8 About 500 ft northwest of Paseo De Las Tortugas and Mesa St. intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. Mostly residential 33° 48.0522’118° 21.4254’ Rolling Hills Estates 24 RCP Tor-S9 About 830 ft east and 120 ft south of Paseo de las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. Will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. Mostly residential 33° 48.2742’118° 21.7776’ Palos Verdes Estates 42 RCP CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 16 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Tor-S2 Tor-S2 is approximately 50 ft west of the intersection of 246th Place and Pennsylvania Avenue. The total upstream drainage area is about 2,605 acres. The drainage area is a mixed land use, about 32 percent residential, 10 percent commercial and 11 percent industrial. The Torrance Airport accounts for 12 percent of the drainage area. Tor-S2 is easily accessible and safe for conducting sampling during both dry and wet weather conditions. Stormwater is conveyed to this site through an 8’ x 7’ reinforced concrete box. This site is one the four sites that will provide information to quantify the amount of pollutants leaving the City limits. Sampling Site: TOR-S2 Tor-S3 This site, which is approximately 100 ft east of Madison St. and Skypark Drive intersection, will assist the City in characterizing discharges from Walteria Lake. The total upstream drainage area is approximately 2,285 acres. This site is upstream of Tor-S2. Land use is mixed with 37 percent residential, 10 percent commercial and 9 percent industrial. A 54-inch pipe conveys stormwater to this site. The site is easily accessible and safe for all weather sampling. Sampling Site: TOR-S3 Sampling Site: TOR-S3 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 17 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Tor-S4 Tor-S4 is approximately 210 ft north and 85 ft east of 236th Street and Western Avenue intersection. The total drainage area upstream of this sampling location is approximately 1,014 acres. Residential land use represents nearly 60 percent of the drainage area. Commercial and industrial land uses represent only 9 percent of the drainage area. The storm drain serving this site is a 9’-2” x 11’ RCB. The site is safe for all weather sampling and it is easily accessible. Sampling Site: TOR-S4 Tor-S5 This site is about 25 ft west of the intersection of Bani Avenue and 250th Street (two pipes intersect from south and west). This sampling site serves an upstream drainage area of approximately 661 acres. This site is mainly residential and airport land use; residential and airport land uses represent 43 and 24 percent of the drainage area, respectively. The storm drain discharging stormwater to this site is an 8’-9” x 9’-7’ RCB. This site is easily accessible and safe for sampling activities. Sampling Site: TOR-S5 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 18 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Tor-S6 Tor-S6 is located at approximately 600 ft east of Estates Lane and Crenshaw Boulevard. This site will monitor flow entering the City’s storm drain from Rolling Hills Estate. The sampling site is safe and easily accessible. Sampling Site: TOR-S6 Tor-S7 This site is about 160 ft south and 280 ft east of Rolling Hills Road and Hawthorne Blvd. intersection. It will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. The site is easily accessible and safe for sampling at all weather conditions. Sampling Site: TOR-S7 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 19 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Tor-S8 This site is located at about 500 ft northwest of Paseo De Las Tortugas and Mesa St. intersection. It will monitor dry weather flow originating from Rolling Hills Estates. The site is easily accessible and safe for sampling at all weather conditions. Sampling Site: TOR-S8 Tor-S9 Tor-S9 is about 830 ft east and 120 ft south of Paseo de Las Tortugas and Vista Montana intersection. This site will monitor dry weather flow originating from Palos Verdes Estates. The site is accessible and safe for sampling activities. Sampling Site: TOR-S9 CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 20 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Four types of measurements will be conducted each station. Each measurement type is discussed further in the following sections. 3.1.1 Stormwater Composite Samples Flow-weighted composite samples of three storm events from each location will be collected to obtain Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) of chemicals. Flow-weighted, whole water (unfiltered) sample will be collected over the course of the storm event with Isco 6712 automatic samplers. The samplers will be located either within the junction being sampled (above the expected water levels) or at secure sites, on the ground surface immediately adjacent to the junction access (e.g., manhole). The sampling tube will be placed inside the junction with the intake screen for the tube close to but not in contact with the bottom of the junction. Sampling of composite water samples will be attempted whenever weather conditions present themselves in order to obtain three stormwater samples within the wet-weather season during storms that meet the acceptable target storm conditions. The target storm conditions for sampling are:  Storms predicted to produce more than 0.2 inches rainfall over a minimum of a 3 hour period, not to exceed approximately 2.25 inches in a 24 hour period (equivalent to the 2-year event)  And to have been preceded by at least a 24-hour dry period (less than 0.1 inches rainfall). The objective is to get a composite sample that represents the water quality over the entire storm hydrograph. This is the primary reason to define the minimum and maximum of the target storm conditions. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and California Climate Service storm forecasts will generally be used in the evaluation and identification of storms potentially meeting these criteria. The described target storm conditions should be considered goals. Each event sampled will be evaluated relative to these goals but circumstances may arise where all these goals cannot be met. In that event, Regional Board will be contacted to discuss sampling or storm conditions that substantially do not meet the target storm conditions prior to analyzing the samples. The justification for accepting samples that deviate from these target storm conditions will be provided in the Field Report. For each sampling location, drainage basins will be evaluated for basin area and runoff characteristics to facilitate calculation of expected discharge volumes for a variety of storm conditions meeting the storm criteria. The samplers will initially be setup with four programs to cover storm events from 0.2 inches to 0.5 inches, 0.5 inches to 1.0 inches, 1.0 inches to 1.5 inches, and 1.5 inches to 2.25 inches. Based on the forecast, the samplers will be called and the appropriate program will be run. Samplers will be pre-programmed to collect aliquots of stormwater in a uniform paced variable-volume manner following the calculated “trigger flow rate” or “trigger depth” depending on the individual site conditions. The objective is to collect a flow proportional composite sample that represents the entire storm hydrograph (aliquots will be collected into seven of the eight 1.8 liter bottles over the storm event, the CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 21 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx eighth bottle in the sampler will be used for a field blank for quality assurance/quality control [QA/QC]). However, this is only a guideline that will be considered in the evaluation of expected discharges and may be modified at one or more sampling locations. If storm volumes exceed expected volumes, the sampling period will be concluded when the sample bottles are full and thus in some cases, the falling limb of the storm hydrograph may not be sampled in its entirety. 3.1.2 Stormwater Grab Samples During one storm event, discrete stormwater “grab” samples will be collected from all sampling locations. Because the purpose of the grab samples is to collect partitioning (chemical dissolved phase/suspended sediment) rather than loading data, samples will be collected during storm periods expected to have higher chemical concentrations (e.g., first flush or rising limb), to increase the likelihood of detecting these chemicals. The sample teams will collect the stormwater from the automated samplers and transport it to the Laboratory, where it will be composited and one aliquot will be filtered and distributed appropriately to sample bottles for laboratory analyses and a second aliquot will be distributed directly to sample bottles for laboratory analysis. The analytical methods and concentration goals are the same as those discussed above for composite water samples. Target storm conditions for grab sampling are the same as for composite sampling described above, with grab samples taken sometime in the rising limb of the hydrograph of a continuous storm meeting the above requirements. 3.1.3 Sediment Trap Samples Sediment traps will generally be installed at each sampling location as close to the target junction as possible and downstream of the automatic sampler intake tube, but this may vary at some locations. Figure 6 presents a photograph of a sediment trap of the type that will be deployed. For large pipes draining larger areas (i.e., land use based locations) the sediment traps will be placed at the bottom of the junction or adjacent outlet pipe. For smaller pipes, the opening of the collection bottle will be placed as close as possible to the same elevation as the invert of the junction or outfall outlet. Some sampling locations may require the use of sandbags or structural modifications to generate flow conditions conducive to sediment trap sampling. The sediment traps will be deployed at each location for a minimum target period of 3 months during the wet-weather period. Sediment traps will be inspected at a minimum on a monthly basis. When inspected, if the collection bottle is more than half full of sediments, the bottle will be capped with screw closures, removed from the mounting brackets, packaged and placed on ice in coolers for transport to the Laboratory to be archived. A clean empty collection bottle will then be placed in the trap. If the collection bottle is less than one third full at the first monthly inspection, options for repositioning or relocating the equipment or adding additional traps to obtain a higher collection rate will be considered. 3.1.4 Flow Measurements Isco Model 750 Area Velocity flow modules will be used in conjunction with the Isco automatic samplers to allow the collection of flow-weighted composites at each sampling CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 22 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx location. The flow modules will also continuously record flow data for the duration of sediment trap deployment. Figure 6 Photo of Sediment Trap 3.2 Sample Collection Frequency Samples will be collected on a storm event basis with the goal of three storm events per year. For each of the three storm events samples will be collected under the following conditions: 1. Sampling will occur during a storm event with at least 0.1 inch of precipitation (defined as a “measurable” event). Weather forecasts will be evaluated before deciding whether or not to sample a particular rain event. The monitoring manager will periodically establish a modem connection with each sampling unit to monitor rainfall, flow rates, and sampling activity. The monitoring manager will download stored data from the National Weather Service as needed. 2. Sampling will not occur at a frequency greater than once every 72 hours. 3. Sampling will not occur unless there has been at least 72 hours of continuous dry weather immediately preceding the “measurable” event. 4. Grab samples will be collected from all locations during approximately the first 30 minutes to 1 hour of stormwater discharge (first flush). 3.3 Selection of Analytical Parameters The City proposes to use a mass based WLA compliance option to evaluate TMDL compliance. Samples submitted for pesticides and PCBswill be tested for total chlordane, DDT and Derivatives, total organic carbon, Dieldrin and total PCBs. In addition to TMDL constituents, general water chemistry (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and electrical CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 23 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx conductivity) and a flow measurement will be required at each sampling event. General chemistry measurements will be taken in the laboratory immediately following sample collection, for the auto samplers or if weather conditions are unsuitable for field measurements. The constituents to be sampled are listed in Table 5. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 24 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Table 5 Monitoring Constituents Analyte Method of Analysis Detection Limits Total Organ Carbon EPA 414.1 1 mg/l PCBs EPA 8082 0.1 µg/l DDT and Derivatives EPA 8081A 0.1 µg/l Dieldrin EPA 8081A 0.1 µg/l Total Chlordane EPA 8081A 0.1 µg/l TSS EPA 160.2 0.5 mg/l 3.4 The Sampling Team All samples from the nine sampling locations will be collected by a contract lab retained by the City. Pre-labeled sample bottles will be provided by the certified laboratory that will be conducting the analyses. The Sampling Team will be responsible for ensuring that all required equipment is ready for field operation. They are also responsible for performing the entire field sampling activities and most of the sampling preparation. Any member of the Sampling Team may recommend canceling sampling if the predicted conditions do not materialize or if health or safety of the team could be imperiled due to site conditions or extreme weather. 4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES This section describes the sampling procedures, record keeping, sample handling, storage, and field quality control procedures that will be used during stormwater sampling. 4.1 Preparation for conducting the sampling Several things will be done to prepare to conduct stormwater sampling. First, the laboratory to analyze the samples will be contacted. The following information will be sought from the lab:  Type and size of bottles needed  Procedures to filling the bottles  Sample volume requirements  Labels or additional forms required  Explanation of the chain of custody form  Sample preservation requirements and/or holding time restrictions  Means of sample delivery to the lab  Overnight delivery requirements  Costs Once a lab has been selected the sampling equipment (sampling bottles from a lab, sampling instruments, and personal safety equipment) will be made ready, as well as the CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 25 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx Once a lab has been selected the sampling equipment (sampling bottles from a lab, sampling instruments, and personal safety equipment) will be made ready, as well as the field sheet to document the required information. Table 6 lists constituents and sample container requirements. Field personnel will complete a field condition data sheet. The following items will be listed on the field sampling sheet and included in the stormwater discharge monitoring report:  Person who conducted the sampling  Date and time of discharge  Length of storm event  Time between sampled storm event and previous storm event (at least 72 hrs)  Total rainfall during storm event  Photo documentation A field data sheet is attached as Appendix B. 4.1.1 Sampling Equipment The primary equipment to be maintained during the course of this sampling program is the Isco samplers and the sediment traps. Both types of samplers will remain in the field for the duration of the deployment period. The Isco samplers and sediment traps will be routinely inspected throughout the course of the deployment period on a frequency dictated by the need for Isco battery replacement. Upon each inspection the proper functioning of Isco samplers and sediment traps will be confirmed by visually inspecting the equipment both inside and outside of the junction or pipe (as relevant to the particular sampling location). Sediment traps will be inspected to determine that the trap is still properly attached to the junction or pipe and that the bottles are properly seated within the sampler. Any debris will be cleared away from around the samplers. For Isco samplers, the proper attachment and placement of the flow sensor and intake tube will be verified and any debris will be cleared from this equipment. Tubes will be inspected for bending or occlusions and cleared as necessary. The Isco sampler battery will be replaced as necessary and the proper power up and re-initialization of the sampler will be confirmed prior to leaving the site. The flow sensor will be calibrated as necessary. The flow log memory capacity will be checked and data will be downloaded to a laptop if the memory is near full. The sampler will be called to make sure the cell phone connection is properly working. If either sediment traps or Isco samplers are damaged beyond field repair capability, they will be removed and replaced with a spare sampler. For Isco samplers, the sampler will be shipped to a company designated repair site and repaired as quickly as possible, so that it can be used as a potential spare in the future. The following equipments will also be required for the sampling efforts:  Field forms  Waterproof pens CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 26 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx  Powder-free nitrile gloves  Clear glass jar for visual examinations  Sample containers  Sample preservatives  Sample container labels  COC forms  COC seals  Ice chests  Ice  Foul-weather gear  Manhole sampler Table 6 Monitoring Constituents and Sample Container Requirements Analyte Container Volume Preservation Holding Time Water 0 ml Total Organ Carbon Amber jar 500 ml Cool 4 ± 2º 28 days PCBs Amber jar 1000 ml Cool 4 ± 2º 7 days DDT and Derivatives Amber jar 800 ml Cool 4 ± 2º 7 days Dieldrin Amber jar 800 ml Cool 4 ± 2º 7 days Total Chlordane Amber jar 800 ml Cool 4 ± 2º 7 days TSS Poly bottle 200 ml Cool 4 ± 2º 7 days Sediment PCBs Sleeve 30 grams Cool 4 ± 2º 14 days Total Organ Carbon EPA 414.1 30 grams Cool 4 ± 2º 28 days DDT and Derivatives Sleeve 30 grams Cool 4 ± 2º 14 days Dieldrin Sleeve 30 grams Cool 4 ± 2º 14 days Total Chlordane Sleeve 30 grams Cool 4 ± 2º 14 days CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 27 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 4.2 Sampling Method Water and sediment samples will be collected from storm sewer manhole and outfall sites. All samples will be collected as individual grabs. Samples will be collected directly into sample containers or with a laboratory-supplied container attached to a pole with duct tape or other means. Sampling containers will be held with container openings facing upstream to prevent contamination during sampling. Field personnel will wear powder-free nitrile disposable gloves. Each sample will be given a field identification, tagged, and kept cool at 4 degrees C. Chain-of-custody (COC) procedures will be observed and samples delivered to the laboratory within the allowable holding times for each parameter. It is assumed that sampling locations will have well-mixed conditions so that single grabs are representative of water quality. Field personnel will record the degree of turbulence or quiescence as well as the dimensions of the conveyance sampled and/or a description of water flowing in the conveyance. Field personnel will also record the date and time of sample collection and the flow rate. Sampling containers for direct grabs (either by hand or with pole attached to laboratory supplied container) will be pre-cleaned by the laboratory. It will be made certain that if a sample is transferred (either for collection purposes or to form grab-composite samples), that only laboratory-supplied containers are permitted to come in contact with the sample. 4.3 Personal Safety A Health and Safety Plan approved by the contract lab will be reviewed by the all field personnel before the sampling operations covered in this monitoring plan begin. Personal safety will be of primary concern while conducting all stormwater sampling related activities. All persons involved in the sampling operation will be made aware of the hazards associated with monitoring and should freely voice any concerns if potential hazards become apparent. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides regulations and guidance on occupational safety, many of which are directly applicable to the types of activities involved in stormwater monitoring. It is the direct responsibility of each person involved in the monitoring program to read the Health and Safety Plan and adhere to its requirements. The following list provides a few basic health and safety procedures that will help to create a safer sampling environment.  Do not sample alone, a minimum of two-person field crews will be used for stormwater sampling.  Do not enter a confined space without proper training, equipment, and surface support.  Never remove or replace manhole covers with your bare hands or feet.  Never leave an open manhole unattended.  Do not start staging or sampling until traffic control has been established. 4.4 Clean Sampling Techniques Clean sample collection techniques will be followed to minimize the potential for contamination of stormwater runoff samples. Care will be taken during all sampling CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 28 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx operations to avoid contamination of the water samples by human, atmospheric, or other potential sources of contamination. The monitoring team should prevent contamination of any of the following items: composite bottles, lids, sample, tubing, and strainers. 4.5 Sample Packing and Shipping Monitoring personnel will deliver the samples to the laboratory. Sample bottles will be placed in coolers or some other package that is rigid enough to provide protection of the samples and is insulated to keep samples cold. During packing, the sample from one monitoring location will not be separated into separate shipping containers unless bottles of one size need to be shipped together because of container size. If samples from a location are separated a copy of the field-sampling sheet pertaining to the bottles will be enclosed in each shipping container. Prior to shipping, all sample bottles will be recorded on the packing lists, which will include the shipping date and the method of transporting the samples. Samples will be delivered to the analytical laboratory within 4 hours of sampling to ensure the maximum holding time for bacteria of 6 hours is not exceeded. 4.6 Chain of Custody After samples have been obtained and the collection procedures properly documented, a written record of the COC of each sample will be made. This record ensures that samples will not be tampered with or inadvertently compromised in any way, and it also tracks the requested analysis for the analytical laboratory. COC refers to the documented account of changes in possession that occur for samples. The COC record tracks the sampling path from origin through laboratory analysis. Information necessary in the COC includes:  Name of the persons collecting the sample(s).  Date and time of sample collection.  Location of sample collection.  Names and signatures of all persons handling the samples in the field and in the laboratory.  Laboratory analysis requested and control information (e.g., duplicate or spiked samples etc.) and any special instructions (e.g., time sensitive analyses). To ensure that all necessary information is documented a COC form will accompany each sample or set of samples. COC forms will be printed on multipart carbonless paper so that all personnel handling the samples may obtain a copy. A COC record should accompany all sample shipments and the sample originator will retain a copy of the forms. When transferring custody of samples the transferee will sign and record the date and time of each transfer. Each person who takes custody will complete the appropriate portion of the chain of custody documentation. A sample COC form to be used for this field sampling is attached as Appendix C. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 29 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 5.1 Data Quality Objective The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program will be implemented to satisfy the data quality objectives of the monitoring program. The primary data quality objectives are to obtain defensible data of acceptable sensitivity and quality to:  Evaluate the stormwater management program.  Evaluate stormwater quality.  Evaluate of BMP as corrective measure. The analytical laboratory selected for this study will evaluate the accuracy of its sample extraction and/or analytical procedures using spiked samples, which may include matrix spikes (MS), laboratory control samples (LCS) and surrogate spikes. Acceptable spike recoveries must fall within statistically derived laboratory “control limits.” Precision is the agreement among a set a replicate measurements of the same parameter. The analytical laboratory will evaluate precision by performing matrix spike duplicate (MSD), laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) and duplicate stormwater sample analyses (typically performed for inorganic parameters only). The data quality objectives also include obtaining data that are comparable and representative of the water quality conditions at each monitoring location. Comparable data will be collected if comparable sampling, analysis, QA/QC and reporting procedures are implemented throughout the monitoring program. Representative samples will be collected by performing sampling activities compliant with the procedures described in this monitoring plan. Duplicate samples will be collected and the results will be used to evaluate representativeness. Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. Data are comparable if collection techniques, measurement procedures, methods, and reporting are equivalent for the samples within a sample set. Data quality assurance objectives are summarized in Table 7. Analyte Units Precision Accuracy Completeness Total Organ Carbon µg/l ±20% ±30% 90% PCBs µg/l ±20% ±30% 90% DDT and Derivatives µg/l ±20% ±30% 90% Dieldrin µg/l ±20% ±30% 90% Total Chlordane µg/l ±20% ±30% 90% TSS mg/l ±20% ±30% 90% CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 30 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 5.1.1 Field Quality Control Samples Field quality control samples will be collected at a 10% frequency in order to provide quality performance information for the sampling program. One in ten samples submitted for analysis will be one of three field QC sample types: field blank; field duplicate; and/or performance evaluation blank. Table 8 lists the quality performance goals that each of the three types of field QC sample types is intended to address. Table 8 Field Quality Control Sample Types Quality Performance Goal Field Blank Field Duplicate Performance Evaluation Blank Minimize false positive results X X Sample bottles free of contamination X No contamination introduced by sampling process X Measurement error attributable to sample inhomogeneity X 5.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control This section summarizes the QA/QC procedures that will be implemented by field personnel to evaluate sample contamination, sampling precision, and matrix interference. 5.2.1 Equipment Blanks After the intermediate sample container or scoop is cleaned, an equipment blank will be collected by pouring reagent-grade water into the apparatus. The water will be transferred into sample bottles and analyzed for the full analytical suite. 5.2.2 Field Duplicate Samples Field duplicate samples will be collected to evaluate the precision and representativeness of the sample collection procedures as well as sample homogeneity. The duplicate sample will be collected using the specified manual grab sampling techniques. Twice the volume required for the analytical suite will be collected with each duplicate sample. For grab samples, intermediate sample containers will be used, and the volume collected will be apportioned equally between the intermediate containers. The water in each intermediate container will be poured into a discrete set of sample bottles. One set of bottles will be labeled with fictitious sample identification and submitted “blind” to the laboratory. 5.2.3 Matrix Spike Samples MS and MSD analyses will be performed by the laboratory using project samples. Field crews will submit twice the required sample volume for the sample selected as the matrix spike sample. Field personnel will identify the MS/MSD sample on the COC form. CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 31 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx 5.3 Laboratory Quality Control This sub-section summarizes the QC procedures the laboratory will perform and report with the analytical data packages. These procedures are not inclusive of the QA/QC that is required for compliance with the analytical method. 5.3.1 Method Blanks A method blank is prepared using reagent-grade water, and is extracted and analyzed with each sample batch (typically 20 samples extracted and/or analyzed on a given day). Method blank results are used to identify potential sources of sample contamination resulting from laboratory procedures. Target analytes should not be detected in the method blank above the practical quantitative limit. 5.3.2 Matrix Spike and Laboratory Control Samples MS, MSDs, LCS, and LCSDs will be performed by the laboratory to evaluate the accuracy of the sample extraction and analysis procedures. MS/MSDs will also be performed to evaluate matrix interference. Matrix interference is the effect of the sample matrix on the analysis, which may partially or completely mask the response of the analytical instrumentation to the target analyte(s). Matrix interference may affect the accuracy of the extraction and/or analysis procedures to varying degrees, and may bias the sample results high or low. The MS/MSD is prepared by adding known quantities of target analytes to a sample. The sample is then extracted and/or analyzed as a typical environmental sample, and the results are reported as percent recovery. 6.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING The sampling results will be reported by the laboratory as hard copy and as electronic files. Hard copy data will be entered into an electronic format, and checked at least once by a different person. Electronic submittal of results will be discussed with the analytical laboratory in advance of delivery and its format arranged. A separate record will be generated for each sample analysis. In addition, the key information such as station ID, sample date and time, name of sampler, name of constituent, all results, units, detection limits, methods used, name of the laboratory, and any field notes will be entered into the database. Additional information, such as compositing of multiple samples, or the use of grab will also be included. When reporting the laboratory results for each stormwater sample the following information will be provided:  Sample site.  Sample date and time.  Sample number (or identification).  Sampling technician(s).  Detection limit and reliability limit of analytical procedure(s). CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STUDY WORK PLAN CAROLLO ENGINEERS 32 August 2011 pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Torrance\8419A00\Deliverables\SpecialStudyWorkPlan -Toxics TMDL.docx  Sample results with clearly specified units. The results of all samples collected under this plan will be submitted to Regional Board in a monitoring report. Monitoring report will include:  Introduction and background information  Documentation and summary of each sampling event, including photos  Electronic copies of field conditions data sheets  Summary discussion of results  Tabular results of all samples, including quality assurance quality control samples, in electronic format, (Excel)  Evaluation data quality based on QAPP requirements. APPENDIX A Detailed Maps of Sampling Locations &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S1 223rd St. Plaza Del Alamo Western AveSanta Fe Ave. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S2 Crenshaw BlvdTextAmsler St. Skypark Dr. &M &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S4 Western Ave235th St. 263th St Schilling Ct.Walnut St.238th St. &M &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S5 251st St. Tor-S5 Tor-S2 Crenshaw Blvd.250th St. 248th St. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S6 Rolling Hills RdC renshaw Bl vd. &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S7 Hawthorne Blvd.Rolling Hills Rd. &3 Legend &3 Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S8 &M Legend &M Sampling Location Storm Drain City Limit Stormwater Sampling Location - Tor-S9 Paseo De Las Tortugas Vista Montana Vista Largo B Sampling Field Data City of Torrance, California 16 GENERAL CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORM EVIDENCE/PROPERTY CUSTODY Tracking Number Investigation ID Number NAME OF RECIPIENT FACILITY LOCATION NAME, TITLE AND CONTACT NUMBER OF PERSON FROM WHOM RECEIVED ADDRESS LOCATION FROM WHERE OBTAINED REASON OBTAINED DATE/TIME OBTAINED ITEM NO QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES (Include model, serial number, condition and unusual marks or scratches) CHAIN OF CUSTODY ITEM NO. DATE RELEASES BY RECEIVED BY PURPOSE OF CHANGE OF CUSTODY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 17 Chain-of-Custody (continued) ITEM NO. DATE RELEASES BY RECEIVED BY PURPOSE OF CHANGE OF CUSTODY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION PRINTED NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNATURE FINAL DISPOSAL ACTION RELEASE TO OWNER OR OTHER (NAME/ORGANIZATION) DESTROY OTHER (Specify) FINAL DISPOSAL AUTHORITY ON THIS DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE INQUIRY/INVESTIGATION INVOLVING; ITEM(S) (IS)(ARE) NO LONGER REQUIRED AS EVIDENCE AND MAY BE DOSPOSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. If articles must be retained do not sign, but explain in separate correspondence. (Typed or Printed Name & Organization) (Signature) (Date) WITNESS TO DESTRUCTION EVIDENCE THE ARTICLES LISTED AT ITEM NUMBERS (WAS)(WERE) DESTROYED BY THE EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN IN MY PRESENCE, ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE (Typed or Printed Name & Organization) (Signature) (pole) December 2011 C-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appenidix C.doc Appendix C LOS ANGELES COUNTY GUIDELINES This appendix contains the following documents from LACDPW: LACDPW Low Impact Development Standards Manual, January 2009 LACDPW Stormwater Best Management Practice, Design and Maintenance Manual These documents, along with LACDPW’s Hydrology Manual, Hydraulic Design Manual and Standard Plans, can be found on the LACDPW website at: http://ladpw.org/services/publications.cfm C-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Carlsbad/8308A00/Deliverables/Draft Report/Appendicies/Appendix C.doc This page left blank intentionally. County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Standards Manual January 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1 Design Requirements Flowchart Page 6 Chapter 2: Site Planning and Site Design Page 7 Chapter 3: Design Requirements Page 16 Chapter 4: LID Hydrologic Analysis Page 21 Chapter 5: Best Management Practices Page 23 Bioretention Page 24 Cisterns/Rain Barrels Page 27 Dry Ponds Page 29 Dry Wells Page 31 Engineered Wetlands Page 33 Green Roofs Page 35 Infiltration Basin Page 41 Infiltration Trenches Page 45 Landscape Irrigation Page 48 Planter Boxes Page 49 Porous Pavement Page 53 Sand Filters Page 58 Vegetated Buffers Page 60 Vegetated Swales Page 63 Wet Ponds Page 65 Chapter 6: Example Designs Page 67 Residential Tract Development Page 67 Commercial Redevelopment Page 69 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Urbanization has the potential to impact the water resources in the County of Los Angeles. As land is developed, impervious area and surface runoff increase. Less water is percolated into the groundwater basins and runoff may collect and transport pollutants to the downstream receiving waters, including beaches, streams, and the flood control and water conservation systems of the County of Los Angeles. Low-Impact Development (LID) practices are one means to mitigate the impacts of development and urbanization. WHAT IS LID? LID is a new approach to managing rainfall and stormwater runoff. LID practices are designed to protect surface and groundwater quality, maintain the integrity of ecosystems, and preserve the physical integrity of receiving waters by controlling rainfall and stormwater runoff at or close to the source. Use of these techniques helps reduce off-site runoff and ensure adequate groundwater recharge. LID techniques focus mainly on site-specific hydrology since every aspect of site development affects the hydrologic response of the site. Thus, the primary goal of LID methods is to mimic the undeveloped site hydrology using site-design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate, and detain runoff. HOW DOES LID WORK? The concept of LID is to distribute small, cost-effective landscape features throughout the project site. The source control concept is quite different from conventional regional treatment (pipe and large stormwater management basin design). LID incorporates multifunctional site design elements or Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater detention and water quality improvements. These multifunctional site design elements include the use of bioretention/filtration landscape areas, disconnected hydrologic flowpaths, reduced impervious surfaces, functional landscaping, and functional grading to maintain hydrologic functions that existed prior to development, such as infiltration, frequency and volume of discharges, and groundwater recharge. BMPs are placed throughout the site in many small, discrete units and are distributed in a small portion of each lot or site near the source of impacts, virtually eliminating the need for a centralized facility, such as a regional stormwater management basin. By this process, a developed site can be designed as an integral part of the environment, maintaining undeveloped hydrologic functions through the careful use of LID BMPs. BMPs are defined and described in Chapter 5, Low-Impact Development Best Management Practices. 1 BMPs and the use of LID practices is most efficient and cost-effective when they are designed to capture and treat the most frequently occurring storm events as well as the first flush portion of runoff producing storm events. Numerous studies have shown that small storms, which occur more frequently than relatively large storms in Southern California, typically transport the greatest load of pollutants to local water bodies. The majority of pollutants are typically transported during the first flush portion of a runoff event, which is often considered to be the first 3/4 inch of a storm event. CHANGE TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Historically, urban development and storm drain system design have consisted of streets, driveways, sidewalks, and structures constructed out of impervious materials that directly convey runoff to curb and gutter systems, the storm drain system, and downstream receiving waters. Until recently, conventional storm drainage and flood control systems have been designed to convey stormwater away from developed areas as quickly as possible without thoroughly addressing stormwater quality and/or groundwater recharge enhancement. The natural absorption and infiltration abilities of the land are lost when natural vegetated pervious ground cover is converted to impervious surfaces, such as paved highways, streets, rooftops, and parking lots in conventional development. This can result in postdevelopment runoff with greater volume, velocity, and peak-flow rate than undeveloped runoff from the same area. Increased volume, velocity, rate, and duration of runoff can accelerate the erosion or sedimentation of downstream natural channels. Significant declines in the biological integrity and physical habitat of streams and other receiving waters may occur with a conversion from natural to impervious surfaces. Furthermore, ephemeral and intermittent streams, as found in the semiarid regions in Southern California, may be even more sensitive where a small increase of total impervious area can have impacts to stream morphology. Runoff durations can also increase as a result of flood control and other efforts to control peak-flow rates. See Table 1-1 for a listing of the potential impacts to a watershed due to conventional urban/suburban development. Table 1-1 Degradation of watershed conditions and stream response. Change in Watershed Condition Stream Response Metals, bacteria, and synthetic organic compounds: some acutely toxic, negative health effects in fish, altered spawning and migration of fish in presence of metals Increased pollutant loads Nutrients: excessive aquatic plant growth; excessive diurnal oxygen fluctuations Increased storm flow volume and frequency Channel erosion Increased fine sediment and urban water pollutant loads Increased imperviousness Increased fish passage barriers 2 Reduced intergravel dissolved oxygen levels in streambed Increased fine sediment deposition Loss of macroinvertebrate habitat Reduced delivery of woody debris Reduced bank stability and loss of bank habitat structure and complexity Loss of fragmentation of riparian areas Reduced shading and temperature control Studies have shown that the collective discharge of untreated runoff from large areas of conventional residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal development often results in significant environmental impacts to local water resources. Until recently, conventional development has used existing storm drain system design methods that do not provide stormwater quality benefits. Improvements in stormwater management have been made in the County of Los Angeles, but additional stormwater improvements are now required. With the addition of about 2.5 million new residents in the Los Angeles region by 2030, development in Los Angeles will continue to present challenges for stormwater treatment and management. Stormwater quality management techniques must be reconsidered in the design of new development and redevelopment. New and effective management through LID that improve the quantity and quality of stormwater is vital to the long-term economic growth and quality of life in the County of Los Angeles. BENEFITS THROUGH THE USE OF LID ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Pollution Abatement LID practices can reduce both the volume of runoff and the pollutant loadings discharged into receiving waters. LID practices result in pollutant removal through settling, filtration, adsorption, and biological uptake. Reductions in pollutant loadings to receiving waters can improve habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and enhance recreational uses. Protection of Downstream Water Resources The use of LID practices can help prevent or reduce hydrologic impacts on receiving waters, reduce stream channel degradation from erosion and sedimentation, improve water quality, increase water supply, and enhance the recreational and aesthetic value of our natural resources. LID practices can be used to protect water resources that are downstream in the watershed. Other potential benefits include reduced incidence of illness from contact recreation activities, such as swimming and wading, more robust and safer seafood supplies, and reduced medical treatment costs. 3 Groundwater Recharge LID practices can also be used to infiltrate runoff to recharge groundwater. Growing water shortages nationwide increasingly indicate the need for water resource management strategies designed to integrate stormwater, drinking water, and wastewater programs to maximize benefits and minimize costs. Development typically results in increases in the amount of impervious surface and volume of runoff. Water Quality Improvements/Reduced Treatment Costs It is almost always less expensive to keep water clean than it is to clean it up. A study of 27 water suppliers, conducted by the Trust for Public Land and the American Water Works Association, found a direct relationship between natural cover in a watershed and water supply treatment costs. In other words, communities with higher percentages of natural cover had lower treatment costs. According to the study approximately 50 to 55 percent of the variation in treatment costs can be explained by the percentage of forest cover in the source area. Habitat Improvements Innovative stormwater management techniques like LID or conservation design can be used to improve natural resources and wildlife habitat, maintain or increase land value, or avoid expensive mitigation costs. LAND VALUE AND QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFITS Reduced Downstream Flooding and Property Damage LID practices can be used to reduce downstream impacts through the reduction of peak flows and the total volume of runoff. This can reduce property damage, the initial capital costs, and the operation and maintenance costs of flood control infrastructure. Strategies designed to manage runoff at the site, or as close as possible to its point of generation, can reduce erosion and sediment transport and reduce downstream impacts. As a result, the costs for clean ups and stream bank restoration can be reduced or avoided altogether. The use of LID techniques can also help protect or restore floodplains, which can be used as park space or wildlife habitat. Real Estate Value/Property Tax Revenue Various LID projects and smart growth studies have shown that people are willing to pay more for clustered homes than conventionally designed subdivisions. Clustered housing with open space is appreciated at a higher rate than conventionally designed subdivisions. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls describes numerous examples where 4 developers and subsequent homeowners have received premiums for proximity to attractive stormwater management practices. These designs should be visually attractive, safe for the residents, and should be considered an integral part of planning the development. Aesthetic Value LID techniques are usually attractive features because landscaping is an integral part of the designs. Designs that enhance a property’s aesthetics using trees, shrubs, and flowering plants that complement other landscaping features can be selected. The use of these designs may increase property values or result in faster sale of the property due to the perceived value of the extra landscaping. Quality of Life/Public Participation Placing water quality practices on individual lots provides opportunities to involve homeowners in stormwater management and enhances public awareness of water quality issues. An American Lives, Inc., real estate study found that 77.7 percent of potential homeowners rated natural open space as essential or very important in planned communities. LID GOALS The goals of LID are discussed and demonstrated throughout the manual. The list below highlights some of the main goals and principles of LID: • Provide an improved technology for water quality improvements of receiving waters and for additional groundwater recharge. • Introduce new concepts, technologies, and objectives for stormwater management, such as micromanagement and multifunctional landscape features (bioretention areas, swales, and conservation areas), to mimic or replicate hydrologic functions and maintain the ecological/biological integrity of receiving streams. • Encourage flexibility in regulations that allows innovative engineering and site planning to promote smart growth principles. • Encourage environmentally sensitive development. • Encourage public education and participation in environmental protection. HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL LID allows the site planner/engineer to use a wide array of simple cost-effective techniques that focus on site-level hydrologic control. This manual describes those techniques and provides examples and descriptions of how they work, and also contains BMP fact sheets. For ease of use and understanding, this document has been divided into 7 chapters. Figure 1-1 summarizes the major components of the LID approach. Compliance with the existing regulations is required by the County of Los Angeles Ordinance 22.52.2210. 5 LID DESIGN REQUIREMENTS NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT Single Family Residential < 5 units Non-Residential OR Single Family ≥ 5 units Install Minimum of 2 BMPs from list See Page 16 for Requirements Drains to Natural Stream? Not Technically Feasible Yes No Infiltrate ∆V See Page 18 for Requirements Is Infiltration Possible? Requires Hydromodification See Page 19 for Requirements YesWater Conservation Uses of ∆V See Page 19 for Requirements Is Store and Reuse Possible? Not Technically Feasible Store and Reuse ∆V See Page 18 for Requirements Yes 6 CHAPTER 2: SITE PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN INTRODUCTION A significant element in the implementation of LID, and one that should be incorporated at the earliest possible stage of a project, is the design and layout of the development site. Good LID site design takes advantage of the services provided by the site’s natural systems. The natural systems that LID seeks to preserve and even restore are an undeveloped site’s hydrologic functions, vegetation, and soils. LID site planning and design practices approach stormwater as a resource that should be conserved. According to the National Association of Home Builders1: “LID (LID) strategies strive to allow natural infiltration to occur as close as possible to the original area of rainfall. By engineering terrain, vegetation, and soil features to perform this function, costly conveyance systems can be avoided, and the landscape can retain more of its natural hydrological function. LID practices dovetail with green building practices that incorporate environmental considerations into all phases of the development process. Builders can often use green building and LID to lower actual development costs. Although most effective when implemented on a community-wide basis, using LID practices on a smaller scale, i.e., on a small development, can also have an impact.” HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS Natural hydrologic functions provide the following services in a watershed: • Rainfall interception: In a vegetated watershed, the surfaces of trees, shrubs, and grasses catch initial light rainfall before it reaches the ground. Interception can delay the start and lower the volume of runoff. • Shallow surface storage: The shallow pockets present in natural terrain store rainfall and runoff, filtering and allowing infiltration, and delaying the start of runoff. • Evaporation and transpiration: Evaporation occurs when water changes from a liquid to a vapor and moves into the air. Transpiration occurs when vegetation releases water vapor into the atmosphere. Both processes reduce the volume of runoff, locally return moisture to the atmosphere, and provide local cooling effects. Collectively, this process is called evapotranspiration. 1 National Association of Home Builders Research Center, Low Impact Development (LID) Practices for Storm Water Management, http://toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Sitework/low-impact-development, accessed April 7, 2008. 7 • Infiltration: Infiltration is the movement of surface water down through the soil into groundwater. Such movement filters and reduces the volume of runoff and replenishes groundwater supplies. • Runoff: Runoff is the flow of water across the land surface that occurs after rainfall interception, surface storage, and infiltration reach capacity. Hydrologic processes can be adversely impacted by land development through: • Removing vegetation: The loss of vegetative canopy reduces the amount of rainfall intercepted. The loss of deep root systems allows soils to compress and lose storage and infiltration capacity. The loss of leaf litter and organic matter on the ground removes a number of beneficial physical, chemical, and biological processes that treat runoff. • Covering porous soils with impervious surfaces: Rainfall that could have been stored or infiltrated is converted directly into runoff, carrying with it the pollution associated with the land use. Rainfall and runoff that could have recharged groundwater reservoirs for later reuse are lost. • Replacing natural drainage paths with paved pathways, pipes, and channels: While efficiently removing water from a site, hardened conveyances collect the increased runoff with greater speed, causing higher flow rates, the loss of infiltration potential at the site, increased erosion in natural and soft-bottomed channels, and the loss of in-stream and streamside habitat. VEGETATION Vegetation provides the following services2 in a watershed: • Intercepts rainfall. • Stores water in plant tissue. • Filters air and water pollution. • Provides erosion control. • Keeps soil pore structure open for storage and infiltration of water. • Pipes water along roots and into the soil. • Provides water vapor through transpiration. • Balances oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by photosynthesis. 2 American Society of Landscape Architects, et al., Sustainable Sites Initiative, Preliminary Report on Standards & Guidelines, November 1, 2007. 8 • Moderates the climate globally and locally by regulating greenhouse gasses and lowering heat island effects. • Provides habitat for resident and migratory animals; provides connective habitat in urbanized areas. Vegetation can be adversely impacted by land development through: • Disturbance and removal: With the absence of vegetation, a site will lose its capacity to infiltrate, absorb, and filter runoff. Local heat island effects would be created. Soil health would suffer as soils become compacted. Erosion and sedimentation would increase. • Inadequate space: Confined planting patterns, including cramped root zones, limit healthy plant growth, leading to increased maintenance and premature death of vegetation. • Introduction of invasive plants: Some plants that are not native to the area can overtake the native or California friendly species, threatening native organisms. SOILS Healthy soils provide the following services3 in a watershed: • Regulate infiltration, runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and flooding. • Increased capacity for the storage of water. • Support growth of vegetation. • Filter pollutants in runoff. • Support production of food and raw materials. • Support the nitrogen cycle. • Lockup carbon. • Provide biological habitats. Soils can be adversely impacted by land development through: • Compaction: Soil compaction disturbs native soil structure, reduces infiltration rates, and limits root growth and plant survivability. While soil compaction is necessary to provide structurally sound foundations, areas away from foundations are often excessively compacted by vehicle and foot traffic during construction. 3 Ibid. 9 • Removal of vegetation: Removal of vegetation can expose soils to erosion and thus cause sedimentation and the modification of natural streams. Disturbance of soil can also release previously locked organic carbons into the atmosphere4. • Removal of topsoil: A common practice is the removal of topsoil before or during construction. This practice removes native seeds, removes soil organisms, impedes the reestablishment of healthy soils, and upsets the native soil structure even if the original soil is returned. • Contamination: The application of pesticides and herbicides can introduce toxic organics and metals into the soil, which can bioaccumulate in higher organisms and possibly get into food sources. Broadly applied pesticides and herbicides could impact unintended species including those found in the soil. Such disruption can adversely affect resistance to pathogens, infiltration, and the filtering of pollutants. SITE DESIGN PRACTICES5 FOR LID The goals of LID are to mimic undeveloped hydrology and control runoff at the source. These goals are accomplished with creative site planning and the incorporation of localized, naturally functioning BMPs into the site’s design. The first step in creating a LID design is site planning. The elements6 that make up a successful low-impact site plan are: 1. Conserving natural areas, soils, and vegetation. 2. Minimizing disturbances to natural drainage patterns. 3. Minimizing and disconnecting impervious surfaces. 4. Minimizing soil compaction. 5. Directing runoff from impervious areas to pervious areas. CONSERVING NATURAL AREAS, SOILS, AND VEGETATION The conservation of natural areas, soils, and vegetation helps to retain numerous functions of predevelopment hydrology, including rainfall interception, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Maximizing these functions will thereby reduce the amount of runoff that must be treated. Further, minimizing soil disturbance reduces the emission of 4 Lal, R., “Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security,” Science 304: 1623-7 (2004), in Sustainable Sites Initiative. 5 American Society of Landscape Architects, et al., op cit. 6 County of San Diego, Low Impact Development Handbook, December 31, 2007. 10 greenhouse gasses7 and conserves natural habitat. For these reasons, site planning, design, and execution, where appropriate, should: 1. Conform to local watershed, conservation, and open space plans. 2. Preserve sensitive environmental areas. 3. Preserve historically undisturbed vegetated areas. 4. Build upon the least porous soils or limit construction activities and disturbances to areas with previously disturbed soils. 5. Protect healthy soils, reuse the top soils already on the site, and import soil only when on-site soils are exhausted. 6. Preserve the maximum surface area of undisturbed grades. 7. Preserve native trees and restrict disturbance of soils beneath tree canopies. 8. Avoid disturbing vegetation and soil on slopes and near surface waters. 9. Leave an undisturbed buffer along both sides of natural streams. 10. Avoid adding materials to the soil that decrease cation exchange capacity (CEC), such as sand, except where required for special water treatment needs. Examples of conserving natural areas, soils, and vegetation: • Avoid mass clearing and grading, and grade only those areas where structures are to be built. • Protect existing streamside areas and habitat. • Mulch tree and plant beds. • Incorporate plants to suit existing soil and drainage conditions rather than changing soil and drainage conditions to suit a desired plant list. • Create multilayered planting schemes that replicate natural sites with both canopy and vegetative ground cover. • Incorporate compost to increase water retention and soil moisture and reduce the need for fertilizer. • Use appropriate vegetative plantings and bioremediation techniques to remove or neutralize soil contaminants. 7 Lal, R., op cit 11 • Cluster development to preserve porous soils, natural streams, and natural slopes. MINIMIZING DISTURBANCES TO NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS Minimizing disturbances to natural drainage patterns preserves the predevelopment timing, rate, and duration of runoff as well as preserving streamside habitats. Preserving the predevelopment drainage characteristics will also minimize the physical impacts on a natural stream. For these reasons, site planning, design, and execution, where appropriate, should: 1. Maintain surface flow patterns of undeveloped sites. 2. Maintain existing water body alignments, sizes, and shapes. 3. Protect seasonal flooding patterns of wetlands. 4. Restore streams and drainage corridors to achieve the same characteristics of timing, flow, and habitat as the original drainage courses in the event that preservation of natural drainage patterns cannot be maintained. Examples of minimizing disturbances to natural drainage patterns: • Avoid burying, piping, or channelizing streams by carefully planning water crossings and considering alternatives to traditional culverts, even for small crossings. • Daylight piped stream systems and restore stream banks and channels to historic, healthy configurations. • Avoid the concentration of surface runoff. • Avoid large, shallow, and unshaded water features that can increase water temperatures in receiving waters. • Create or restore wetlands and riparian areas to absorb, filter, and attenuate runoff. • Restore organic matter levels in all root zones to levels consistent with similar soil types in undisturbed regional soils. • Minimize manicured lawns and annuals beds as the dominant site elements. MINIMIZING AND DISCONNECTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACES Minimizing and disconnecting impervious surfaces increase the chance for rainfall and runoff to infiltrate into the ground, thereby reducing, slowing, and filtering runoff, and 12 increasing groundwater supplies. For these reasons site planning, design, and execution, where appropriate, should: 1. Reduce overall impervious areas by maximizing landscaping and using pervious pavements. 2. Reduce the amount of impervious areas that are hydraulically connected to impervious conveyances, such as driveways, walkways, culverts, swales, streets, or storm drains. Examples of minimizing and disconnecting impervious surfaces: • Use porous pavements on private property for sidewalks and less traveled surfaces, such as driveways, fire lanes, bike lanes, parking lanes, overflow parking, and parking stalls. • Install shared driveways, flared driveways, and residential driveways with center vegetated strips. • Provide for shared parking in commercial areas. • Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas, rain gardens, or planter boxes. • Isolate paved areas with buffers. • Modify curb and gutter and route runoff in vegetated swales. • Reduce a building’s footprint by building upward rather than outward. • Install rain barrels and cisterns below roof downspouts. • Install a green roof. MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION Soil compaction damages soil structure, reduces infiltration rates, limits root growth and plant survivability, and destroys soil organisms. Reduced infiltration creates increased runoff volume. Uncompacted soils support vegetation, support organisms, and store and infiltrate water. For these reasons site planning, design, and execution, where appropriate, should: 1. Restrict grading and compaction to those areas that will support structures. 2. Protect soils, especially porous soils, against compaction and rutting in areas where traffic is unavoidable. 3. Minimize the size of construction easements and material storage areas. 13 4. Site stockpiles within the development envelope during the construction phase of a project. 5. Prohibit working on wet soils with heavy equipment. 6. Restore compacted open space areas with tilling and soil amendments. Examples of minimizing soil compaction: • Incorporate a soil noncompaction and restoration plan into the project’s construction phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. • Till into compacted soils 3 inches of well-aged organic mulch to a depth of 12 inches after grading. DIRECTING RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS AREAS TO INFILTRATION AREAS Runoff across impervious areas will flow faster and carry pollutants accumulating on the impervious surfaces. The prevention of surface infiltration will also create more runoff volume. Directing runoff to infiltration areas will slow the velocity, filter out pollutants, and replenish groundwater. Infiltration has been found to be a reasonable and practical method for reducing pollutant load provided there is suitable pretreatment8. For these reasons site planning, design, and execution, where appropriate, should: 1. Grade surfaces to drain toward open space, swales, or bioretention cells with infiltration capability. 2. Grade surfaces to drain through suitable pretreatment trains toward porous pavements with infiltration capability. 3. Use grassed or vegetated swales with infiltration capability to convey runoff rather than using conduit and lined conveyances. Examples of directing runoff from impervious areas to infiltration areas: • Design streets to drain to grassed or vegetated swales or bioretention cells with infiltration capability. • Grade parking areas to drain to grassed or vegetated swales, bioretention cells, and/or pervious pavements with infiltration capability. • Grade driveways to drain sideways to adjacent pervious areas with infiltration capability rather than to the street. 8 Los Angeles/San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, L. A. Basin Water Augmentation Study, www.lasgrwc.org/WAS.htm, accessed March 31, 2008. 14 • Direct roof runoff to vegetated swales, planter boxes, or bioretention cells with infiltration capability. • Raise stormwater inlets in planting areas to allow water to soak into the soil where it can infiltrate. 15 CHAPTER 3: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS All new development and redevelopment under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles is required to meet LID requirements. The goals of LID are to increase groundwater recharge, enhance water quality, and prevent degradation to downstream natural drainage courses. REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Residential development and redevelopment of four units or less, or remodels affecting more than 50 percent of the original home footprint are not required to complete hydrologic analysis for the project site, but must include at least two of the following items into the site design: • Porous pavement Install porous pavement that allows rainwater to infiltrate through it. Porous pavement includes, but is not limited to, porous asphalt, porous concrete, ungrouted paving blocks, and gravel. At least 50 percent of the pavement on the lot shall be porous. • Downspout routing Each roof downspout shall be directed to one of the following BMPs. The sum of the capacity of the downspout BMPs shall be at least 200 gallons. a. Cistern/rain barrel Direct roof downspouts to rain barrels or cisterns. The stored stormwater can then be used for irrigation or other nonpotable uses. b. Rain garden/planter box Direct roof downspouts to rain gardens or planter boxes that provide retention and treatment of stormwater. • Disconnect impervious surfaces Slope driveways and other impervious surfaces to drain toward pervious surfaces. If possible, runoff should be directed toward vegetated areas or water quality BMPs. Limit the total area not directed toward vegetated areas or water quality BMPs to 10 percent or less of the area of the lot. • Dry well Install a dry well to infiltrate stormwater. The dry well shall be sized to hold at least 200 gallons of stormwater. 16 • Landscaping and landscape irrigation Plant trees near impervious surfaces to intercept rainfall in their leaves. Trees planted adjacent to impervious surfaces can intercept water that otherwise would have become runoff. Two trees shall be planted on each parcel so that they overhang impervious surfaces. Install irrigation systems that minimize water usage and eliminate dry-weather urban runoff. • Green roof Install a green roof to retain and treat stormwater on the rooftop. A green roof shall cover at least 50 percent of the total rooftop area. REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT All residential developments of five units or greater and all nonresidential developments shall follow the LID Hydrologic Analysis techniques outlined in the Hydrologic Analysis Section of this manual. LID Requirements Large scale residential and nonresidential development projects shall prioritize the selection of BMPs to treat stormwater pollutants, reduce stormwater runoff volume, and promote groundwater infiltration and stormwater reuse in an integrated approach to protecting water quality and managing water resources. BMPs shall be implemented in the following order of preference: 1. BMPs that promote infiltration. 2. BMPs that store and beneficially use stormwater runoff. 3. BMPs that utilize the runoff for other water conservation uses including, but not limited to, BMPs that incorporate vegetation to promote pollutant removal and runoff volume reduction and integrate multiple uses, and BMPs that percolate runoff through engineered soil and allow it to discharge downstream slowly. 4. If the Director of Public Works determines that compliance with the above (No. 3) LID requirements is technically infeasible, in whole or in part, in response to an applicant’s submittal, the Director shall require the applicant to submit a proposal for approval by the Director that incorporates design features demonstrating compliance with the LID requirements to the maximum extent practicable. The LID goals of increasing groundwater recharge, enhancing water quality, and preventing degradation to downstream natural drainage courses shall be used in the evaluation, approval, and implementation of LID BMPs, as well as any determination of infeasibility. 17 On-site Infiltration Requirements The excess volume (∆V) determined by the hydrologic analysis in Chapter 4 shall be infiltrated throughout the project site whenever possible. This can be accomplished on a lot-by-lot or on a subregional scale provided that equivalent benefit can be demonstrated. The following requirements apply: • Infiltrate the ∆V from each lot at the lot level, or • Infiltrate the ∆V from the entire project site including streets and public right of way in subregional facilities. The tributary area of a subregional facility shall generally be limited to 5 acres, but may be exceeded per the Director of Public Works. Infiltration may not be possible in all development scenarios. Exceptions may include, but are not limited to, the following technical feasibility and implementation parameters: • Locations where seasonal high groundwater is within 10 feet of the surface. • Within 100 feet of a groundwater well used for drinking water. • Brownfield development sites or other locations where pollutant mobilization is a documented concern. • Locations with potential geotechnical hazards as outlined in a report prepared and stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. • Locations with natural, undisturbed soil infiltration rates of less than 0.5 inches per hour that do not support infiltration-based BMPs. • Locations where infiltration could cause adverse impacts to biological resources. • Development projects in which the use of infiltration BMPs would conflict with local, State or Federal ordinances or building codes. • Locations where infiltration would cause health and safety concerns On-site Storage and Reuse Requirements When infiltration is not possible, on-site storage and reuse of the ∆V is the next preferred LID BMP option. Storage and reuse of the ∆V may not be possible in all development scenarios. Exceptions may include, but are not limited to, the following technical feasibility and implementation parameters: • Projects that would not provide sufficient irrigation or (where permitted) domestic grey water demand for use of stored runoff due to limited landscaping or extensive use of low water use plant palettes in landscaped areas. • Projects that are required to use reclaimed water for irrigation of landscaping. 18 • Development projects in which the storage and reuse of stormwater runoff would conflict with local, State or Federal ordinances or building codes. • Locations where storage facilities would cause potential geotechnical hazards as outlined in a report prepared and stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. • Locations where storage facilities would cause health and safety concerns. Water Conservation Requirements When infiltration or storage and reuse of the ∆V is not possible, LID BMPs that incorporate vegetation to promote pollutant removal and runoff volume reduction, integrate multiple uses and/or BMPs that percolate runoff through engineered soil and allow it to discharge downstream slowly shall be implemented. These LID BMPs shall be sized to detain and treat the ∆V. Infeasibility Compliance with the LID requirements in this manual in whole or in part may not be feasible in all development scenarios. In these situations, the applicant shall demonstrate the infeasibility of compliance with the LID requirements and submit a proposal for approval by the Director that incorporates design features demonstrating compliance with the LID requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Water Quality Treatment Requirements The runoff from the water quality design storm event associated with the developed site hydrology described in Chapter 4 must be treated before discharge in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit for the County of Los Angeles. Hydromodification Requirements California Drainage Law is a complicated and complex area with respect to the rights of upper and lower landowners. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest to require developments to analyze all the factors that may contribute to changed drainage characteristics, which may contribute to downstream drainage impacts (increased flooding and erosion). Below is an outline of the procedure required to analyze drainage impacts on off-site property. 1. All projects are required to conduct hydrology and hydraulic analysis for SUSMP, LID, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-year storm events per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydraulic and Hydrology manuals. 2. HEC-RAS is required as the standard for analyzing changes in flow velocity, flow volume, and depth/width of flow for all natural drainage courses. 19 3. Sediment transport analysis using HEC-RAS, SAMS, and HEC-6 is required to determine long-term impacts of streambed accretion and degradation for major drainage courses with Capital Storm flow rates (Q) greater than 5,000 cubic feet per second. 4. All projects are required to fully mitigate off-site drainage impacts caused by hydromodification and changes in water quality, flow velocity, flow volume, and depth/width of flow under all 7 hydrologic scenarios above. 5. If not fully mitigated, the developer is required to obtain Drainage Acceptance letters from impacted downstream property owners. If Drainage Acceptance letters cannot be obtained and mitigation is not feasible, the developer must recommend to Regional Planning that a Statement of Overriding Consideration be included in the California Environmental Quality Act document to disclose that there will be significant unmitigated downstream drainage impacts. Hydromodification Exemptions All projects that comply with one or more of the following conditions are exempt from conducting a full analysis for hydromodification impacts. Applicants must still demonstrate that the project mitigates for hydromodification impacts to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. • Projects that disturb less than one acre. • Less than 10,000 square feet of new impervious area. • Projects that do not increase impervious area or decrease the infiltration capacity of pervious areas compared to preproject conditions. • Projects that are replacement, maintenance, or repair of an existing permitted flood control facility. • Projects within a watershed or subwatershed where a geomorphically-based watershed study has been prepared that establishes that the potential for hydromodification impacts is not present based on appropriate assessment and evaluation of relevant factors, including: runoff characteristics, soil conditions, watershed size and conditions, channel conditions, and proposed levels of development within the watershed. • Projects that discharge directly or via a storm drain into concrete or significantly hardened channels, which in turn discharge into a sump area under tidal influence, or other receiving water that is not susceptible to hydromodification impacts. • Projects that have hydrologic control measures that include sufficient subregional, regional, in-stream control measures, or a combination thereof such that hydromodification will not occur. 20 CHAPTER 4: LID HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Southern California has a relatively dry climate with long periods of very little rainfall often followed by intense storm events. The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works uses the Modified Rational Method of hydrologic analysis. A detailed discussion of the methodology is included in the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. The most recent version is available online at http://www.ladpw.org/wrd/publication/index.cfm. LID GOALS The primary benefits expected from implementation of LID are: (1) increased groundwater recharge, (2) enhanced water quality, and (3) stability of downstream natural reaches. The main benefits of LID can be achieved with relatively simple analysis using tools that are currently available and consistent with approved methods, such as Los Angeles County’s Tc calculator available online at http://www.ladpw.org/wrd/publication/Engineering/hydrology/tc_calculator_files.zip. METHODOLOGY LID Hydrologic Analysis Steps Step 1: Determine hydrologic parameters Determine drainage area of proposed development site (for sites larger than 40 acres use multiple subareas). Calculate slope and length of flow path and identify soil type. Step 2 Identify design storm There are several options for an LID design storm. This accounts for regional differences in rainfall and is consistent with existing SUSMP design criteria. A. The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined, as the maximized capture stormwater volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/SCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), or B. The volume of annual runoff, based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook – Industrial/Commercial, (1993), or 21 C. The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75-inch storm event prior to its discharge to a stormwater conveyance system, or D. The volume of runoff produced from a historical record based reference 24-hour rainfall criterion for treatment 0.75 inch average for the County of Los Angeles area) that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads achieved by the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. Step 3: Calculate undeveloped runoff volume Using an approved hydrologic analysis tool consistent with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual, determine the volume associated with the selected design storm assuming clear flows and undeveloped site conditions (0 percent impervious surfaces). Step 4: Calculate developed runoff volume Using the same design storm, determine the runoff volume associated with the proposed development. The impervious values shall be consistent with the hydrology manual recommendations based on land-use type. Step 5: Calculate the excess volume (∆V) Subtract the undeveloped runoff volume from the developed runoff volume. This quantity is required to be infiltrated wherever possible at the site level and the BMPs used to accomplish this requirement shall be distributed throughout the project site. Step 6: Determine water quality treatment volume or flow rate The entire volume identified in Step 4 must be treated or infiltrated or one of the following flow rate based events can be used to determine the flow rate of runoff that must be treated: A. The flow of runoff produced from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity; or B. The flow of runoff produced from a rain event equal to at least 2 times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the County of Los Angeles; or C. The flow of runoff produced from a rain event that will result in treatment of the same portion of runoff as treated using volumetric standards above. 22 CHAPTER 5: LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 23 BIORETENTION POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION Bioretention areas are vegetated shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Bioretention areas also remove pollutants by filtering stormwater through plants adapted to the local climate, soil moisture conditions, and an engineered soil mix. In bioretention areas, pore spaces, microbes, and organic material in the engineered soils help retain water in the form of soil moisture and promote the adsorption of pollutants (such as dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons) into the soil matrix. Plants utilize soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration. If no underdrain is provided, outflow of the device’s stored water into the underlying soils occurs over a period of days. For areas with low permeability, native soils, or steep slopes, bioretention areas can be designed with an underdrain system that routes the treated runoff to a more suitable infiltration area, a cistern for later reuse, or to the storm drain system. In this situation, treatment is achieved mainly through filtration and adsorption in the vegetation and engineered soils. 24 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Provides shade and windbreaks, and improves aesthetics • Enhances water quality through treatment and gradual infiltration • Not appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur • Not suitable for areas where water table is within 10 feet of ground and surface stratum unstable • Not recommended where tree removal would be required • May pose vector control problem GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS Implementation of bioretention for stormwater management is ideal for median strips, parking lot islands, and downstream of swales. Moreover, the runoff in these areas can be designed to either divert directly into the bioretention area or convey into the bioretention area by a curb and gutter collection system. The best location for bioretention areas is upland from inlets that receive sheet flow from graded areas and at areas that will be excavated. In order to maximize treatment effectiveness, the site must be graded in such a way that minimizes erosive conditions as sheet flow is conveyed to the treatment area. Locations where a bioretention area can be readily incorporated into the site plan without further environmental damage are preferred. Furthermore, to effectively minimize sediment loading in the treatment area, bioretention should only be used in stabilized drainage areas. Design considerations include: • Native soil infiltration rate - Underdrain is required in low permeability soils. • Vertical relief and proximity to storm drain - Site must have adequate relief between land surface and storm drain to permit vertical percolation through the soil media if collected and conveyed in underdrain to storm drain system. • Depth to groundwater - Shallow groundwater table may not permit complete drawdown between storms. • Availability of pervious area - Bioretention areas typically occupy between 2 to 10 percent of the drainage area. MULTIUSE OPPORTUNITIES Bioretention areas can be applied in various settings, including: • Individual lots for rooftop, driveway, and other on-lot impervious surface infiltration. • Shared facilities located in common areas for individual lots. • Areas within loop roads or cul-de-sacs. • Landscaped parking lot islands. 25 • Within parkways and other right of ways along roads. • Common landscaped areas in apartment complexes or other multifamily housing designs. • In parks and along open space edges. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 26 CISTERNS/RAIN BARRELS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION Cisterns and rain barrels are containers, which capture stormwater runoff as it comes down through the roof gutter system. Rain barrels are placed outside of a building at roof downspouts to store rooftop runoff for later reuse in lawn and garden watering. Cisterns also collect rooftop runoff, but store the water in significantly larger volumes in manufactured tanks or built underground storage areas. Both cisterns and rain barrels can be implemented without the use of pumping devices, instead relying on gravity flow. The collection of this stormwater reduces the amount of stormwater runoff and assists in the reduction of potential pollutants entering the stormwater conveyance system. Reducing the water used from the municipal water system can reduce a site’s water bill. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Low installation cost • Requires little space for installation • Reduces amount of stormwater runoff • Conserves water usage • Reduction in the discharge of pollutants due to reduction of overall off-site flow volume • Limited amount of stormwater runoff can be captured • Restricted to structure runoff 27 The following rain barrel and cistern technical and operational features should be considered: • Screens on gutters and downspouts to remove sediment and particles as the water enters the barrel or cistern. • Removable child-resistant covers and mosquito screening on water entry holes. • The option of draining the system completely for maintenance. • Drain spigots that have garden hose threading, suitable for connection to a drip irrigation system. • Aesthetic features that are compatible with the lot’s landscaping plan or landscaping that provides visual screening. • Private stormwater maintenance agreements met between the property owner and any potential second and third parties. • Adequate storage capacity. • Should be located for easy maintenance or replacement. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The required capacity of a cistern and rain barrel is a function of the rooftop surface area that drains to it, the inches of rainfall required to fill the vessel, and water losses due mainly to evaporation. Cisterns should be designed to prevent mosquito access. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Maintenance requirements for rain barrels are minimal and consist only of regular inspection of the unit as a whole and any of its constituent parts and accessories. All components should be inspected at least twice a year and repaired or replaced as needed. Cisterns, along with all their components and accessories, should undergo regular inspection at least twice a year. Replacement or repair of the unit as a whole and any of its constituent parts and accessories should be completed as necessary. During the wet season, cisterns and rain barrels should be inspected periodically for mosquitos. Note: For more information, please visit the American Rain Catchment Systems Association website at www.arcsa.org. GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS 28 DRY PONDS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment Medium Nutrients Low Trash High Metals Medium Bacteria Medium Oil and Grease Medium Organics Medium DESCRIPTION Dry extended detention (ED) basins are basins whose outlets have been designed to detain the runoff from a water quality design storm for 36 to 48 hours to allow sediment particles and associated pollutants to settle and be removed. Dry ED basins do not have a permanent pool; they are designed to drain completely between storm events. They can also be used to provide hydromodification and/or flood control by modifying the outlet control structure design and including additional detention storage. The slopes, bottom, and forebay of ED basins are typically vegetated. Dry ED basins can be located either online or offline. For offline basins, a flow diversion structure is used to divert the design storm volume to the basin from the storm drain. For online basins, all storm drain flows are routed through the basin; storm events exceeding the water quality design capacity will pass through the basin and will discharge over a primary overflow untreated or, during extreme events, over an emergency spillway. In both types of basins, influent flows enter a sediment forebay. Here coarse solids are first removed prior to flowing into the main cell of the basin where finer sediment and associated pollutants settle as stormwater is detained and slowly released through a controlled outlet structure. Dry-weather flows and very low storm flows are often infiltrated within the basin. 29 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Inexpensive and easy to construct and operate due to simplicity • Provide significant removal of sediments and associated toxics • Provides erosion control • Provides flood control • Only moderate pollutant removal • Ponded water may cause vector control problem GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS • Surface space availability - typically 0.5 to 2 percent of the total tributary development area required. • Depth to groundwater - bottom of basin should be higher than the water table. • Steep slopes - basins placed on slopes greater than 15 percent or within 200 feet from the top of a hazardous slope or landslide area require a geotechnical investigation. • Compatibility with flood control - basins must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures. • Dry ED basins shall never be placed within a blue-line stream. MULTIUSE OPPORTUNITIES A dry ED basin can sometimes be retrofitted into an existing flood control basin or integrated into the design of a park or playfield. Perforated risers, multiple orifice plate outlets, or similar multistage outlets are required for flood control retrofit applications to ensure adequate detention time for small storms while still providing peak-flow attenuation for the flood design storm. Recreational multiuse facilities must be inspected after every storm and may require a greater maintenance frequency than dedicated water quality basins to ensure aesthetics and public safety are not compromised. Any planned multiuse facility must obtain special approval by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 30 DRY WELLS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION Commonly known as sumps, french drains, drain fields, and shallow injection wells; dry wells simply use gravity to infiltrate stormwater into the subsurface. A dry well is constructed by digging a hole in the ground and filling it with an open graded aggregate or plastic infill devices. Stormwater runoff is diverted to the dry well for infiltration into the ground, allowing it to be stored in the voids. While it may seem harmless and cost- effective at first glance to use these dry wells to infiltrate stormwater into the ground, in reality, the impact to groundwater quality from these devices varies and is highly dependent upon many factors. 31 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Requires minimal space to install • Low installation costs • Reduces amount of runoff • Provides groundwater recharge • Can serve small impervious areas like rooftops • Helps to disconnect impervious surfaces • Offers little pretreatment, which may cause clogging • Risk of groundwater contamination in very coarse soils may require groundwater monitoring • Dry wells service a limited drainage area, typically only rooftop runoff • Loss of infiltrative capacity and high maintenance cost in fine soils • Low removal of dissolved pollutants in very coarse soils • Not recommended for use with commercial rooftops unless adequacy of pretreatment is assured GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS Constraints for dry wells are similar to those associated with many infiltration BMPs: • Soils must be permeable. • Dry wells should not be installed where hazardous or toxic materials are used, handled, stored, or where a spill of such materials would drain into the dry well. • Must have a minimum of 10 feet between the bottom of the dry well and the seasonal high-0water table. • Dry wells must be located at least 10 feet away, on the down slope side of the structure, from building foundations to prevent seepage. • Not suitable on fill sites or steep slopes. • Generally, dry wells that are deeper than their widest surface dimension are classified as Class V Injection Wells and are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. These wells must comply with the requirements of the Federal Underground Injection Control Program. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 32 ENGINEERED WETLANDS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients Medium Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION Constructed wetlands are constructed pools that retain water throughout the year. They are shallower than wet ponds, but have a greater vegetative cover. It is important to note that natural wetlands are not recommended for stormwater treatment as natural wetlands should be conserved. Constructed wetlands are developed for the purpose of stormwater management. Additionally, constructed wetlands provide habitat and are aesthetically pleasing, making them widely accepted in communities. Treatment occurs through sedimentation and biological uptake. Many different designs for constructed wetlands exist, however, one of the most often used includes an initial detention pond for settling and increased storage capacity. 33 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS • Availability of base flows - stormwater wetlands require a regular source of water to support wetland biota. • Slope stability - stormwater wetlands are not permitted near steep slope hazard areas. • Surface space availability - large footprint required. • Compatibility with flood control - basins must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures. MULTIUSE OPPORTUNITIES Provided adequate surcharge storage, a stormwater wetland may be combined with a flood control basin to provide both water quality control and peak-flow control. Wetlands can also be designed with wildlife viewing areas and walking trails around the perimeter to provide passive recreation. Any planned multiuse facility must obtain special approval by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Provides wildlife habitat • Provides removal of wide range of constituents • Provides erosion control • Provides flood control • Safety concerns when constructed where there is public access • Not suitable for steep, unstable slopes • May have vector control problems • May need base flow to maintain water level • Requires fairly large open space • May require State Division of Safety of Dams approval depending on size 34 GREEN ROOFS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients Medium Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION A green roof is a heavy weight roof system of waterproofing material with a thick soil/vegetation protective cover. The green roof can be used in place of a traditional roof to limit impervious site area. The green roof captures and then evapotranspirates 50 to 100 percent of precipitation depending on the season. Green roofs attempt to mimic predeveloped hydrology, thereby reducing postdeveloped peak-runoff rates to near predeveloped rates. They help mitigate runoff temperatures by keeping roofs cool and retaining most of the runoff in warm seasons. Green roofs should not be used on slopes greater than 10 percent. A drain system and overflow to an approved conveyance and destination/disposal method will be required. There are two types of green roofs: extensive and intensive systems. Intensive green roofs have larger depths of soil and require more maintenance and irrigation. Extensive green roofs feature very thin planting mediums and require little maintenance. 35 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Requires no additional space • Reduces overall volume of stormwater • Reduces pollutant discharge due to microbial processes and plant uptake • Requires drought-tolerant vegetation • Increased roof loading • Requires maintenance to the same extent as any landscaped area • Need to be watered regularly in first year after construction until vegetation is established GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS Green roofs can be installed during initial construction or placed on buildings as part of a retrofit. The amount of stormwater that a green roof mitigates is directly proportional to the area it covers, the depth and type of the growing medium, slope, and the type of plants selected. The larger the green roof area, the more stormwater mitigated. Green roofs are appropriate for industrial and commercial facilities and large residential buildings such as condominiums or apartment complexes. Green roofs can also prove useful for small residential buildings under some circumstances. For instance, green roofs are commonly used on single-family residential structures in Germany and other European countries. Single-family residential structures, like all buildings with green roofs, must be able to support the loading from a saturated roof. Furthermore, the green roofs should be easily accessible; and residents should understand the maintenance requirements necessary to keep the roof functional. A building must be able to support the loading of green roof materials under fully saturated conditions. These materials include a waterproofing layer, a soil or substrate layer, and a plant layer. Plants selected need to be suited for local climatic conditions and can range from sedums, grasses, and wildflowers on extensive roofs to shrubs and small trees on intensive roofs. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS Proprietary green roof applications must comply with the vendor’s guidelines for installation and maintenance. In the case of a conflict between vendor guidelines and County requirements, the stricter shall apply. Good quality waterproofing material must be used on the roof surface. Soil of adequate fertility and drainage capacity at depths of 2 to 6 inches and weight of 10 to 30 pounds per square foot shall be applied for an extensive green roof. For an intensive green roof, a minimum soil depth of 8 inches and weight of 60 pounds per square foot should be used. The building structure must be shown to be adequate to hold the additional weight. Vegetation shall be self-sustaining plants without the need for fertilizers or pesticides. Soil coverage to prevent erosion 36 shall be established immediately upon installation by using mulch, vegetation mats, or other approved protection method. Ninety percent plant coverage shall be achieved within two years. Temporary irrigation to establish plants is recommended. A permanent irrigation system using potable water may be used, but an alternative means of irrigation such as air conditioning condensate or other nonpotable sources is recommended. Alternative sources should be analyzed to determine if the source has chemicals that might harm or kill the vegetation. Maximum roof slope shall be 10 percent, unless the applicant can provide documentation for runoff control on steeper slopes. STRUCTURAL ROOF SUPPORT The structural roof support must be sufficient to hold the additional weight of the green roof. For retrofit projects, check with an architect, structural engineer, or roof consultant to determine the condition of the existing building structure and what might be needed to support a green roof. This might include additional decking; roof trusses; joists, columns, and/or foundations. Generally, the building structure must be adequate to hold an additional 10 to 25 pounds per square foot (psf) saturated weight, depending on the vegetation and growth medium that will be used. (This is in addition to snow load requirements.) An existing rock ballast roof may be structurally sufficient to hold a 10 to 12 psf green roof. (Ballast typically weighs 10 to 12 psf.) For new construction, the project architects and structural engineers shall address the structural requirements of the green roof during the design process. Greater flexibility and options are available for new buildings than for reroofing. The procedures for the remaining components are the same for both reroofing and new construction. WATERPROOF MEMBRANE Waterproof membranes are made of various materials, such as modified asphalts (bitumens), synthetic rubber ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), hypolan chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE), and reinforced polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Some of the materials come in sheets or rolls and some are in liquid form. They have different strengths and functional characteristics. Some of these products require root inhibitors and other materials to protect the membrane. Numerous companies manufacture waterproofing materials appropriate for green roofs. PROTECTION BOARDS OR MATERIALS These materials protect the waterproof membrane from damage during construction and over the life of the system, usually made of soft fibrous materials. ROOF BARRIER Root barriers are made of dense materials that inhibit root penetration. The need for a root barrier depends on the waterproof membrane selected. Modified asphalts usually require a root barrier while synthetic rubber (EPDM) and reinforced PVC generally do 37 not. Check with the manufacturer to determine if a root barrier is required for a particular product. Membranes impregnated with pesticides are not allowed. Manufacturers must provide the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works with evidence that membranes impregnated with copper will not leach out at concentrations of concern. DRAINAGE LAYER There are numerous ways to provide drainage. Products range from manufactured perforated plastic sheets to a thin layer of gravel. Some green roof designs do not require any drainage layer other than the growth medium itself, depending on roof slope and size (e.g., pitched roofs and small flat roofs). GROWTH MEDIUM The growth medium is generally 2 to 6 inches thick and well drained. It weighs from 10 to 25 pounds per square foot when saturated. A simple mix of 1/4 topsoil, 1/4 compost, and 1/2 pumice perlite may be sufficient for many applications. Some companies have their own growth medium specifications. Other components could include digested fiber, expanded clay or shale, or coir. VEGETATION Green roof vegetation should have the following attributes: • Drought tolerant, requiring little or no irrigation after establishment. • A growth pattern that allows the plant to thoroughly cover the soil. At least 90 percent of the overall surface shall be covered. • Self-sustaining, without the need for fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. Able to withstand heat, cold, and high winds • Very low maintenance, needing little or no mowing or trimming. • Perennial or self-sowing. • Fire resistant. A mix of sedum/succulent plant communities is recommended because they possess many of these attributes. Herbs, forbs, grasses, and other low ground covers can also be used to provide additional benefits and aesthetics; however, these plants may need more watering and maintenance to survive and keep their appearance. 38 Installation: Four methods (or combinations of them) are generally used to install the vegetation; vegetation mats, plugs/potted plants, sprigs, and seeds. 1. Vegetation mats are sod-like, pregerminated mats that achieve immediate full-plant coverage. They provide immediate erosion control, do not need mulch, and minimize weed intrusion. They also need minimal maintenance during the establishment period and little ongoing watering and weeding. 2. Plugs or potted plants may provide more design flexibility than mats. However, they take longer to achieve full coverage, are more prone to erosion, need more watering during establishment, require mulching, and more weeding. 3. Sprigs are hand broadcast. They require more weeding, erosion control, and watering than mats. 4. Seeds can be either hand broadcast or hydraseeded. Like sprigs, they require more weeding, erosion control, and watering than mats. GRAVEL BALLAST Gravel ballast is sometimes placed along the perimeter of the roof and at air vents or other vertical elements. The need for ballast depends on operational and structural design issues. It is sometimes used to provide maintenance access, especially to vertical elements requiring periodic maintenance. In many cases very little, if any, ballast is needed. In some situations a header or separation board may be placed between the gravel ballast and adjacent elements (such as soil or drains). If a root barrier is used, it must extend under the gravel ballast and growth medium and up the side of the vertical elements. DRAIN As with a conventional roof, a green roof must safely drain runoff from the roof to an approved stormwater destination. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS • Soil Substrate/Growth Medium - soil shall be inspected for evidence of erosion from wind or water. If erosion channels are evident, they shall be stabilized with additional soil substrate/growth medium and covered with additional plants. • Green Roof System Structural Components - Structural components shall be operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ requirements. Drain inlets shall be kept unrestricted. Inlet pipe shall be cleared when soil substrate, vegetation, debris, or other materials clog the drain inlet. Sources of sediment and 39 debris shall be identified and corrected. Determine if drain inlet pipe is in good condition and correct as needed. • Debris and Litter: Debris shall be removed to prevent clogging of inlet drains and interference with plant growth. • Vegetation: Vegetation shall be maintained to provide 90 percent plant cover. During the establishment period, plants shall be replaced once per month as needed. During the long-term period, dead plants shall generally be replaced as needed. Fallen leaves and debris from deciduous plant foliage shall be removed. Nuisance and prohibited vegetation shall be removed when discovered. Dead vegetation shall be removed and replaced with new plants. Weeding shall be manual with no herbicides or pesticides used. Weeds shall be removed regularly and not allowed to accumulate. Fertilization is not necessary and fertilizers shall not be applied. During drought conditions, mulch or shade cloth may be applied to prevent excess solar damage and water loss. Mowing of grasses shall occur as needed. Clippings shall be removed. • Irrigation can be accomplished either through hand watering or automatic sprinkler systems. If automatic sprinklers are used, manufacturers’ instructions for operations and maintenance shall be followed. During the establishment period (1 to 3 years), water sufficient to assure plant establishment shall be applied. During the long-term period (3 plus years), water sufficient to maintain plant cover shall be applied. • Spill prevention measures from mechanical systems located on roofs shall be exercised when handling substances that can contaminate stormwater. Releases of pollutants shall be corrected as soon as identified. • Training and/or written guidance information for operating and maintaining green roofs shall be provided to all property owners and tenants. A copy of the operations and maintenance plan shall be provided to all property owners and tenants. • Access and safety to the green roof shall be safe and efficient. Egress and ingress routes shall be maintained to design standards. Walkways shall be clear of obstructions and maintained to design standards. • Aesthetics of the green roof shall be maintained as an asset to the property owner and community. Evidence of damage or vandalism shall be repaired and accumulation of trash or debris shall be removed upon discovery. • Insects shall not be harbored at the green roof. Standing water creating an environment for development of insect larvae shall be eliminated by manual means. Chemical sprays shall not be used. Note: Please visit www.greenroofs.org for more information on green roofs. 40 INFILTRATION BASIN POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION An infiltration basin is a shallow surface pond that is designed to infiltrate stormwater through permeable soils. Infiltration basins retain runoff until it gradually infiltrates through the soil and eventually into the groundwater. Vegetation is used to avoid erosion of the basin bottom and slopes. The vegetation provides pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater, thus helping to maintain low flows in stream systems. Pollutant removal takes place through a combination of filtration, adsorption, and biological processes. Infiltration basins are effective in reducing the pollutants of concern listed above; however, coarser sediments can clog and render the basin ineffective. An evaluation of the soils at the site is required to determine if an infiltration basin is an appropriate BMP to use. As opposed to infiltration trenches, an infiltration basin creates a visible surface pond because it is not backfilled with rocks or stones. Infiltration basins are generally used for drainage areas between 5 and 50 acres. For drainage areas less than 5 acres, an infiltration trench or other BMP may be more appropriate. For drainage areas greater than 50 acres, maintenance of an infiltration basin would be burdensome and an extended/dry detention basin or wet pond may be more appropriate. 41 Infiltration basins are generally dry except immediately following storms. A low-flow channel may be necessary if a constant base flow is present. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Avoids discharge to surface waters • Good pollutant removal capabilities • Controls runoff volume • Provides erosion and flood control • Provides groundwater recharge • Provides more habitat value than other infiltration systems • It replicates pre-development hydrology • Can fulfill an area’s landscape requirement • Dependent upon soil and subsurface conditions • High failure rates due to clogging and high maintenance burden • Sediment forebay or pretreatment required • Not recommended to treat industrial sites or sites where hazardous spills may occur • Minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour • Soil infiltration rates greater than 2.4 inches/hour require full treatment of water prior to infiltration, due to risk of groundwater contamination • Not appropriate for sites with Hydrologic Soil Types C and D • In coarse soil types there is risk of groundwater contamination • Requires complete stabilization of upstream drainage areas prior to construction • Not suitable for fill areas or steep slopes • Once basin becomes clogged it is difficult to restore function • Accumulation of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons may reach toxic level GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS The use of an infiltration basin may be limited by a number of factors, including type of native soils, climate, and location of groundwater table. Site characteristics such as excessive slope of the drainage area, fine-grained soil types, and proximate location of the water table and bedrock may preclude the use of an infiltration basin. Generally, infiltration basins are not suitable for areas with relatively impermeable soils containing clay and silt or in areas with fill. 42 As with any infiltration BMP, the potential for groundwater contamination must be carefully considered, especially if the groundwater is used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration basin is not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are prevented from entering the basin. In these areas, other BMPs that do not allow interaction with the groundwater should be considered. In addition, an appropriate erosion-control seed mix needs to be used for the basin. An infiltration basin needs to be built without driving heavy equipment over the infiltration surface. Any equipment driven on the surface should have extra-wide (low pressure) tires. Prior to any construction, the infiltration area needs to be enclosed with a top to stop entrance by unwanted equipment. It is important to note that before construction begins, the entire drainage area needs to be stabilized. This can be done by implementing a temporary diversion berm around the perimeter of the construction site to prevent drainage and sediment buildup to this area. After construction is completed, the entire contributing drainage area needs to be stabilized and clean of construction material before runoff can be allowed into the infiltration basin. It is also important to note that the use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. The use of galvanized fencing is permitted only in accordance with County fencing requirements. Evaluation of a particular site to determine if the use of an infiltration basin is appropriate includes: Determination of the soil type (ASTM D 3385-88 – Consider NRCS Soil Types A and B only) and consult USDA Soil Survey Tables to review other parameters such as the amount of silt and clay, presence of a restrictive layer or seasonal high water table, and estimated permeability. The soil should not have more than 30 percent clay or more than 40 percent of clay and silt combined. Eliminate sites that are clearly unsuitable for infiltration. Groundwater separation should be at least 10 feet from the basin invert to the measured groundwater elevation and 100 feet away from groundwater wells. There is concern at the State and regional levels of the impact on groundwater quality from infiltrated runoff, especially when the separation between groundwater and the surface is small. Placement should be away from buildings, slopes, and highway pavement (greater than 10 feet) and production wells and bridge structures (greater than 100 feet). Sites constructed of fill having a base flow or with a slope greater than 15 percent should not be considered. 43 Ensure that adequate head is available to operate flow-splitter structures (to allow the basin to be off-line) without ponding in the splitter structure or creating backwater upstream of the splitter. Base flow should not be present in the tributary watershed. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 44 INFILTRATION TRENCHES POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION An infiltration trench is a long and narrow excavated ditch over porous soils, backfilled with rocks or stones, and lined with filter fabric on the sides and bottom. Stormwater runoff is diverted into the infiltration trench. Since the trench has no outlet, runoff is stored in the void spaces between the stones or gravel. Stormwater infiltrates into the soil where pollutants are removed through a combination of filtration, adsorption, and biological processes. Infiltration trenches are effective in reducing the pollutants of concern listed above. Pretreatment BMPs such as vegetative swales, buffer strips, or detention basins are typically required to remove coarser sediments that can clog and render the trench ineffective. An evaluation of the soils at the site is required to determine if an infiltration trench is an appropriate BMP to implement. Infiltration trenches differ from infiltration basins in that the former is used for small drainage areas and stores runoff out of sight within the void spaces of rocks or stones underground. Infiltration basins are for larger drainage areas and runoff is stored within a visible surface pond. 45 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Avoids discharge to surface waters • Good pollutant removal capabilities • Controls runoff volume • Provides erosion and flood control • Provides groundwater recharge • Little aesthetic impact • Fits in narrow areas and unused areas of a development site • It replicates pre-development hydrology • Dependent upon soil and subsurface conditions • High failure rates due to clogging and high maintenance burden • Not recommended to treat industrial sites or sites where hazardous spills may occur • Maximum drainage area should be less than 5 acres • Minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inch/hour • Soil infiltration rates greater than 2.4 inches/hour require full treatment of water prior to infiltration due to risk of groundwater contamination • Not appropriate for sites with Hydrologic Soil Types C and D • In coarse soil types there is risk of groundwater contamination • Requires complete stabilization of upstream drainage areas prior to construction • Not suitable for fill areas or steep slopes • Once trench becomes clogged it is difficult to restore function • Accumulation of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons may reach toxic level GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS The use of infiltration trenches may be limited by a number of factors including type of native soil, climate, and location of groundwater table. Site characteristics such as excessive slope of the drainage area, fine-grained soil types, and proximate location of the water table and bedrock may preclude the use of infiltration trenches. Generally, infiltration trenches are not suitable for areas with relatively impermeable soils containing clay and silt or in areas with fill. As with any infiltration BMP, the potential for groundwater contamination must be carefully considered, especially if the groundwater is used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration trench is not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are prevented from entering the trench. In these areas, other BMPs that do not allow interaction with the groundwater should be considered. 46 It is important to note that before construction begins, the entire drainage area needs to be stabilized. This can be done by implementing a temporary diversion berm around the perimeter of the construction site to prevent drainage and sediment buildup to this area. After construction is completed, the entire contributing drainage area needs to be stabilized and clean of construction material before runoff can be allowed into the infiltration trench. To determine if the use of infiltration trenches is appropriate, the following factor must be considered: Determination of the soil type (ASTM D 3385-88 – Consider NRCS Soil Types A and B only) and consult USDA Soil Survey tables to review other parameters such as the amount of silt and clay, presence of a restrictive layer or seasonal high water table, and estimated permeability. The soil should not have more than 30 percent clay or more than 40 percent of clay and silt combined. Eliminate sites that are clearly unsuitable for infiltration. Groundwater separation should be at least 10 feet from the basin invert to the measured groundwater elevation and 100 feet away from groundwater wells. There is concern at the State and regional levels of the impact on groundwater quality from infiltrated runoff, especially when the separation between groundwater and the surface is small. Placement should be away from buildings, slopes, and highway pavement (greater than 10 feet) and production wells and bridge structures (greater than 100 feet). Sites constructed of fill, having a base flow, or with a slope greater than 15 percent should not be considered. Ensure that adequate head is available to operate flow-splitter structures (to allow the basin to be offline) without ponding in the splitter structure or creating backwater upstream of the splitter. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 47 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION DESCRIPTION The majority of residential water usage is dedicated to landscape irrigation. Irrigation systems are often poorly designed and maintained, resulting in inefficient water usage and urban runoff. Urban runoff from irrigation often carries fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other pollutants used on landscapes. Efficient irrigation design can minimize the amount of water used to irrigate a landscape and eliminate urban runoff from the site. Methods to increase irrigation efficiency include low-flow sprinkler heads, smart controllers that take into account local evapotranspiration rates, sensors that detect unfavorable weather conditions, and low-flow sprinkler heads. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS A smart irrigation controller is a device that automatically adjusts watering times in response to weather changes. Smart irrigation controllers use sensors and weather information to manage watering times and frequency. In order to comply with the landscape irrigation option for small scale residential projects, the applicant shall install a smart irrigation controller for any area of the lot that is either landscaped or designated for future landscaping. 48 PLANTER BOXES POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION There are two types of planter boxes: contained planters and infiltration planters. Contained planters are used for planting trees, shrubs, and ground cover to be placed over impervious surface. The planter may be a prefabricated pot of various dimensions or may be constructed in place and have an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. Contained planters are placed on impervious surfaces such as sidewalks, plazas, and rooftops. Drainage is allowed through the bottom of the planter. Infiltration planters are structural landscaped reservoirs used to collect, filter, and infiltrate stormwater runoff allowing pollutants to settle and filter out as the water percolates through the planter soil and infiltrates into the ground. In addition to providing pollution reduction, flow rates and volumes can also be managed with infiltration planters. Planters can be used to reduce the total impervious area and should be integrated into the overall site design. Numerous design variations of shape, wall treatment, and planting scheme can be used to fit the character of a site. An overflow to an approved conveyance and disposal method will be required. 49 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Requires very little space • Aesthetically pleasing • Can provide water treatment or infiltration • Wide applicability • Useful for disconnecting downspouts • Infiltration rate limited to infiltration capacity of underlying soil • A relatively limited volume of stormwater can be mitigated using planter boxes GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS Contained planter boxes are suitable for any location as they are placed over impervious surfaces. Planter boxes are ideal for urban infill environments where space is limited. For infiltration planters, the infiltration rate of the native soil is a key element in determining size. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Plants shall be relatively self-sustaining with little need for fertilizers or pesticides. Irrigation is optional, although plant viability must be maintained. Trees are encouraged for stormwater interception. Planter storage depth must be at least 12 inches unless a larger than --required planter square footage is used. Minimum planter width is 30 inches. Planters shall be constructed without slope. SOIL SUITABILITY Contained planters are appropriate for all soil types as they are placed over impervious surface. Topsoil shall be used within the top 12 to 18 inches of the facility. Infiltration planters are appropriate for soils with a minimum infiltration rate of 0.5 inch per hour. There shall be no less than 3 feet of undisturbed infiltration medium between the bottom of the facility and any impervious layer (i.e., hardpan, solid rock, high groundwater levels, etc.). Topsoil shall be used within the top 18 inches of the facility. PLANTER WALLS Planter walls shall be made of stone, concrete, brick, clay, plastic, wood, or other stable material. Chemically treated wood that can leach out toxic chemicals and contaminate stormwater shall not be used. 50 SIZING Individual infiltration planters sized with the simplified approach shall be designed to receive less than 15,000 square feet of impervious area runoff. Planters shall be designed to pond water for less than 36 hours after each storm event. LANDSCAPING Contained planters shall be planted to cover at least 50 percent of the planter surface. Tree planting is not required in planters, but is encouraged where practical. Tree planting is also encouraged near planters. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Infiltration planter areas should be clearly marked before site work begins to avoid soil disturbance during construction. No vehicular traffic, except that specifically used to construct the facility, should be allowed within 10 feet of planter areas. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE • Downspout from rooftop or sheet flow from paving allows unimpeded stormwater flow to the planter. Debris shall be removed routinely (e.g., no less than every 6 months) and upon discovery. Damaged pipe shall be repaired upon discovery. • Planter reservoir receives and detains stormwater prior to infiltration. Water should drain from reservoir within 3 to 4 hours of storm event. Sources of clogging shall be identified and corrected. Topsoil may need to be amended with sand or replaced all together. • Overflow pipe safely conveys flow exceeding reservoir capacity to an approved stormwater receiving system. Overflow pipe shall be cleared of sediment and debris when 50 percent of the conveyance capacity is plugged. Damaged pipe shall be repaired or replaced upon discovery. • Spill prevention measures shall be exercised when handling substances that contaminate stormwater. Releases of pollutants shall be corrected as soon as identified. • Training and/or written guidance information for operating and maintaining stormwater planters shall be provided to all property owners and tenants. A copy of the Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be provided to all property owners and tenants. 51 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE • Vegetation shall be healthy and dense enough to provide filtering while protecting underlying soils from erosion. Mulch shall be replenished at least annually. Vegetation, large shrubs, or trees that limit access or interfere with planter operation shall be pruned or removed. Fallen leaves and debris from deciduous plant foliage shall be raked and removed. Nuisance or prohibited vegetation shall be removed when discovered. Invasive vegetation contributing up to 25 percent of vegetation of all species shall be removed and replaced. Dead vegetation shall be removed to maintain less than 10 percent of area coverage or when planter function is impaired. Vegetation shall be replaced within a specific timeframe (e.g., 3 months) or immediately, if required, to maintain cover density and control erosion where soils are exposed. • Access to the stormwater planter shall be safe and efficient. Egress and ingress routes shall be maintained to design standards. Roadways shall be maintained to accommodate size and weight of vehicles if applicable. Obstacles preventing maintenance personnel and/or equipment access to the stormwater planter shall be removed. Gravel or ground cover shall be added if erosion occurs (e.g., due to vehicular or pedestrian traffic). • Insects and rodents shall not be harbored in the stormwater planter. Pest control measures shall be taken when insects/rodents are found to be present. If sprays are considered, then a mosquito larvicide such as Bacillus thurendensis or Altoside formulations can be applied only if absolutely necessary, and only by a licensed individual or contractor. Holes in the ground located in and around the stormwater planter shall be filled and compacted. MAJOR MAINTENANCE • Splash blocks prevent splashing against adjacent structures and convey water without disrupting media. Any deficiencies in structure such as cracking, rotting, and failure shall be repaired. • Planter shall contain filter media and vegetation. Structural deficiencies in the planter including rot, cracks, and failure shall be repaired. • Filter media consisting of sand, gravel, and topsoil shall allow stormwater to percolate uniformly through the planter. The planter shall be excavated and cleaned; and gravel or soil shall be replaced to correct low infiltration rates. Holes that are not consistent with the design and allow water to flow directly through the planter to the ground shall be plugged. Sediment accumulation shall be hand removed with minimum damage to vegetation using proper erosion control measures. Sediment shall be removed if it is more than 4 inches thick or so thick as to damage or kill vegetation. Litter and debris shall be removed routinely (e.g., no less than quarterly) and upon discovery. 52 POROUS PAVEMENT POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment Low Nutrients High Trash High Metals High Bacteria Low Oil and Grease High Organics Low DESCRIPTION There are many types of pervious pavement on the market today. Numerous products and design approaches are available including special asphalt paving; manufactured products of concrete, plastic, and gravel; paving stones; and brick. It may be used for walkways, patios, plazas, driveways, parking lots, and some portions of streets subject to compliance with building codes. The material must be installed and maintained to manufacturers’ specifications. These materials may not be allowed in certain areas. A professional engineer must design pervious pavement systems that will be supporting vehicular traffic. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Provide significant reductions in surface runoff and pollutant loading • Can be designed with an underdrain in situations where infiltration is not feasible • Reduces pavement ponding • Only applicable for low traffic volume areas • To maintain effectiveness, porous pavements require frequent maintenance • Easily clogged by sediments if not situated properly • Extended rain can reduce the pavement’s load bearing capacity 53 When designing pervious pavement systems, the infiltration rate of the native soil is a key element in determining the depth of base rock for the storage of stormwater or for determining whether an underdrain system is appropriate. Traffic loading and design speed are important considerations in determining which type of pervious pavement is applicable. Pedestrian, Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility, aesthetics, and maintainability are also important considerations depending on pavement use. Pervious pavements shall not be used on sites with a likelihood of high oil and grease concentrations. These site uses include vehicle wrecking or impound yards, fast food establishments, automotive repair and sales, and parking lots that receive a high number of average daily trips (> 1,000). Runoff from unpaved areas should not be directed toward pervious pavement due to the potential for sediment loads to clog the pavement. MULTIUSE OPPORTUNITIES Pervious pavement is highly versatile and can be used in replacement of impermeable asphalt in many situations. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Installation procedures are vital to the success of pervious pavement projects, particularly pervious asphalt and concrete pavement mixes. The subgrade cannot be overly compacted with the inclusion of fine particulates or the void ratio critical to providing storage for large storm events will be lost. Weather conditions at the time of installation can affect the final product. Extremely high or low temperatures should be avoided during construction of pervious asphalt and concrete pavements. SOIL SUITABILITY Pervious pavement systems are appropriate for all soil types, but will require underdrain systems for soils that do not infiltrate well (less than 0.5 inch per hour). There shall be no less than 3 feet of undisturbed infiltration medium between the bottom of the base rock and any impervious layer (i.e., hardpan, solid rock, high groundwater levels, etc.), unless an underdrain system is used. GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS 54 DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES Minimum/maximum dimensions and other specifications are product specific and shall comply with manufacturers’ recommendations. Slopes shall be less than 10 percent in all cases. SIZING Porous pavement should be designed to capture at least the water quality design storm event for its tributary area. The remaining storm volume bypasses the BMP and can be routed to another treatment or infiltration BMP or to the conventional stormwater conveyance system. 1. The prediction of the rate of infiltration of water through natural soils is related to soil type, porosity, degree of compaction, moisture content, and field capacity. This complexity governs soil drain times and has made the development of a single comprehensive model to predict drain times in actual porous pavement applications difficult. However, determining drain time is the key element in designing the size of porous pavement systems. The depth of the subbase can be determined by: Hd = E x td / r Where: Hd = Depth of reservoir layer (in). td = Detention time (hr). E = Soil infiltration rate (in/hr). r = Void ratio. The required porous pavement surface area can then be computed by: As = V / (r x Hd) Where: As = Porous pavement surface area (ft2). V = Water quality volume (ft3). 2. Specifications. The cross-section typically consists of four layers. A description of each layer is presented below. 3. Asphalt Layer. The surface asphalt layer consists of an open-graded asphalt mixture ranging from depths of 2 to 4 inches depending on required bearing strength and pavement design requirements. Porous pavements contain approximately 16 percent voids, compared to 3 to 5 percent for conventional pavements allowing runoff to quickly infiltrate. 55 4. Top Filter Layer. This layer consists of a 0.5-inch-diameter crushed stone to a depth of 1 to 2 inches. This layer serves to stabilize the porous asphalt layer. 5. Reservoir Layer. The reservoir subbase consists of 1.5 to 3-inches crushed stone. The depth of this layer depends on the desired storage volume, which is a function of the soil infiltration rate, void spaces, and in colder climates the depth of the frost line, but typically ranges from 2 to 4 feet. The reservoir layer should be designed to drain completely in 48 to 72 hours. 6. Bottom Filter Layer. This layer serves to stabilize the reservoir layer and is the interface between the reservoir layer and the filter fabric covering the underlying soil. It consists of a 2-inch-thick layer of 0.5-inch crushed stone. 7. Filter Fabric. It is very important to line the entire trench area, including the sides, with filter fabric prior to placement of the aggregate. The filter fabric serves a very important function by inhibiting soil from migrating into the reservoir layer and reducing storage capacity. 8. Underlying Soil. The underlying soil should have an infiltration capacity of at least 0.1 inch/hour, but preferably greater than 0.50 inch/hour. Soils at the lower end of this range may not be suited for a full infiltration system. 9. Construction Practices (adapted from Schueler, 1992). a. All adjacent areas should be stabilized to prevent any sediment from washing onto the pavement surface, leading to premature clogging. b. The subgrade shall be prepared as required while limiting undue compaction; permeability must be maintained. Equipment with tracks or over-sized rubber tires shall be used; DO NOT use vehicles with standard rubber tires. c. The reservoir base course shall be laid in lifts over the base filter course and lightly compacted. The base courses should be kept free of all dirt and debris during construction. d. The asphalt layer shall be laid directly over the top filter course in one lift. The laying temperature should be between 240 and 260 degrees. The ambient temperature should be above 50 degrees. e. Compaction should take place when the surface is cool enough to resist a 9-Mg roller (class equivalent of a 10-ton roller). One or 2 passes is all that is required for proper compaction. Any more may reduce porosity. f. Transporting of the mix to the site shall be in clean vehicles with smooth dump beds that have been sprayed with a nonpetroleum release agent. The mix should be covered during transport to limit cooling. g. After final rolling, no vehicular traffic of any kind should be permitted on the pavement until cooling and hardening has taken place; no sooner than 6 hours, but preferably a day or two. 56 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE • Regular sweeping shall be implemented for porous asphalt or concrete systems. The surface shall be kept clean and free of leaves, debris, and sediment. The surface shall not be overlaid with an impermeable paving surface • Overflow devices shall be inspected for obstructions or debris, which shall be removed upon discovery. Overflow or emergency spillways shall be capable of transporting high flows of stormwater to an approved stormwater receiving system. • Vegetation and large shrubs/trees that limit access or interfere with porous pavement operation shall be pruned. • Fallen leaves and debris from deciduous plant foliage shall be raked and removed. • Poisonous, nuisance, dead, or odor producing vegetation shall be removed immediately. • Grass shall be mowed to less than 4 inches and grass clippings shall be bagged and removed. • Irrigation shall be provided as needed. • Spill prevention measures shall be exercised when handling substances that can contaminate stormwater. A spill prevention plan shall be implemented at all nonresidential sites and in areas where there is likelihood of spills from hazardous materials. • Access to the pervious pavement shall be safe and efficient. Egress and ingress routes shall be maintained to design standards. Roadways shall be maintained to accommodate size and weight of vehicles if applicable. • Obstacles preventing maintenance personnel and/or equipment access to the porous pavement shall be removed. • Standing water creating an environment for development of insect larvae shall be eliminated. • Holes in the ground located in and around the pervious pavement shall be filled and compacted. MAJOR MAINTENANCE • Sources of erosion damage shall be identified and controlled when native soil is exposed near the overflow structure. • Gravel or ground cover shall be added if erosion occurs, e.g., due to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. • Source control measures prevent pollutants from mixing with stormwater. Typical nonstructural control measures include raking and removing leaves, street sweeping, vacuum sweeping, limited and controlled application of pesticides and fertilizers, and other good housekeeping practices. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 57 SAND FILTERS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients Low Trash High Metals High Bacteria Medium Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION Sand filters consist of a layer of sand in a structural box used to trap pollutants. The water filters through the sand and then flows into the surrounding soils or an underdrain system that conveys the filtered stormwater to a discharge point. Water that has percolated through the sand is collected via a perforated underdrain system before being conveyed to the downstream storm drainage system. As stormwater passes through the sand, pollutants are trapped in the small pore spaces between sand grains or are adsorbed to the sand surface. Over time bacteria can grow in the sand bed and provide some biological treatment. However, continuous dry-weather flows would be necessary to maintain the moisture required by the bacteria. Stormwater sand filters may also be two-chambered, including a pretreatment settling basin and a filter bed filled with sand. As stormwater flows into the first chamber, large particles settle out, and then finer particles and other pollutants are removed as stormwater flows through the filtering media (sand) in the second chamber. 58 ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Relatively high pollutant removal • Sufficient capture volume provides significant control of channel erosion and enlargement • More expensive to construct than many other BMPs • May require more maintenance than some other BMPs depending on the size of the filter bed • High-solid loads will cause filter to clog • Does not work well in large watersheds • Certain designs maintain permanent sources of standing water where mosquito and midge breeding is likely to occur GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS In general, sand filters are preferred over infiltration practices, such as infiltration trenches, when contamination of groundwater with conventional pollutants is of concern. This usually occurs in areas where underlying soils alone cannot treat runoff adequately or groundwater tables are high. In addition, sand filters are the preferred treatment option in regions where evaporation exceeds rainfall since a wet pond would be unlikely to maintain the required permanent pool. Additionally, implementation of sand filters for stormwater management is ideal for relatively small impervious watersheds. • High loading rates may clog quickly if flows are not adequately pretreated. • Vertical relief and proximity to storm drain site must have adequate relief between land surface and storm drain to permit vertical percolation through the sand filter and collection and conveyance in underdrain to storm drain system. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 59 VEGETATED BUFFERS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients Low Trash Medium Metals Medium Bacteria Low Oil and Grease High Organics Medium DESCRIPTION Vegetated buffers are vegetated areas designated to treat sheet flow runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces or intensive landscaped areas such as golf courses. Vegetated buffers use biological and chemical processes to filter stormwater runoff by slowing runoff velocities, filtering out sediment and other pollutants, and providing some infiltration into underlying soils. While some assimilation of dissolved constituents may occur, vegetated buffers are generally more effective in trapping sediments and particulate-bound metals, nutrients, and pesticides. Although vegetated buffers are not designed to attenuate peak stormwater flows, their use can be an effective water quality measure, and like many other LID techniques, vegetated buffers can add development aesthetic value and cost significantly less than hardscaped stormwater infrastructure. A vegetated buffer is commonly operated as a pretreatment BMP located upstream of other BMPs capable of greater pollutant removal rates. If designed properly, vegetated buffers are able to provide relatively high pollutant removal. As a stand-alone BMP, vegetated buffers can only treat low-intensity rainfall events. While providing water quality treatment for small frequent storms, vegetated buffers operating as online facilities must still retain the ability to convey high runoff rates from the roadway when high-intensity storms occur. Vegetated buffers cannot treat high-velocity flows and do 60 not provide enough storage or infiltration to effectively reduce peak discharges to predevelopment levels. GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS The most important criteria for the selection of this BMP is soil, space, and slope. • The effectiveness of a vegetated buffer depends heavily on having an evenly distributed sheet flow, the size of the contributing area, and the associated volume runoff to be treated. To prevent the formation of concentrated flows, it is advised to have each vegetated buffer serve a contributing area of 5 acres or less. • Slopes should be less than 5 percent grade to avoid the formation of gullies and rills that can disrupt sheet flow. Vegetated buffers may have reduced effectiveness on slopes 6 to 15 percent and will not function at all on slopes 15 percent or greater. Limited site slope may cause ponding. • The maximum length (in the direction of flow toward the buffer) of the tributary area should be 60 feet. The minimum length in direction of flow is 15 feet. • A water table depth within 3 feet of the surface provides greater removal rate of soluble pollutants (i.e., within root zone). • The effectiveness of vegetated buffers increases where the climate permits year-round dense vegetation and decreases in arid regions where vegetation in upland areas is scarce. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Simple to install (only planting and some earthwork) • Require minimal maintenance • Can provide reliable water quality by trapping, filtering, and infiltrating contaminants typically present in runoff • Can provide open space and recreation opportunities in residential areas • Can help to accent the natural landscape providing green space adjacent to parking lots and roadways • Not recommended for arid areas where sustaining growth is difficult • Not appropriate for hilly or intensively paved areas due to high-velocity runoff • Not appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur • Thick vegetative cover must be maintained to work effectively • If improperly graded and designed this BMP can render an ineffective practice mainly due to erosion • Channelization and premature failure may result from poor design, imprecise construction, and lack of maintenance 61 • Steep terrain and/or large tributary areas may cause concentrated erosive flow. A shallow, evenly distributed flow across entire width of strip is required. The maximum flow path from a contributory impervious surface should not exceed 150 feet. Sheet flow depth should be less than 0.5 inch for the design storm. Depending on the pollutant removal required, residence time should be at least 5 minutes preferably 9 minutes or more. • A level spreader may be necessary to induce sheet flow over the vegetated buffer and avoid short-circuit caused by channelization of concentrated flows and sheet flow elimination. Level spreader options include porous pavement strip, stabilized turf strips, slotted spreader curbing, rock filled trench, concrete sills, or plastic-lined trench acting as a small detention pond. • Vegetated buffers should be placed 3 to 4 feet from edge of pavement to accommodate a vegetation free zone. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. 62 VEGETATED SWALES POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment Medium Nutrients Low Trash Low Metals Medium Bacteria Low Oil and Grease Medium Organics Medium DESCRIPTION Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with low-lying vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. Vegetated swales provide pollutant removal through settling and filtration in the vegetation (usually grasses) lining the channels, provide the opportunity for volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration, and reduce the flow velocity in addition to conveying stormwater runoff. An effective vegetated swale achieves uniform sheet flow over and through a densely vegetated area for a period of several minutes. The vegetation in the swale can vary depending on its location within a development project and is the choice of the designer depending on the functional criteria outlined below. Swales that are integrated within a project may use turf or other more intensive landscaping while swales that are located on the project perimeter, within a park, or close to an open space area may be planted with a more naturalistic plant palette. 63 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS • Steep terrain and/or large tributary areas may cause erosive flows. • Limited site slope may cause ponding. • Swales must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures. MULTIUSE OPPORTUNITIES Swales can easily be converted into roadside vegetated buffers or parking lot landscaping. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • Potentially inexpensive • Significant collateral water quality benefits • Roadside ditches are easily converted to swales • Can be difficult to avoid channelization • Cannot treat a large drainage area. Large areas may need to be divided and treated with several swales • Impractical in areas with steep topography • Not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high if the grass cover is not properly maintained • In some places their use is restricted by law; many local municipalities require curb and gutter systems in residential areas • Swales are more susceptible to failure, if not properly maintained, than other treatment BMPs 64 WET PONDS POLLUTANT REMOVAL Sediment High Nutrients Medium Trash High Metals High Bacteria High Oil and Grease High Organics High DESCRIPTION Wet ponds are constructed, naturalistic ponds with a permanent or seasonal pool of water (also called a wet pool or dead storage). Aquascape facilities, such as artificial lakes, are a special form of wet pool facility that can incorporate innovative design elements to allow them to function as a stormwater treatment facility in addition to an aesthetic water feature. However, stormwater lakes are generally more appropriate for maintenance by a homeowners’ association or an agency other than the Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. In certain circumstances, a stormwater lake may be a candidate for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works maintenance. In such circumstances, special approval is required by the County. 65 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITE CONCERNS • Availability of base flows - wet ponds require a regular source of water if water level is to be maintained. • Slope stability – wet ponds are not permitted near steep slope hazard areas. • Surface space availability - large footprint required. • Compatibility with flood control - basins must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures. MULTIUSE OPPORTUNITIES Provided adequate surcharge storage, a wet pond may be combined with a flood control basin to provide both water quality control and peak-flow control. Wet ponds can also be designed with wildlife viewing areas and walking trails around the perimeter to provide passive recreation. Any planned multiuse facility must obtain special approval by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Note: Please refer to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual for the most up-to-date information on this BMP. ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS • If properly designed, constructed, and maintained, wet basins can provide substantial aesthetic/recreational value and wildlife and wetlands habitat • Ponds are often viewed as a public amenity when integrated into a park setting • Due to the presence of the permanent wet pool, properly designed and maintained wet basins can provide significant water quality improvement across a relatively broad spectrum of constituents including dissolved nutrients • Widespread application with sufficient capture volume can provide significant control of channel erosion and enlargement caused by changes to flow frequency relationships resulting from the increase of impervious cover in a watershed • Some concern about safety when constructed where there is public access • Mosquito and midge breeding is likely to occur in ponds • Cannot be placed on steep unstable slopes • Need for base flow or supplemental water if water level is to be maintained • Require a relatively large footprint • Depending on volume and depth, pond designs may require approval from the State Division of Safety of Dams 66 CHAPTER 6: EXAMPLE DESIGNS LID EXAMPLE DESIGN NO. 1 DETERMINE REQUIREMENTS For a single-family residential tract with more than 5 units, the following applies: • Infiltrate or retain the increase in the volume of the runoff from the water quality storm on the parcel level. • Treat the entire volume of the runoff from the water quality storm. DETERMINE HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERS The total area of the site is 25 acres. Of that, 10 acres is dedicated open space. The total area that must be mitigated for is 15 acres. A = 15 acres Soil 97 Assume 42% impervious Flow path = 1080’ Average Slope = (1600-1580) / 1080 = 1.85% IDENTIFY DESIGN STORM Select a water quality storm from the menu of storm events. For this example, assume a 3/4-inch storm over 24 hours. CALCULATE UNDEVELOPED RUNOFF VOLUME The rate and volume of runoff can be calculated using the Tc Calculator utility (available at http://ladpw.org/wrd/publication/). Qu = 0.29 cfs Vu = 4000 ft3 67 CALCULATE DEVELOPED RUNOFF VOLUME Using the same design storm and methodology, calculate the runoff rates and volumes that would occur after development. Qd = 1.25 cfs Vd = 17700 ft3 The developed volume Vd is the total volume that must be treated. CALCULATE ∆V ∆V = Qd – Qu = 17700 – 4000 = 13700 ft3 The increase in runoff volume ∆V is the amount that must be infiltrated on a parcel level. CHOOSE BMPS For this example, porous pavement driveways with underlying infiltration trenches have been selected as one method of infiltrating the ∆V. There are 42 lots and it is assumed that each lot has a 15- x 15-foot driveway. The depth of the infiltration trench under each driveway can then be calculated. Assume a 0.4 void ratio for the underlying gravel. D = 13700 ft3 / (42 lots * 15’ x 15’ * .4) = 3.63 ft 68 LID EXAMPLE DESIGN NO. 2 DETERMINE REQUIREMENTS For a commercial redevelopment project, the following applies: • Infiltrate or retain the increase in the volume of the runoff from the water quality storm on the parcel level. • Treat the entire volume of the runoff from the water quality storm. DETERMINE HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERS The total area of the site is 5 acres. A = 5 acres Soil 20 Assume 95 percent impervious. Flow path = 680’ Average Slope = (1200-1170) / 680 = 4.4 percent. Identify Design Storm Select a water quality storm from the menu of storm events. For this example, assume a 3/4-inch storm over 24 hours. CALCULATE UNDEVELOPED RUNOFF VOLUME The rate and volume of runoff can be calculated using the Tc Calculator utility (available at http://ladpw.org/wrd/publication/). Qu = 0.1 cfs Vu = 1343 ft3 CALCULATE DEVELOPED RUNOFF VOLUME Using the same design storm and methodology, calculate the runoff rates and volumes that would occur after development. Qd = 0.86 cfs Vd = 11550 ft3 The developed volume Vd is the total volume that must be treated. 69 CALCULATE ∆V ∆V = Qd – Qu = 11550 – 1343 = 10200 ft3 The increase in runoff volume ∆V is the amount that must be infiltrated on a parcel level. CHOOSE BMPS For this example, bioretention planters and porous pavement have been selected as the methods of infiltrating the ∆V. Assuming a 3-foot depth and a 0.4 void ratio for gravel, 8500 ft2 are necessary to infiltrate the total volume, or roughly 4 percent of the total area of the site. The wasted space at the ends of parking spaces can be used for bioretention facilities. 175 ft2 x 7 + 300 ft2 x 5 = 2725 ft2 The remaining volume can be infiltrated using porous pavement. 8500 – 2725 = 5775 ft2 70 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual For Publicly Maintained Storm Drain Systems August 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual i 8/23/2010 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 OTHER STORMWATER BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN MANUALS .................................................................. 1-1 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS MANUAL .................................................................................... 1-2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 1-2 Maintenance Responsibility .................................................................................................... 1-2 Pretreatment ........................................................................................................................ 1-3 Infiltration ............................................................................................................................ 1-3 Biofiltration ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 Bioretention .......................................................................................................................... 1-4 Filtration............................................................................................................................... 1-4 Wetpools .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 Oil/Water Separation ............................................................................................................. 1-5 “On-line” and “Off-line” Facilities ............................................................................................ 1-5 Hydromodification Control ...................................................................................................... 1-6 Unit Process-Based BMP Selection and Design ......................................................................... 1-7 2. DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASINS ............................................................................. 2-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 2-1 MULTI-USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 2-1 DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................... 2-2 Basin Sizing and Geometry ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Soils Considerations .............................................................................................................. 2-2 Energy Dissipation ................................................................................................................. 2-3 Forebay ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 2-3 Outlet Structure and Drawdown Time ..................................................................................... 2-4 Emergency Spillway............................................................................................................... 2-6 Side Slopes ........................................................................................................................... 2-7 Embankments ....................................................................................................................... 2-7 Fencing ................................................................................................................................ 2-8 Right-of-Way ........................................................................................................................ 2-8 Maintenance Access .............................................................................................................. 2-8 Landscaping ......................................................................................................................... 2-9 Restricted Construction Materials ............................................................................................ 2-9 DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASINS MAINTENANCE STANDARDS .............................................................. 2-14 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 2-14 Maintenance Standards........................................................................................................ 2-15 3. VEGETATED SWALES ...................................................................................................... 3-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 3-1 MULTI-USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 3-1 VEGETATED SWALE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 3-2 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................................... 3-2 Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Swale Geometry .................................................................................................................... 3-5 Bottom Slope ........................................................................................................................ 3-6 Water Depth and Dry Weather Flow Drain ............................................................................... 3-6 Energy Dissipation ................................................................................................................. 3-6 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual ii 8/23/2010 Flow Spreaders ..................................................................................................................... 3-7 Check Dams ......................................................................................................................... 3-8 Underdrains .......................................................................................................................... 3-8 Swale Divider ........................................................................................................................ 3-9 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 3-9 Restricted Construction Materials .......................................................................................... 3-11 VEGETATED SWALE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................... 3-14 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 3-14 Maintenance Standards........................................................................................................ 3-15 4. FILTER STRIPS ............................................................................................................... 4-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 4-1 MULTI-USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 4-1 FILTER STRIP DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 4-1 Location ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 Tributary Area Length ............................................................................................................ 4-2 Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Geometry ............................................................................................................................. 4-3 Energy Dissipation / Level Spreading ...................................................................................... 4-3 Access .................................................................................................................................. 4-4 Water depth and Velocity ....................................................................................................... 4-4 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 4-5 Restricted Construction Materials ............................................................................................ 4-5 FILTER STRIP OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................... 4-7 General Requirements ........................................................................................................... 4-7 Maintenance Standards.......................................................................................................... 4-7 5. BIORETENTION .............................................................................................................. 5-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 5-1 MULTI-USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 5-1 BIORETENTION DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 5-1 Geotechnical and Landscape Considerations ............................................................................ 5-1 Pretreatment ........................................................................................................................ 5-2 Sizing Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 Geometry ............................................................................................................................. 5-5 Flow Entrance and Energy Dissipation ..................................................................................... 5-5 Underdrains .......................................................................................................................... 5-5 Overflow .............................................................................................................................. 5-7 Hydraulic Restriction Layers ................................................................................................... 5-7 Planting/Storage Media .......................................................................................................... 5-7 Plants................................................................................................................................... 5-9 Restricted Construction Materials .......................................................................................... 5-10 BIORETENTION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................. 5-12 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 5-12 Maintenance Standards........................................................................................................ 5-13 6. INFILTRATION FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 6-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 6-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual iii 8/23/2010 MULTI-USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 6-2 INFILTRATION FACILITY DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................. 6-2 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................................... 6-2 Site Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................................... 6-3 Setbacks .............................................................................................................................. 6-3 Pretreatment ........................................................................................................................ 6-3 Sizing Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 6-4 Facility Geometry .................................................................................................................. 6-6 Embankments ....................................................................................................................... 6-7 Additional Control Functions ................................................................................................... 6-7 Drainage .............................................................................................................................. 6-8 Emergency Overflow ............................................................................................................. 6-8 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 6-8 Maintenance Access .............................................................................................................. 6-9 Construction ....................................................................................................................... 6-10 Landscaping ....................................................................................................................... 6-10 Restricted Construction Materials .......................................................................................... 6-11 INFILTRATION FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................... 6-14 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 6-14 Maintenance Standards........................................................................................................ 6-16 7. STORMWATER WETLAND BASINS .................................................................................. 7-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 7-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 7-1 MULTI-USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 7-2 STORMWATER WETLAND BASIN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS......................................................................... 7-2 Basin Sizing and Geometry ..................................................................................................... 7-2 Water Supply ........................................................................................................................ 7-3 Soils Considerations .............................................................................................................. 7-3 Buffer Zone .......................................................................................................................... 7-4 Energy Dissipation ................................................................................................................. 7-4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 7-4 Outlet Structure and Spillway ................................................................................................. 7-4 Side Slopes ........................................................................................................................... 7-5 Embankments ....................................................................................................................... 7-5 Fencing ................................................................................................................................ 7-6 Right-of-Way ........................................................................................................................ 7-6 Maintenance Access .............................................................................................................. 7-6 Landscaping Outside of the Facility ......................................................................................... 7-7 Restricted Construction Materials ............................................................................................ 7-7 STORMWATER WETLAND BASIN MAINTENANCE STANDARDS .................................................................... 7-11 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 7-11 Maintenance Standards........................................................................................................ 7-12 8. SAND FILTERS ................................................................................................................ 8-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 8-1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 8-1 SAND FILTER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 8-1 Basin Sizing and Geometry ..................................................................................................... 8-1 Sizing Methodology ............................................................................................................... 8-2 Sand Specification ................................................................................................................. 8-4 Underdrains .......................................................................................................................... 8-5 Pretreatment ........................................................................................................................ 8-6 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual iv 8/23/2010 Flow Spreading ..................................................................................................................... 8-6 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 8-7 Emergency Overflow Structure ............................................................................................... 8-7 Side Slopes ........................................................................................................................... 8-7 Embankments ....................................................................................................................... 8-7 Fencing ................................................................................................................................ 8-8 Right-of-Way ........................................................................................................................ 8-8 Maintenance Access .............................................................................................................. 8-8 Landscaping Outside of the Facility ......................................................................................... 8-9 Restricted Construction Materials ............................................................................................ 8-9 SAND FILTER MAINTENANCE STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 8-11 General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 8-11 Maintenance Standards........................................................................................................ 8-11 9. PROPRIETARY DEVICES ................................................................................................. 9-1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................ 9-1 GENERAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................................... 9-2 EXPECTED PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................ 9-2 SIZING ...................................................................................................................................... 9-3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................ 9-3 Hydrodynamic Separation Devices .......................................................................................... 9-3 Catch Basin Inserts ............................................................................................................... 9-4 Cartridge filters ..................................................................................................................... 9-4 Biotreatment Devices ............................................................................................................ 9-4 ONLINE RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 9-4 10. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 10-1 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... 11-1 DOCUMENT PREPARATION TEAM ..................................................................................................... 11-1 SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 11-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual v 8/23/2010 Appendix A Glossary Appendix B BMP Sizing Worksheets Appendix C Pond Outlet Sizing Examples Appendix D Flow Splitter Design Specification Appendix E Facility Inspection Appendix F Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklists Appendix G Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance List of Tables Table 1-1: Unit Operations and Processes Provided by Common BMPs and BMP Components. 1-9 Table 1-2: BMP Practicability Screening Matrix .................................................................. 1-10 Table 2-1: Dry Extended Detention Pond Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide ........ 2-15 Table 2-2: Routine Maintenance Standards - Extended Detention Basins ............................ 2-16 Table 2-3: Major Maintenance Standards - Extended Detention Basins ............................... 2-17 Table 3-1: Vegetated Swale Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide ........................... 3-15 Table 3-2: Routine Maintenance Standards - Vegetated Swales .......................................... 3-16 Table 3-3: Major Maintenance Standards - Vegetated Swales ............................................. 3-17 Table 4-1: Filter Strip Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide ...................................... 4-8 Table 4-2: Routine Maintenance – Filter Strips .................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-3: Major Maintenance – Filter Strips ....................................................................... 4-9 Table 5-1: Bioretention Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide ................................. 5-13 Table 5-2: Routine Maintenance – Bioretention ................................................................. 5-14 Table 5-3: Major Maintenance – Bioretention .................................................................... 5-15 Table 6-1: Infiltration Facility Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide ......................... 6-16 Table 6-2: Routine Maintenance – Infiltration Facilities ...................................................... 6-17 Table 6-3: Major Maintenance – Infiltration Facilities ......................................................... 6-18 Table 7-1: Recommended Distribution of Depths in Wetland Basin ...................................... 7-3 Table 7-2: Wetland Basin Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide .............................. 7-12 Table 7-3: Routine Maintenance Standards – Stormwater Wetland Basins .......................... 7-13 Table 7-4: Major Maintenance Standards – Stormwater Wetland Basins ............................ 7-14 Table 8-1: Sand filter Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide .................................... 8-11 Table 8-2: Routine Maintenance – Sand Filters ................................................................. 8-12 Table 8-3: Major Maintenance – Sand Filters .................................................................... 8-13 Table 9-1: Proprietary Device Manufacturer Websites .......................................................... 9-5 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual vi 8/23/2010 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Difference Between On-line, Off-line, and In-stream Controls. ........................... 1-6 Figure 2-1: Detention Pond ............................................................................................. 2-10 Figure 2-2: Perforated Riser Outlet .................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-3: Multiple Orifice Outlet ................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-4: Spillway........................................................................................................ 2-13 Figure 3-1: Vegetated Swale ........................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-2: Flow Spreader and Check Dam ...................................................................... 3-13 Figure 4-1: Filter Strip ...................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 5-1: Bioretention Area .......................................................................................... 5-11 Figure 6-1: Infiltration Basin ........................................................................................... 6-12 Figure 6-2: Infiltration Trench ......................................................................................... 6-13 Figure 7-1: Stormwater Wetland Basin .............................................................................. 7-8 Figure 7-2: Riser Outlet .................................................................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-3: Inverted Pipe Outlet ...................................................................................... 7-10 Figure 8-1: Sand Filter .................................................................................................... 8-10 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-1 8/23/2010 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose Stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) are an integral part of stormwater management plans for new development and significant redevelopment projects. Certain new development and redevelopment projects are required to submit drainage concept and stormwater quality plans that show details of treatment facilities designed to mitigate potential impacts to surface water and groundwater quality. These treatment facilities can be either privately or publicly maintained. The purpose of this BMP design and maintenance manual is to provide design criteria and guidelines for developers, to assist the County in the review and approval of stormwater treatment BMP designs, and to provide guidance on BMP maintenance requirements for those devices that will be publicly maintained. Other Stormwater BMP Selection and Design Manuals Three previous stormwater BMP manuals have been published by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works: 1. Development Planning for Stormwater Management – A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), dated September 2002, prepared by the LACDPW; and 2. Technical Manual for Stormwater Best Management Practices in the County of Los Angeles, draft dated February 2004, prepared by the LACDPW. 3. Los Angeles County-Wide Structural BMP Prioritization Methodology, dated April 2006, prepared by Geosyntec Consultants and Heal the Bay. These three manuals were designed to assist the development community in Los Angeles County in selecting and designing site-specific post-construction BMPs to minimize pollutant impacts from urban stormwater runoff. These manuals also describe the legal framework for the development planning program within the County of Los Angeles. In contrast, this manual does not provide information on plan submittal requirements, but instead provides detailed guidance on BMP sizing, design specifications, and maintenance requirements. The design specifications contained in this manual were based on and are consistent with the general design principles contained in the three previous LACDPW manuals. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) released four Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks in January 2003. The design guidance contained in the New Development and Redevelopment Best Management Practice Handbook was also used in the preparation of this manual. Design specifications were also drawn from a number of other sources: • King County Surface Water Design Manual, King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. August 2005. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-2 8/23/2010 • Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. July 2002. • Hydrology Manual, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. January 2006. • Design Manual - Debris Dams and Basins, Los Angeles County Flood Control District. October, 1979. • Design Manual - Hydraulic, Los Angeles County Flood Control District. March 1982. Content and Organization of this Manual Chapter 1 serves as an introduction and summarizes available options for treatment of stormwater. Chapters 2 - 10 provide design specifications and maintenance guidance for specific types of treatment. The appendices include a glossary (Appendix A); sample worksheets for BMP sizing (Appendix B); design specifications for flow diversion structures (Appendix C); facility inspection procedures (Appendix D); facility inspection and maintenance checklists (Appendix E); and the Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance dated October 10, 2007 (Appendix F). General Considerations Runoff treatment facilities are designed to remove pollutants contained in stormwater runoff. The pollutants of concern, depending on the watershed, may include trash, debris, and sediment; metals such as copper, lead, and zinc; nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous); certain bacteria and viruses; mineral salts such as chloride; and organic chemicals such as petroleum hydrocarbons and pesticides. Methods of pollutant removal include sedimentation/settling, filtration, plant uptake, ion exchange, adsorption, and microbially- mediated decomposition. Floatable pollutants such as oil, debris, and scum can be removed with separator structures. Runoff treatment facilities can also be designed to reduce runoff volume, thereby reducing pollutant loading to receiving waters. Runoff treatment facility types and common terms used in runoff treatment are discussed below. Maintenance Responsibility Maintenance is required for all types of runoff treatment facilities. Upon acceptance into the Flood Control District, LACDPW will assume operation and maintenance responsibilities for the BMPs contained in this manual. The devices shall be placed within public right-of-ways or Flood Control District easements. The primary purpose of BMPs is water quality treatment. However, an ancillary benefit of certain BMPs is the provision of habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. The quality and extent of such habitat may be affected by maintenance activities required to ensure the continued water quality performance of the BMP. In situations where there is potential for habitat to attract threatened or endangered species, the project proponent must coordinate with and develop written agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game or the US Fish and Wildlife service. These agreements must ensure that the BMPs are considered treatment facilities and not waters of the United States, and that long term operation and maintenance requirements are acceptable to these agencies. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-3 8/23/2010 Pretreatment Pretreatment must be provided for filtration and infiltration facilities, and other facilities whose function could be adversely affected by sediment or other pollutants. Pretreatment may also be provided for water quality detention basins and other BMPs to facilitate the routine removal of sediment, trash, and debris, and to increase the longevity of the downstream BMPs. Runoff from undeveloped hillsides and canyons should be routed to debris basins in compliance with County requirements and, where feasible, routed around downstream treatment BMPs. Pretreatment may be provided by presettling basins or forebays (small detention basins), vegetated swales, filter strips, hydrodynamic separators, and catch basin inserts. Debris controls as described in the Los Angeles County Sedimentation Manual may also be appropriate for pretreatment. Source control activities, implemented per the SUSMP requirements, minimize the introduction of pollutants into stormwater runoff and also help to protect filtration and infiltration facilities. Effort should be made early in the site planning stages to minimize runoff from impervious areas by grading toward landscaped areas, disconnecting downspouts, and using pervious conveyances prior to discharging to the storm drain system. These low impact development (LID) practices can reduce the size and maintenance burden of downstream, end-of-pipe BMPs. Infiltration Infiltration refers to the use of the filtration, adsorption, and biological decomposition properties of soils to remove pollutants prior to the intentional routing of runoff to the subsurface for groundwater recharge. Infiltration BMPs include infiltration basins and trenches. Infiltration can provide multiple benefits, including pollutant removal, peak flow control, groundwater recharge, and flood control. However, conditions that can limit the use of infiltration include soil properties and potential adverse impacts on groundwater quality. To adequately address the protection of groundwater when evaluating infiltration, site soils must be determined to be suitable by conducting a geotechnical investigation that includes an in-situ percolation test, per the Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance (October 10, 2007, or as amended (provided in Appendix G)) and determination of minimum depth to groundwater. Soils must have sufficient organic content and sorption capacity to remove certain pollutants, but must be coarse enough to infiltrate runoff in a reasonable amount of time (e.g., < 72 hours). Examples of suitable soils are silty and sandy loams. Coarser soils, such as gravelly sands, have limited organic content and high permeability and therefore present a potential risk to groundwater from certain pollutants, especially in areas of shallow groundwater. NPDES permits often specify a water table distance separation of ten feet depth or more to protect groundwater quality. These permits also specify that infiltration BMPs are not allowed for areas of industrial activity or areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic (ADT) on the main roadway or 15,000 or more ADT on any intersecting roadway), nor are they allowed within 100 feet from any drinking water well unless appropriate pretreatment for the pollutants of concern is provided. Incidental infiltration that occurs in other types of BMPs, such as dry extended detention basins, vegetation swales, filter strips, and bioretention areas, generally pose a lesser risk to groundwater quality as treatment is provided in the BMP prior to infiltration. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-4 8/23/2010 Biofiltration Biofiltration utilizes vegetation in conjunction with slow and shallow-depth flow for runoff treatment. As runoff passes through the vegetation, the combined effects of filtration, infiltration, adsorption, and biological uptake remove pollutants. Vegetation also decreases the velocity of flow and allows for particulates to settle. Biofiltration facilities include both vegetated swales, which are designed to convey and treat concentrated runoff flowing at shallow depths and slow velocities, and filter strips, which are broad areas of turf grasses or other vegetation designed for treating sheet flow runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces. Bioretention Bioretention areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration, and also provide for pollutant removal (e.g. filtration, adsorption, nutrient uptake) by filtering stormwater through the vegetation and soils. In bioretention areas, as in biofiltration BMPs, pore spaces and organic material in the soils help to retain water in the form of soil moisture and to promote the adsorption of pollutants (e.g., dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons) into the soil matrix. Plants utilize soil moisture, promote the drying of the soil through transpiration, and uptake pollutants in their roots and leaves. Plants with extensive root systems also help to maintain filtration rates. Where bioretention facilities are underlain by highly infiltrative soils, an underdrain is not necessary. Underdrains may be used where space is limited (underdrains allow for a smaller bioretention area footprint), where low infiltrative soils are present, or to minimize ponding. Filtration Various media, such as sand, perlite, zeolite, compost, and activated carbon, can be used to effectively remove total suspended solids (TSS) and associated pollutants such as organics (hydrocarbons and pesticides) and particulate metals in filtration BMPs. Filtration systems can be configured in the form of horizontal beds, trenches, or lastly, cartridge systems in underground vaults or catch basins. Wetpools A wetpool is a permanent pool of water incorporated into a wetpond, stormwater lake, or stormwater wetland BMP.1 Wetpools provide runoff treatment by allowing settling of particulates (sedimentation), by biological uptake, and by vegetative filtration (if vegetation is present). Wetpool BMPs may be single-purpose facilities, providing only runoff treatment, or they may also provide flow control by providing additional detention storage with the use of a multi-stage outlet structure. If combined with detention, the wetpool volume can often be stacked under the detention volume with little further loss of development area. 1 Wetponds are constructed, naturalistic ponds with a permanent or seasonal pool of water. Stormwater lakes are a special form of wetpond designed to provide stormwater quality management. Stormwater wetland basins are a treatment system consisting of a sediment forebay and a permanent micro-pool with aquatic vegetation covering a significant portion of the basin. Wetponds and lakes will not be publicly maintained; stormwater wetland basins will be publicly maintained (see Section 7). Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-5 8/23/2010 Oil/Water Separation Oil/water separators (also called “water quality inlets”) remove floating oil from the surface of the water. There are two general types of separators - American Petroleum Institute (API) separators and coalescing plate (CP) separators. Both types use physical mechanisms to remove high concentrations of floating and dispersed oil. Oil/water separators are not suitable for the relatively low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons present in typical urban runoff, and should only be used in locations where higher concentrations of oil are expected to occur, such as retail fuel facilities, high volume roads, and petroleum-related industrial facilities. Oil/water separators must be located off-line from the primary conveyance system, as they function at low flow conditions and will wash out in high flow conditions. Other oil control devices/facilities that may be used for removal of slightly elevated concentrations of oil (i.e., typical of high use commercial parking lots) include catch basin inserts, hydrodynamic devices, and linear sand filters. Oil control devices/facilities should always be placed upstream of other treatment facilities and as close to the source of oil generation as possible. “On-line” and “Off-line” Facilities The location and configuration of control facilities can vary depending on the desired function. For example, debris basins are often located in a drainage channel so as to collect solids and wood debris from the upstream portion of the watershed prior to entering a storm drain system. Such facilities may be referred to as “in-stream” controls. On the other hand, runoff treatment facilities cannot be located in Waters of the US, but rather are located upland to treat runoff prior to discharge into Waters of the US. Such facilities are generally located within the development as part of the storm drain system. If the facility is located in the storm drain system such that all the runoff passes through the facility, the facility is called an “on-line” system. If, on the other hand, the facility only receives lower flows (defined as those less than or equal to the water quality design flow) that are diverted from the main storm drain line, the facility is called an “off-line” system. Off-line systems therefore require a flow splitter or equivalent device to be installed in the main storm drain line. Generally treatment performance is better for off-line facilities because a larger percentage of the runoff is treated. Figure 1-1 illustrates the difference between on-line, off-line, and in- stream controls. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-6 8/23/2010 Figure 1-1: Difference Between On-line, Off-line, and In-stream Controls. Hydromodification Control As defined by the State Water Resources Control Board (2006), “hydromodification is the alteration of stream and river channels, installation of dams and water impoundments, and streambank and shoreline erosion.” Urban development results in hydromodification by increasing runoff volume and the frequency and duration of flows. This alteration in the flow regime increases sediment transport capacity and, depending on sediment supply and channel conditions, can cause stream bank and stream bed erosion. Hydromodification control can be achieved through one or a combination of the following three approaches: • Avoid, to the extent possible, the need to mitigate for hydromodification impacts by preserving natural hydrologic conditions and protecting sensitive hydrologic features, sediment sources, and sensitive habitats. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-7 8/23/2010 • Minimize the effects of development through site design practices (e.g., reducing connected impervious surfaces), implementation of stormwater volume-reducing BMPs (project-based hydrologic source control), and incorporation of flow duration control into water quality treatment BMPs such as extended detention basins and infiltration basins, as needed. • Mitigate hydromodification impacts in-stream using geomorphically-based channel design. Unit Process-Based BMP Selection and Design As opposed to other design approaches that recommend the selection of typical BMPs based solely on documented performance factors, such as percent removal, effluent quality and/or percent capture, the design approach contained herein recommends the selection of the unit operations and processes (UOPs) that address the pollutants of concern and then selection of BMPs and/or BMP design components that incorporate those UOPs. UOPs can be divided into four fundamental process categories: 1) hydrologic operations, 2) physical operations, 3) biological processes, and 4) chemical processes (Strecker et al., 2005). Hydrologic operations are essentially a subset of physical operations and include the principles of flow attenuation (e.g., peak shaving and detention) and volume reduction (e.g., infiltration and evapotranspiration). Physical operations, as referred to herein, include the principles of size separation and exclusion (e.g., screening and filtration), density separation (e.g., sedimentation and flotation), aeration and volatilization, and physical agent disinfection (e.g., ultra-violet light and heat). Biological processes include the principles of microbially-mediated transformations (e.g., redox reactions resulting from microbial respiration) and uptake and storage (e.g., bioassimilation). Chemical processes include the principles of sorption (e.g., ion exchange and surface complexation), coagulation and flocculation (e.g., particle agglomeration and precipitation), and chemical agent disinfection (e.g., chlorination and ozonination). The selection of any one of these UOPs should be based on the type and form (speciation) of the target pollutants in relation to specific stormwater management goals. Most treatment facilities include more than one UOP. For example, dry extended detention basins may reduce the total runoff volume due to infiltration and evapotranspiration (ET), as well as attenuate peak flows, which causes particulates to settle out. Furthermore, some BMPs can be modified to include unit processes that are typically not incorporated in their design, such as including amended soils to promote infiltration in a vegetated swale. Consequently, several BMPs may include multiple unit processes, and in order to exploit the synergy amongst BMPs, the placement or order of BMPs and BMP components within a treatment system should be carefully considered. The recommended approach is to use the concept of the treatment train based on the following general progression: 1. Minimize flow rates and/or volume of runoff (site design practices and hydrological source control). 2. Remove bulk solids (> 5mm) (primary treatment) 3. Remove settleable solids (>75 µm) and liquid floatables (primary treatment) 4. Remove suspended (25-75 µm) and colloidal solids (> 0.1-25 µm) (secondary treatment) 5. Remove colloidal, dissolved, volatile, and pathogenic constituents (tertiary treatment) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-8 8/23/2010 It is important to note that some stormwater BMPs, such as vegetated swales, may be used as either primary and/or secondary components of a treatment train. Furthermore, tertiary treatment may be provided in BMPs that provide secondary treatment, such as constructed wetlands. Therefore, it may be more useful to categorize BMPs (and their components) according to the unit treatment processes that they provide. Table 1-1 provides a guide for linking unit treatment processes and target pollutants to stormwater BMPs. The choice of BMP should be driven by the target pollutants and the UOPs needed to address those pollutants. Table 1-2 is a BMP practicability screening matrix that can be used to assist in the selection of BMPs for a particular site. The table briefly summarizes the critical design parameters, typical pollutants removed, major constraints, and maintenance requirements for the BMPs included in this manual. For detailed guidance on BMP selection and siting that considers pollutants of concerns, site conditions, and constraints refer to the following recent documents: • Los Angeles County-Wide Structural BMP Prioritization Methodology (Geosyntec, 2006); http://labmpmethod.org/ • Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection Issues (Strecker et al., 2005); https://www.werf.us/products/products.cfm. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-9 8/23/2010 Table 1-1: Unit Operations and Processes Provided by Common BMPs and BMP Components. Fundamental Process Category (FPC) Unit Operation or Process (UOP) Target Pollutants Common BMPs/BMP Components Hydrologic Operations Flow and Volume Attenuation Dry extended detention basins Wet ponds Stormwater wetland basins Volume Reduction All pollutant loads Infiltration facilities Dry extended detention basins Bioretention Vegetated swales Filter strips Physical Treatment Operations Physical Sorption Nutrients, metals, petroleum compounds Bioretention Infiltration facilities Sand filters Engineered media / granular activated carbon Size Separation and Exclusion (screening and filtration) Coarse sediment, trash, debris Screens/bars/trash racks Bioretention Vegetated swales Filter strips Sand filters Infiltration facilities Proprietary filters Hydrodynamic separators Catch basin inserts (i.e., surficial filters) Density, Gravity, Inertial Separation (grit separation, sedimentation , flotation and skimming, and clarification) Sediment, trash, debris, oil and grease Dry extended detention basins Wet ponds Wetland basins Settling basins Swales with check dams Oil-water separators Hydrodynamic separators Aeration and Volatilization Oxygen demand, PAHs, VOCs Sprinklers Aerators Natural Disinfection Pathogens Shallow detention ponds Ultra-violet systems Biological Processes Microbially Mediated Transformation (can include oxidation, reduction, or facultative processes) Metals, nutrients, organic pollutants Wetland basins Bioretention Wet ponds Proprietary filters (e.g. compost) Uptake and Storage Metals, nutrients, organic pollutants Wetlands basins Bioretention Wet ponds Chemical Processes Chemical Sorption Processes Metals, nutrients, organic pollutants Infiltration facilities Sand filters Subsurface wetlands Proprietary filters (e.g. compost) Coagulation/Flocculation Fine sediment, nutrients Dry extended detention basins Wet ponds Wetland basins Coagulant/flocculent injection systems Ion Exchange Metals, nutrients, mineral salts Engineered media, zeolites, peats, surface complexation media Chemical Disinfection Pathogens Custom devices for mixing chlorine or aerating with ozone Advanced treatment systems Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Introduction 1-10 8/23/2010 Table 1-2: BMP Practicability Screening Matrix BMP Type Critical Design Parameters Typical Pollutants Removed Major Constraints Maintenance Requirements Extended Detention Basin Stage-discharge relationship (outlet design); Storage capacity; Length to width ratio; Flow rate diversion for off-line facilities High removal efficiency of coarse solids, trash and debris. Moderate removal of suspended sediment. Little to no predicted removal of dissolved metals and nutrients. Surface space availability; Depth of excavation; Slope stability; Compatibility with flood control Dredging of forebay required approximately every 5 years with reestablishment of pond bottom; Frequent mowing; Side slope upkeep; Trash and debris removal; Periodic inspections Swale Retention time; Minimum length; Maximum width; Flow rate, velocity, & depth; No. of check dams; Grass selection High removal efficiency of coarse solids, trash, and debris. Moderate removal of suspended sediment. Variable removal of nutrients and metals. Steep terrain; Availability of pervious area; Size of tributary area; High flows Seasonal mowing and vegetation upkeep required; Sediment removal when exceeds 4 inches in any location; Periodic inspections Filter Strip Retention time; Minimum length; Longitudinal slope; Flow rate, velocity, & depth; Grass selection High removal efficiency of coarse solids, trash, and debris. Moderate removal of suspended sediment. Limited removal of nutrients and metals. Steep terrain; Availability of pervious area; Ability to maintain sheet flow; Size of tributary area; High flows Seasonal mowing and vegetation upkeep required; Sediment removal when exceeds 4 inches in any location; Periodic regrading and reseeding; Periodic inspections Bioretention Soil characteristics and amendments; Depth to groundwater; Storage capacity; Plant selection High removal efficiency of coarse solids, trash, and debris. Moderate removal of suspended sediment and metals. Variable removal of nutrients. Field infiltration rate; Depth to groundwater; Contaminated soils; Proximity to storm drain; Vertical relief and proximity to storm drain; Surface space availability; Semiannual, annual, and post-storm inspections; Vegetation upkeep; Periodic surface scarification and sediment removal Infiltration Facilities Min/Max infiltration rate; Depth to groundwater; Storage capacity High removal efficiency of coarse solids, particulate and suspended sediment. Moderate removal of phosphorus/nitrogen. Dissolved metals and pathogen removal dependent on soil types. Field infiltration rate; Depth to groundwater; Contaminated soils; Proximity to structures; Large drainage area Semiannual/ annual and post- storm inspections; Vegetation upkeep; Periodic surface scarification and sediment removal; Wetponds Length to width ratio; Stage-discharge relationship; Permanent pool and surcharge capacity; Maximum depth; Base flow; Plant selection; Flow rate diversion for off-line facilities High removal efficiency of coarse solids, suspended solids, trash, and debris. Some removal of dissolved solids, total phosphorus, soluble nutrients, trace metals, coliform and organics. Surface space availability; Depth of excavation; Compatibility with flood control; Vector control Dredging required approximately every 5 years with reestablishment of pond bottom; Side slope upkeep; Trash and debris removal; Periodic inspections; Removal of algal mats and control of fringe vegetation; Stormwater Wetland Volume of design storm; Length to width ratio; Depth distribution; Base flow; Plant selection; Flow rate diversion for off- line facilities High removal efficiency of coarse solids, suspended sediment, trash and debris. Moderate removal of metals. Variable removal of phosphorus/nitrogen. Surface space availability; soil type; System hydraulics; Vector control; Lack of base flow Monthly inspections required until vegetation is established; Periodic removal of nuisance species and litter as required Sand Filter Maximum emptying time; Media depth; Particle size gradation; Depth to groundwater High removal efficiency of coarse solids, suspended sediment, and metals. Some removal of nutrients and BOD. Vertical relief and proximity to storm drain; Large drainage area; High sediment loadings; Aesthetics; Seasonal surface scarification; Periodic removal of trash and debris and accumulated silt on bed surface (when >0.5" thick); Frequent inspection; Potential media replacement Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-1 8/23/2010 2. DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASINS Definition Dry extended detention (ED) basins (a.k.a. dry ponds, extended detention basins, detention ponds, extended detention ponds) are basins whose outlets have been designed to detain the SUSMP runoff volume (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)) for 36 to 48 hours to allow sediment particles and associated pollutants to settle and be removed. Dry ED basins do not have a permanent pool; they are designed to drain completely between storm events. They can also be used to provide hydromodification and/or flood control by modifying the outlet control structure design and including additional detention storage. The slopes, bottom, and forebay of ED basins are typically vegetated. Dry ED basins can be located either on-line or off-line. For off-line basins, a flow diversion structure is used to divert the SUSMP volume to the basin from the storm drain. For on-line basins, all storm drain flows are routed through the basin; storm events exceeding the water quality design capacity will pass through the basin and will discharge over a primary overflow outlet untreated, or during extreme events, over an emergency spillway. In both types of basins, influent flows enter a sediment forebay where coarse solids are first removed prior to flowing into the main cell of the basin where finer sediment and associated pollutants settle as stormwater is detained and slowly released through a controlled outlet structure. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • Surface space availability - typically 0.5 to 2.0 percent of the total tributary development area required. • Depth to groundwater - bottom of basin should be 2 feet higher than the seasonal high water table elevation. • Steep slopes - basins placed above slopes greater than 15 percent or within 200 feet from the top of a hazardous slope or landslide area require a geotechnical investigation. • Compatibility with flood control - basins must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures. Multi-Use Opportunities A dry ED basin can sometimes be retrofitted into an existing flood control basin or integrated into the design of a park or playfield. Perforated risers, multiple orifice plate outlets, or similar multi-stage outlets are required for flood control retrofit applications to ensure adequate detention time for small storms while still providing peak flow attenuation for the flood design storm. Recreational multi-use facilities must be inspected after every storm and may require a greater maintenance frequency than dedicated water quality basins to ensure aesthetics and public safety are not compromised. Any planned multi-use facility must obtain special approval by the LACDPW and any other jurisdictional agencies. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-2 8/23/2010 Dry Extended Detention Basin Design Specifications Basin Sizing and Geometry Dry extended detention basin geometry is illustrated in Figure 2-1. 1. Dry extended detention basins shall be sized to capture and treat the entire SUSMP volume with a 36 to 48 hour draw-down time. 2. The total basin volume shall be the SUSMP volume plus an additional 5% for total suspended solids (TSS) accumulation (105% of the SUSMP volume). Freeboard is in addition to the total basin volume. 3. The minimum freeboard shall be 2 feet above the maximum water surface elevation over the emergency spillway for online basins and 1 foot above the maximum water surface elevation over the emergency spillway for offline basins. 4. The length-to-width ratio at half basin depth shall be a minimum of 1.5:1. Intent: a long flow length will improve TSS removal. 5. The cross-sectional geometry across the width of the basin should be approximately trapezoidal with a maximum side slope of 3:1 unless otherwise permitted by the County (see Side Slopes below). Shallower side slopes are necessary if the basin is designed to have recreational uses during dry weather conditions. 6. A low flow channel shall be provided. A low flow channel is a narrow, shallow trench filled with pea gravel (or equivalent) that runs the length of the basin to drain dry weather flows. The low flow channel shall have a depth of 6 inches and a width of 1 foot, and shall tie into the outlet structure. 7. The basin bottom shall have a 1% longitudinal slope (direction of flow) in the forebay, and may range from 0 to 1% longitudinal slope in the main basin. The bottom of the basin shall slope 2% toward the center low flow channel. 8. A basin should be large enough to allow for equipment access. If the water quality design volume is such that the basin bottom would be less than 5 feet wide, an alternative BMP should be considered. See Maintenance Access below. Soils Considerations 1. Extended detention basins can be used with almost all soils and geology, with minor design adjustments for rapidly percolating soils (sandy or gravelly soils with infiltration rate > 2.4 in/hr). If rapidly percolating soils are present, extended detention basins should be designed by a licensed soil engineer to include lower permeability soils in the subgrade to prevent rapid, untreated infiltration. 2. The slopes of the detention basin shall be analyzed for slope stability using rapid drawdown conditions and shall meet Los Angeles County minimum standards. A 1.5 static factor of Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-3 8/23/2010 safety shall be used. Seismic analysis is not required due to the temporary inundation condition. Energy Dissipation 1. Energy dissipation controls, constructed of sound materials such as stones, concrete, or proprietary devices that are rated to withstand the energy of the influent flow, shall be installed at the inlet to the forebay. Flow velocity into the basin forebay shall be controlled to 4 feet per second (fps) or less. 2. Energy dissipation controls must also be used at the outlet from the extended detention basin unless the basin discharges to a storm drain or hardened channel. 3. Consult the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Design Division or Land Development Division for type and design of energy dissipation structure. Forebay As untreated stormwater enters the extended detention basin, it passes through a forebay for coarse solids removal. The forebay may be constructed using an internal berm constructed out of earthen embankment material, grouted riprap, or other structurally sound material. 1. The basin shall be sized so that 25% of the total basin volume is in the forebay and 75% of the total basin volume is in the main portion of the basin. 2. A gravity drain outlet from the forebay (4" minimum diameter) must extend the entire width of the internal berm. 3. The forebay outlet shall be offset from the inflow flowline to prevent short-circuiting. 4. Permanent steel post depth markers shall be placed in the forebay to define settled sediment removal limits at 50% and 100% of the forebay sediment storage depth. Vegetation Vegetation provides erosion protection from both wind and water and biofiltration of stormwater. 1. The bottom and slopes of the extended detention basin shall be vegetated. A mix of erosion-resistant plant species that effectively bind the soil should be used on the slopes and a diverse selection of plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and irrigation conditions should be specified for the basin bottom. The basin bottom should not be planted with trees, shrubs, or other large woody plants that may interfere with maintenance activities. Only native perennial grasses, forbs, or similar vegetation that can be replaced via seeding should be used on the basin bottom. 2. Only native or non-invasive plants should be used as approved by a licensed landscape architect. Suitable plant types for the specific BMP areas can be found by consulting an arborist, licensed landscape architect or referring to various online sources such as: Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-4 8/23/2010 • CalFlora - a database of wild California plants that include plant characteristics and photos http://www.calflora.org • The California Invasive Plant Council - a listing of invasive, non-native plants of California http://www.cal-ipc.org/ • Jepson Online Interchange For California Floristics - a database that provides information on identification, taxonomy, distribution, ecology, relationships, and diversity of California vascular plants. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html • L.A. River Master Plan Landscaping and Plant Palettes - a guidance document providing a listing of native plant communities in the Los Angeles area http://ladpw.org/wmd/watershed/LA/LAR_planting_guidelines_webversion.pdf • VegSpec - a web-based decision support system that assists land managers in the planning and design of vegetative establishment practices http://ironwood.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/Netdynamics/Vegspec/pages/HomeVegspec.htm • USDA Plants Database - an extensive database of native and non-native plants of the United States with over 100 plant characteristics http://plants.usda.gov/index.html Outlet Structure and Drawdown Time A total drawdown time of 36 to 48 hours shall be provided. The outlet structure shall be designed to release the bottom 50% of the detention volume (half-full to empty) over 24 to 32 hours, and the top half (full to half-full) in 12 to 16 hours. Intent: Draw down schemes that detain low flows for longer periods than high flows have the following advantages over outlets that drain the pond evenly: • Greater flood control capabilities • Enhanced treatment of low flows which make up the bulk of incoming flows. There are two options that can be used for the outlet structure: 1. Uniformly perforated riser structures. 2. Multiple orifice structures (orifice plate). The outlet structure can be placed in the pond with a debris screen (Figure 2-2) or housed in a standard manhole (Figure 2-3). Note that a primary overflow (typically a riser pipe connected to the outlet works) should be sized to pass the peak flow rate from the developed capital design storm. The primary overflow is intended to protect against overtopping or breaching of the basin embankment. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-5 8/23/2010 Uniformly Perforated Riser Outlet Sizing Methodology (Figure 2-2) The following attributes influence the perforated riser outlet sizing calculations: • Shape of the pond (e.g. trapezoidal) • Depth and volume of the pond • Elevation / depth of first row of holes • Elevation / depth of last row of holes • Size of holes • Number of rows and number of holes per row • Desired draw down time (e.g. 16 hour and 32 hour draw down for top half and bottom half respectively, 48 hour total draw down time) The governing rate of discharge from a perforated riser structure having uniform holes at equal spacing can be calculated using Equation 2-1 below: 2323 2 HgH ACQ s p p= (Equation 2-1) Where: Q = riser flow discharge (cfs) Cp = discharge coefficient for perforations (use 0.61) Ap = cross-sectional area of all the holes (ft2) s = center to center vertical spacing between perforations (ft) Hs = distance from s/2 below the lowest row of holes to s/2 above the top row of holes (McEnroe 1988). H = distance from s/2 below the lowest row of holes to the water surface elevation under consideration. For the iterative computations needed to size the holes in the riser and determine the riser height a simplified version of Equation 2-1 may be used, as shown below in Equation 2-2: 23kHQ= (Equation 2-2) Where: gH ACk s p p 23 2= (Equation 2-3) Uniformly perforated riser designs are defined by the depth or elevation of the first row of perforations, the length of the perforated section of pipe, and the size or diameter of each perforation. The steps needed to size a perforated riser outlet are illustrated in Appendix C. H Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-6 8/23/2010 Multiple Orifice (Non-Uniform) Outlet Sizing Methodology The following attributes influence multiple orifice outlet sizing calculations: • Shape of the pond (e.g. trapezoidal) • Depth and volume of the pond • Elevation of each orifice • Desired draw-down time (e.g., 16 hour and 32 hour draw down times for top half and bottom half respectively, 48 hour draw down time for whole pond ) The rate of discharge from a single orifice can be calculated using Equation 2-4 below: 5.0)2(gHCAQ= (Equation 2-4) Where: Q = orifice flow discharge C = discharge coefficient A = cross-sectional area of orifice or pipe (ft2) g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s2) H = effective head on the orifice (measured from center of orifice to water surface) Multiple orifice designs are defined by the depth (or elevation) and the size (or diameter) of each orifice (Figure 2-1). The steps needed to size a dual orifice outlet are outlined in Appendix C; multiple orifices may be provided and sized using a similar approach. Emergency Spillway A primary overflow outlet above the water quality outlet should be provided, as described above, to pass the developed capital design storm. An emergency overflow spillway in addition to the primary overflow outlet is required. Spillways shall meet the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Small Embankment Dams (http://damsafety.water.ca.gov/docs/GuidelinesSmallDams.pdf). Intent: Emergency overflow spillways are intended to control the location of pond overtopping and direct overflows back into the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. Online Basins 1. If indicated by a downstream risk assessment, online basins must have an emergency overflow spillway to prevent overtopping of walls or berms should blockage of the primary outlet occur. 2. The overflow spillway must be sized to pass the capital developed peak flow. 3. The minimum freeboard shall be 2 feet above the maximum water surface elevation corresponding to flow over the emergency spillway. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-7 8/23/2010 Offline Basins 1. Offline basins must have either an emergency overflow spillway or an emergency overflow riser. The emergency overflow must be designed to pass the SUSMP storm peak flow directly to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. 2. The emergency overflow spillway shall be armored to withstand the energy of the spillway flows (Figure 2-4). The spillway shall be constructed of grouted rip-rap. 3. The minimum freeboard shall be 1 foot above the maximum water surface elevation corresponding to flow over the emergency spillway. Side Slopes 1. Interior side slopes above the water quality design depth and up to the emergency overflow water surface shall be no steeper than 3H:1V, unless stabilization has been approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 2. Exterior side slopes shall be no steeper than 2H:1V, unless stabilization has been approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 3. For any slope (interior or exterior) greater than 2H:1V a geotechnical report must be submitted and approved by the County’s Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division. 4. Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls, provided: (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete, (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall (see fencing below) or further back, and (d) the design is stamped by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the County. Embankments 1. Embankments are earthen slopes or berms used for detaining or redirecting the flow of water. 2. The minimum top width of all berm embankments shall be 20 feet, or as approved by the Geotechnical and Materials Division. 3. Basin berm embankments must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable fill soils analyzed by a licensed geotechnical engineer) free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris. 4. Earthworks shall be in accordance with Section 300-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, most recent edition. 5. Basin berm embankments greater than 4 feet in height must be constructed by excavating a key equal to 50% of the berm embankment cross-sectional height and width. This requirement may be waived if specifically approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-8 8/23/2010 6. The berm embankment shall be constructed of compacted soil (95% minimum dry density, modified proctor method per ASTM D1557), placed in 6-inch lifts. 7. Low growing native or non-invasive perennial grasses shall be planted on downstream embankment slopes. See the Vegetation Management on Embankment Dams of Public Works' Debris Control Facilities, Attachment B, for a recommended plant list. Fencing Safety is provided by fencing of the facility. 1. Fences shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Title 11, Section 11.48 of the Los Angeles County Code and must be located at or above the overflow water surface elevation. Shrubs (County approved, California-adapted species) can be used to hide the fencing. Right-of-Way 1. Detention basins and associated access roads to be maintained by the County shall be dedicated in fee or in an easement to Los Angeles County with appropriate access. Maintenance Access Maintenance access road(s) shall be provided to the control structure and other drainage structures associated with the basin (e.g., inlet, emergency overflow or bypass structures). Manhole and catch basin lids must be in or at the edge of the access road. An access ramp is required for removal of accumulated sediment with a backhoe or loader and truck. The ramp must extend to the basin bottom to avoid damage to vegetation planted on the basin slope. Access roads shall meet the following design criteria: 1. All access ramps and roads shall be paved with a minimum of 6 inches of concrete over 3 inches of crushed aggregate base material. This requirement may be modified depending on the soil conditions and intended use of the road at the discretion of the Department. 2. Maximum grade shall be 12% unless otherwise approved by the Department. 3. Centerline turning radius shall be 40 feet, minimum. 4. Access roads less than 500 feet long shall have 12-foot wide pavement within a minimum 15-foot wide bench. Access roads greater than 500 feet long shall have 16-foot wide pavement within a minimum 20-foot wide bench. 5. All access roads shall terminate with turnaround areas of 40 feet by 40 feet. A hammer type turn around area or a circle drive around the top of the pond is also acceptable. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-9 8/23/2010 6. Adequate double-drive gates and commercial driveways are required at street crossings. Gates should be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street curb except in residential areas where the gates may be located along the property line provided there is adequate site distance to see oncoming vehicles at the posted speed limit. Landscaping Landscaping outside of the basin is required for all dry extended detention basins and must adhere to the following criteria so as not to hinder maintenance operations: 1. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or manmade drainage structures such as spillways, flow spreaders, or earthen embankments. Species with roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, shall not be used within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) should not be planted in or near detention basins. 2. The use of prohibited non-native plant species is not permitted. For more information on prohibited non-native plant species and invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. 3. Other resources for identifying suitable plant types for specific BMP areas can be found by consulting a nurseryman, arborist, landscape architect or referring to various online sources such as: • CalFlora - a database of wild California plants that include plant characteristics and photos http://www.calflora.org • L.A. River Master Plan Landscaping and Plant Palettes - a guidance document providing a listing of native plant communities in the Los Angeles area http://ladpw.org/wmd/watershed/LA/LAR_planting_guidelines_webversion.pdf • Jepson Online Interchange For California Floristics - a database that provides information on identification, taxonomy, distribution, ecology, relationships, and diversity of California vascular plants. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html • VegSpec - a web-based decision support system that assists land managers in the planning and design of vegetative establishment practices http://ironwood.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/Netdynamics/Vegspec/pages/HomeVegspec.htm • USDA Plants Database - an extensive database of native and non-native plants of the United States with over 100 plant characteristics http://plants.usda.gov/index.html Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. The use of galvanized fencing is permitted if in accordance with the fencing requirement above. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-14 8/23/2010 Dry Extended Detention Basins Maintenance Standards General Requirements Maintenance is critical for extended detention basins to continue to function as originally designed. A specific maintenance plan shall be formulated for each facility outlining the schedule and scope of maintenance operations, as well as documentation and reporting requirements. The following are general maintenance requirements: 1. The basin should be inspected annually and inspections after major storm events are encouraged (see Appendix E for guidance on BMP inspection). Trash and debris should be removed as needed, but at least annually prior to the beginning of the wet season (see Appendix F for dry extended detention basin inspection and maintenance checklist). 2. Site vegetation should be maintained as follows: • Vegetation, large shrubs, or trees that limit access or interfere with basin operation should be pruned or removed. • Slope areas that have become bare should be revegetated and eroded areas should be regraded prior to being revegetated. • Grass should be mowed to 4”-9” high and grass clippings should be removed. • Fallen leaves and debris from deciduous plant foliage should be raked and removed. • Invasive vegetation, such as Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitalis) must be removed and replaced with non- invasive species. Invasive species should never contribute more than 25% of the vegetated area. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. • Dead vegetation should be removed if it exceeds 10% of area coverage. Vegetation should be replaced immediately to maintain cover density and control erosion where soils are exposed. • No herbicides or other chemicals shall be used to control vegetation. 3. Accumulation of sediment exceeding 50% of the sediment storage capacity in the forebay, as indicated on the permanent steel post depth markers, should be removed. Sediment from the remainder of the basin should be removed when 6 inches of sediment accumulates. Sediment should be tested for toxic substance accumulation in compliance with current disposal requirements if visual or olfactory indications of pollution are noticed. If toxic substances are encountered at concentrations exceeding thresholds of Title 22, Section 66261 of the California Code of Regulations, the removed sediment must be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. 4. Following sediment removal activities, replanting and/or reseeding of vegetation may be required for reestablishment. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-15 8/23/2010 Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for dry extended detention ponds is shown in Table 2-1. The routine and major maintenance standards listed in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 are intended to be measures to determine if maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection. They are not intended to be measures of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. Table 2-1: Dry Extended Detention Pond Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Removal trash and debris • Remove any evidence of visual contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Remove minor sediment accumulation near inlet and outlet structures • Stabilize/repair eroded banks and fill in animal burrows if present • Make minor structural repairs to inlet/outlet structures, valves, sluice gates, pumps, fences, locks, access hatches should be inspected and kept functional • Eliminate pests and conditions that promote breeding of pests • Periodically observe function under wet weather conditions • Take photographs before and after maintenance (encouraged) Major Maintenance • Remove dead, diseased, or dying trees and woody vegetation that interfere with facility maintenance • Clean-out underdrains • Correct problems associated with berm settlement • Repair berm/dike breaches and stabilize eroded parts of the berm • Repair and rebuild spillway as needed to reverse the effects of severe erosion • Remove sediment build up in forebay and main pond area to restore original sediment holding capacity • Regrade main pond bottom to restore bottom slope and eliminate the incidence of standing pools • Aerate compacted areas to promote infiltration if volume reductions are desired • Repair or replace gates, fences, flow control structures, and inlet/outlet structures as needed to maintain full functionality Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-16 8/23/2010 Table 2-2: Routine Maintenance Standards - Extended Detention Basins Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Trash & Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 sf of basin area (one standard garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. Trash and debris cleared from site. Annually prior to wet season After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs Inlet / outlet sediment accumulation Minor sediment accumulation that affects flow through the facility. Sediment cleaned out. Erosion of banks and channels Rilling over 2 inches deep where cause of damage is still present or where there is potential for continued erosion. Any erosion observed on a compacted berm embankment. Slopes should be stabilized using appropriate erosion control measure(s); e.g., rock reinforcement, planting of grass, compaction. Visual contaminants and pollution Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants. No visual evidence of contaminants or pollutants present. Noxious pests Visual observations or receipt of complaints of numbers of pests that would not be naturally occurring and could pose a threat to human or aquatic health. Vectors controlled per LACDPW standards. Aesthetics Minor vegetation removal and thinning. Mowing berms and surroundings Facility is visually pleasing. Monthly (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor) Noxious Weeds Any evidence of noxious weeds. Eradicate all noxious weeds; control and prevent the spread of all noxious weeds. Use Integrated Pest Management techniques, if applicable. See http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ for more information. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-17 8/23/2010 Table 2-3: Major Maintenance Standards - Extended Detention Basins Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Tree Growth Tree growth does not allow maintenance access or interferes with maintenance activity (i.e., slope mowing, silt removal, vactoring, or equipment movements). If trees are not interfering, do not remove. Dead, diseased, or dying trees should be removed. Trees do not hinder maintenance activities. Remove dead, diseased, or dying trees. (Use a certified Arborist to determine health of tree or removal requirements) Annual or as needed (infrequent) After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs. Settling of berm If settlement is apparent. Settling can be an indication of more severe problems with the berm or outlet works. A geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine the source of the settlement if the dike/berm is serving as a dam. Berm is built back to the design elevation. Piping through berm Discernable water flow through basin berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to continue. A licensed geotechnical engineer should be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Piping eliminated. Erosion potential resolved and berm stability achieved. Report of annual burrows. Tree and large shrub growth on downstream slope of embankments Tree and large shrub growth on downstream slopes of embankments may prevent inspection and provide habitat for burrowing rodents. Trees and large shrubs should be removed. All dead roots should be removed if practical. Otherwise, dead roots should be removed to a minimum of 36 inches below grade and replaced with cement grout to 12 inches below grade. The top 12 inches of the root holes should be filled with compacted, in-situ soils. The area facility engineer may require additional root removal if necessary for dam safety or maintenance purposes. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Dry Extended Detention Basin 2-18 8/23/2010 Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Erosion on Spillway Rock is missing and soil is exposed at top of spillway or outside slope. Rocks and pad depth are restored to design standards. Sediment accumulation Sediment buildup exceeding 50% of the forebay sediment storage capacity. Six inches or more of accumulated sediment across basin bottom. Basin capacity restored. Standing water Low flow channel is not draining, standing pools of water are observed. No standing pools of water in low flow channel. Gate/Fence Damage Damage to gate/fence, including missing locks and hinges Gate/Fence repaired. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-1 8/23/2010 3. VEGETATED SWALES Definition Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with low-lying vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. Vegetated swales provide pollutant removal through settling and filtration in the vegetation (usually grasses) lining the channels, provide the opportunity for stormwater volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration, and reduce the flow velocity in addition to conveying stormwater runoff. An effective vegetated swale achieves uniform sheet flow over and through a densely vegetated area for a period of several minutes. The vegetation in the swale can vary depending on its location within a development project and is the choice of the designer, depending on the design criteria outlined below. Vegetated swales can be designed to be either on-line or off-line. On-line vegetated swales are used for conveying high flows as well as providing treatment of the water quality design flow, and can replace curbs, gutters, and storm drain systems. On-line swales are sized so that the low flow portion of the swale meets the treatment BMP design criteria, and the upper portion of the swale conveys high flows up to the capital storm (e.g. flood conveyance), with a set freeboard (per the LACFCD “Design Manual Hydraulics”). Flow velocities are limited to prevent reentrainment of sediment and associated pollutants. Off-line swales have flows up to the water quality design flow diverted to them from the conveyance system. Freeboard for off-line swales is 8 inches. The effectiveness of vegetated swales can be enhanced by adding check dams at approximately 50 foot increments along their length. These dams maximize the retention time within the swale, decrease flow velocities, and promote particulate settling. The incorporation of vegetated filter strips parallel to the top of the channel banks can help to treat sheet flows entering the swale. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • High flow velocity - steep terrain and/or large tributary area may cause erosive flows • Shallow grades - limited site slope may cause ponding • Compatibility with flood control - swales must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures • Appropriate selection of vegetation based on irrigation requirements and exposure (shady versus sunny areas). Multi-Use Opportunities Swales can be easily integrated into roadside vegetated buffers or parking lot landscaping. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-2 8/23/2010 Vegetated Swale Design Specifications Geotechnical Considerations Vegetated swales can be used wherever the local climate and soils permit the establishment and maintenance of an appropriate vegetative cover, and slopes are low or can be engineered to swale specifications. They are impractical in areas with steep topography (slopes in excess of approximately 10%). Sizing The flow capacity of a vegetated swale is a function of the longitudinal slope (parallel to flow), the resistance to flow (i.e. Manning’s roughness), and the cross sectional area. The cross section is normally approximately trapezoidal and the area is a function of the bottom width and side slopes. The flow capacity of vegetated swales should be such that the design water quality flow rate will not exceed a flow depth of 2/3 the height of the vegetation within the swale or 4 inches at the SUSMP design intensity. Once design criteria have been selected, the resulting flow depth for the design water quality flow rate is checked. If the depth restriction is exceeded, swale parameters (e.g. longitudinal slope, width) are adjusted to reduce the flow depth. Procedures for sizing swales are summarized below and illustrated in Figure 3-1. Step 1: Select design flows The swale sizing is based on the SUSMP design flow Qwq (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)). Step 2: Calculate swale bottom width. The swale bottom width is calculated based on Manning's equation for open-channel flow. This equation can be used to calculate discharges as follows: 5.067.1/49.1 SnARQ= (Equation 3-1) where: Q = flow rate (cfs) n = Manning's roughness coefficient (unitless) A = cross-sectional area of flow (ft2) R = hydraulic radius (ft) = area divided by wetted perimeter S = longitudinal slope (ft/ft) For shallow flow depths in swales, channel side slopes are ignored in the calculation of bottom width. Use the following equation (a simplified form of Manning's formula) to estimate the swale bottom width: 5.067.149.1/synQbwqwq= (Equation 3-2) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-3 8/23/2010 Where: b = bottom width of swale (ft) Qwq = water quality design flow (cfs) nwq = Manning's roughness coefficient for shallow flow conditions = 0.2 (unitless) y = design flow depth (ft) s = longitudinal slope (along direction of flow) (ft/ft) Proceed to Step 3 if the bottom width is calculated to be between 2 and 10 feet. A minimum 2- foot bottom width is required. Therefore, if the calculated bottom width is less than 2 feet, increase the width to 2 feet and recalculate the design flow depth y using the Equation 3-2 where Qwq, nwq, and s are the same values as used above, but b = 2 feet. The maximum allowable bottom width is 10 feet; therefore if the calculated bottom width exceeds 10 feet, then one of the following steps is necessary to reduce the design bottom width: • Increase the longitudinal slope (s) to a maximum of 6 feet in 100 feet (0.06 feet per foot). • Increase the design flow depth (y) to a maximum of 4 inches. • Place a divider lengthwise along the swale bottom (Figure 3-1) at least three-quarters of the swale length (beginning at the inlet), without compromising the design flow depth and swale lateral slope requirements. Swale width can be increased to an absolute maximum of 16 feet if a divider is provided. Step 3: Determine design flow velocity To calculate the design flow velocity through the swale, use the flow continuity equation: wqwqwqAQV/= (Equation 3-3) where: Vwq = design flow velocity (fps) Awq = by + Zy2 = cross-sectional area (ft2) of flow at design depth, where Z = side slope length per unit height (e.g., Z = 3 if side slopes are 3H:1V) If the design flow velocity exceeds 1 foot per second, go back to Step 2 and modify one or more of the design parameters (longitudinal slope, bottom width, or flow depth) to reduce the design flow velocity to 1 foot per second or less. If the design flow velocity is calculated to be less than 1 foot per second, proceed to Step 4. Note: It is desirable to have the design velocity as low as possible, both to improve treatment effectiveness and to reduce swale length requirements. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-4 8/23/2010 Step 4: Calculate swale length Use the following equation to determine the necessary swale length to achieve a hydraulic residence time of at least 10 minutes (600 seconds): wqhrVtL60= (Equation 3-4) Where: L = minimum allowable swale length (ft) thr = hydraulic residence time (s) Vwq = design flow velocity (fps) The minimum swale length is 100 feet; therefore, if the swale length is calculated to be less than 100 feet, increase the length to a minimum of 100 feet, leaving the bottom width unchanged. If a larger swale can be fitted on the site, consider using a greater length to increase the hydraulic residence time and improve the swale's pollutant removal capability. If the calculated length is too long for the site, or if it would cause layout problems, such as encroachment into shaded areas, proceed to Step 5 to further modify the layout. If the swale length can be accommodated on the site, proceed to Step 6. Step 5: Adjust swale layout to fit on site If the swale length calculated in Step 4 is too long for the site, the length can be reduced (to a minimum of 100 feet) by increasing the bottom width up to a maximum of 16 feet, as long as the 10 minute retention time is retained. However, the length cannot be increased in order to reduce the bottom width because Manning's depth-velocity-flow rate relationships would not be preserved. If the bottom width is increased to greater than 10 feet, a low flow dividing berm is needed to split the swale cross section in half to prevent channelization. Length can be adjusted by calculating the top area of the swale and providing an equivalent top area with the adjusted dimensions. a) Calculate the swale treatment top area based on the swale length calculated in Step 4: islopeitopLbbA)(+= (Equation 3-5) Where: Atop = top area (ft2) at the design treatment depth bi = bottom width (ft) calculated in Step 2 bslope = the additional top width (ft) above the side slope for the design water depth (for 3:1 side slopes and a 4-inch water depth, bslope = 2 feet) Li = initial length (ft) calculated in Step 4. b) Use the swale top area and a reduced swale length Lf to increase the bottom width, using the following equation: )/(slopeftopfbbAL+= (Equation 3-6) where: Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-5 8/23/2010 Lf = reduced swale length (ft) bf = increased bottom width (ft). c) Recalculate Vwq according to Step 3 using the revised cross-sectional area Awq based on the increased bottom width bf. Revise the design as necessary if the design flow velocity exceeds 1 foot per second. d) Recalculate to assure that the 10 minute retention time is retained. Step 6: Provide conveyance capacity for flows higher than Qwq Vegetated swales may be designed as flow-through channels that convey flows higher than the water quality design flow rate, or they may be designed to incorporate a high-flow bypass upstream of the swale inlet. A high-flow bypass usually results in a smaller swale size. If a high-flow bypass is provided, this step is not needed. If no high-flow bypass is provided, proceed with the procedure below. Flow diversion structure design is described in Appendix D. a) Check the swale size to determine whether the swale can convey the capital storm peak flows (Refer to Design Manual - Hydraulic, Section C, “Criteria for Hydraulic Design Open Channels” and “Hydrology Manual” LACDPW). b) The capital storm peak flow velocity must be less than 3.0 feet per second. If this velocity exceeds 3.0 feet per second, return to Step 2 and increase the bottom width or flatten the longitudinal slope as necessary to reduce the capital storm peak flow velocity to 3.0 feet per second or less. If the longitudinal slope is flattened, the swale bottom width must be recalculated (Step 2) and must meet all design criteria. Swale Geometry 1. In general, trapezoidal channel shape should be assumed for sizing calculations above, but a more naturalistic channel cross-section is preferred. 2. Swales designed for water quality treatment purposes only are anticipated to be fairly shallow, generally less than 1-foot. Therefore, a side slope of 2:1 (H:V) can be used and is acceptable. Milder slopes are necessary for mowed turf swales (3H:1V max). 3. Overall depth from the top of the side walls to the swale bottom shall be at least 12 inches. 4. Swale length shall be greater than 100 linear feet. Regardless of the recommended detention time, the swale should be not less than 100 feet in length. Length can be increased by meandering the swale. 5. The minimum swale bottom width shall be 2 feet to allow for ease of mowing. 6. The maximum swale bottom width shall be limited to 10 feet, unless a dividing berm is provided, then maximum bottom width can be 16 feet. Swale width is calculated without the dividing berm. Intent: Experience shows that when the width exceeds about 10 feet, it Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-6 8/23/2010 is difficult to keep the water from concentrating in low-flow channels. It is also difficult to construct the bottom level and without sloping to one side. Vegetated swales are best constructed by leveling the bottom after excavating. A single-width pass with a front-end loader produces a better result than a multiple-width pass. 7. Swales that are required to convey flood as well as SUSMP flows should be sized to convey the capital storm and include 2 feet of freeboard. 8. Gradual meandering bends in the swale are desirable for aesthetic purposes and to promote slower flow. Bottom Slope 1. The longitudinal slope (along the direction of flow) shall be between 1% and 6%. 2. If longitudinal slopes are less than 1.5% and the soils are poorly drained (e.g., silts and clays), then underdrains shall be provided. A soils report to verify soils properties shall be provided for swales less than 1.5%. 3. If longitudinal slope exceeds 6%, check dams with vertical drops of 12 inches or less shall be provided to achieve a bottom slope of 6% or less between the drop structures. 4. The lateral (horizontal) slope at the bottom of the swale shall be zero (flat) to discourage channeling. Water Depth and Dry Weather Flow Drain 1. Water depth should not exceed 4 inches (or 2/3 of expected vegetation height), except for frequently mowed turf swales, for which the depth should not exceed 2 inches. 2. The swale length must provide a minimum hydraulic residence time of 10 minutes. 3. A low flow drain shall be provided for dry weather flows extending the entire length of the swale. The drain shall have a minimum depth of 6 inches, and a width no more than 5% of the calculated bottom swale width; the width of the drain shall be in addition to the required bottom width. If an anchored plate is used for flow spreading at the swale inlet, the plate wall shall have v-notches (maximum top width = 5% of swale width) or holes to allow preferential exit of low flows into the drain. If an underdrain is installed as required below, the low flow drain shall be omitted. Energy Dissipation 1. Vegetated swales may be designed either on-line or off-line. If the facility is on-line, velocities shall be maintained below the maximum flow design velocity of 3 feet per second to prevent scour and resuspension of deposited sediments. 2. The maximum SUSMP flow velocity shall not exceed 1.0 foot per second. Intent: This maximum SUSMP flow velocity promotes settling and keeps vegetation upright. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-7 8/23/2010 3. This velocity limitation combined with a maximum depth of 4 inches and bottom width of 10 feet results in a recommended maximum flow capacity of about 3.3 cfs, after accounting for the side slopes. The contributory drainage area to each swale is limited so as not to exceed this recommended maximum flow capacity. 4. The maximum flow velocity during the capital storm shall not exceed 3.0 foot per second. This can be accomplished by: a. splitting roadside swales near high points in the road so that flows drain in opposite directions, mimicking flow patterns on the road surface. b. limiting contributory drainage areas to long swales by diverting flows throughout the length of the swale at regular intervals, to the downstream stormwater conveyance system. 5. A flow spreader (see “Flow Spreaders” below and detail in Figure 3-2) shall be used at the inlet so that the entrance velocity is quickly dissipated and the flow is uniformly distributed across the whole swale. Energy dissipation controls shall be constructed of sound materials such as stones, concrete, or proprietary devices that are rated to withstand the energy of the influent flows. 6. If check dams are used to reduce the longitudinal slope, a flow spreader shall be provided at the toe of each vertical drop, with specifications described below. 7. If flow is to be introduced through curb cuts, place pavement slightly above the elevation of the vegetated areas. Curb cuts should be at least 12 inches wide to prevent clogging. Flow Spreaders 1. An anchored plate flow spreader shall be provided at the inlet to the swale. Equivalent methods for spreading flows evenly throughout the width the swale are acceptable. 2. The top surface of the flow spreader plate shall be level, projecting a minimum of 2 inches above the ground surface of the water quality facility, or v-notched with notches 6 to 10 inches on center and 1 to 4 inches deep (use shallower notches with closer spacing). 3. A flow spreader plate shall extend horizontally beyond the bottom width of the facility to prevent water from eroding the side slope. The horizontal extent should be such that the bank is protected for all flows up to the capital design flow (on-line swales) or the maximum flow that will enter the WQ facility (off-line swales). 4. Flow spreader plates shall be securely fixed in place. 5. Flow spreader plates may be made of either concrete, stainless steel, or other durable material. 6. Anchor posts shall be 4-inch square concrete, tubular stainless steel, or other material resistant to decay. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-8 8/23/2010 Check Dams If check dams are required, they can be designed out of a number of different materials, including riprap, earthen berms, or removal stop logs. Check dams must be placed as to achieve the desired slope (<6%), and desired velocity (not to exceed 3 fps during the capital storm or 1 fps during the SUSMP storm), at a maximum of 50 feet apart. If rip rap is used, the material should consist of well-graded stone consisting of a mixture of rock sizes. The following is an example of an acceptable gradation: Particle Size % Passing 24" 100 15" 75 9" 50 4" 10 Underdrains If underdrains (not to be confused with a dry weather flow drain (see page 3-25 above)) are required, then they must meet the following criteria: 1. Underdrains must be made of slotted, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or corrugated high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe conforming to AASHTO 252M or equivalent. Intent: As compared to round-hole perforated pipe, slotted underdrains provide greater intake capacity, clog resistant drainage, and reduced entrance velocity into the pipe, thereby reducing the chances of solids migration. 2. Slotted pipe shall have 2 to 4 rows of slots cut perpendicular to the axis of the pipe or at right angles to the pitch of corrugations. Slots shall have a width of 0.04-inch to 0.1-inch and shall have a length of 1-inch to 1.25-inch. Slots shall be spaced such that the pipe has a minimum of one square inch per lineal foot. 3. The pipe must be 6 inches or greater in diameter, so it can be cleaned without damage to the pipe. Clean-out risers with diameters equal to the underdrain pipe must be placed at the terminal ends of the underdrain and can be incorporated into the flow spreader and outlet structure to minimize maintenance obstacles in the swale. Intermediate clean-out risers may also be placed in the check dams or grade control structures. The cleanout risers shall be capped with a lockable screw cap. 4. The underdrain shall be placed parallel to the swale bottom and backfilled and bedded with six inches of drain rock. The following aggregate shall be used to provide a gravel blanket and bedding for the underdrain pipe to provide a 1-foot minimum depth around the top and sides of the slotted pipe. Sieve size Percent Passing ¾ inch 100 ¼ inch 30-60 US No. 8 20-50 US No. 50 3-12 US No. 200 0-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-9 8/23/2010 5. The drain rock must be wrapped in a geotextile fabric meeting the following minimum materials requirements. Geotextile Property Value Test Method Trapezoidal Tear (lbs) 40 (min) ASTM D4533 Permeability (cm/sec) 0.2 (min) ASTM D4491 AOS (sieve size) #60 - #70 (min) ASTM D4751 Ultraviolet resistance 70% or greater ASTM D4355 6. The underdrain must infiltrate into the subsurface or drain freely to an acceptable discharge point. Swale Divider 1. If a swale divider is used, the divider should be constructed of a firm material that will resist weathering and not erode, such as concrete or compacted soil seeded with grass. Treated timber should not be used. Selection of divider material must take into account maintenance activities, such as mowing. 2. The divider must have a minimum height of 1 inch greater than the water quality design water depth. 3. Earthen berms should be no steeper than 2H:1V. 4. Material other than earth shall be embedded to a depth sufficient to be stable. Soils 1. Turf swale soils shall be amended with 2 inches of well-rotted compost, unless the organic content is already greater than 10%. The compost shall be mixed into the native soils to a depth of 6 inches to prevent soil layering and washout of compost. The compost will contain no sawdust, green or under-composted material, or any other toxic or harmful substance. It should contain no un-sterilized manure which can lead to high levels of pathogen indicators (coliform bacteria) in the runoff. Vegetation Swales must be vegetated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff. It is important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. 1. The swale area should be appropriately vegetated with a mix of erosion-resistant plant species that effectively bind the soil. A diverse selection of low growing plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and watering conditions should be specified. A mixture of dry-area and wet-area grass species that can continue to grow through silt deposits is most effective. Native or adapted grasses are preferred because they generally require less fertilizer, limited maintenance, and are more drought resistant than exotic plants. Consultation with a landscape or erosion control specialist is recommended for project- Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-10 8/23/2010 specific recommendations on grass seed, fertilizer, and mulching applications to ensure healthy grass growth. Suitable plant types can also be found by referring to various online sources such as: • CalFlora - a database of wild California plants that include plant characteristics and photos http://www.calflora.org • The California Invasive Plant Council - a listing of invasive, non-native plants of California http://www.cal-ipc.org/ • L.A. River Master Plan Landscaping and Plant Palettes - a guidance document providing a listing of native plant communities in the Los Angeles area http://ladpw.org/wmd/watershed/LA/LAR_planting_guidelines_webversion.pdf • Jepson Online Interchange For California Floristics - a database that provides information on identification, taxonomy, distribution, ecology, relationships, and diversity of California vascular plants. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html • VegSpec - a web-based decision support system that assists land managers in the planning and design of vegetative establishment practices http://ironwood.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/Netdynamics/Vegspec/pages/HomeVegspec.htm • USDA Plants Database - an extensive database of native and non-native plants of the United States with over 100 plant characteristics http://plants.usda.gov/index.html 2. Trees or shrubs may be used in the surrounding landscape as long as they do not excessively shade the swale. 3. Above the design treatment elevation, a typical lawn mix or landscape plants can be used provided they do not shade the swale vegetation. 4. Irrigation is required if the seed is planted in spring or summer. Use of a permanent irrigation system may help provide maximal water quality performance. Drought-tolerant grasses should be specified to minimize irrigation requirements. 5. Vegetative cover should be at least 4 inches in height, ideally 6 inches. Swale water depth should ideally be 2 inches below the height of the shortest plant species and should not exceed 4 inches. 6. Locate the swale in an area without excessive shade to avoid poor vegetative growth. For moderately shaded areas, shade tolerant plants should be used. 7. Locate the swale away from large trees that may drop leaves or needles. Excessive tree debris may smother the grass or impede the flow through the swale. Landscape planter beds should be designed and located so that soil does not erode from the beds and enter a nearby swale. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-11 8/23/2010 Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal within the vegetated swale is prohibited. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-14 8/23/2010 Vegetated Swale Maintenance Standards General Requirements 1. Inspect vegetated swales for erosion or damage to vegetation after every storm greater than 0.75" for on-line swales and at least twice annually for off-line swales, preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer maintenance and in the fall to ensure readiness for winter (see Appendix E for guidance on facility inspection). Additional inspection after periods of heavy runoff is recommended. Each swale should be checked for debris and litter and areas of sediment accumulation (see Appendix F for a vegetated swale inspection and maintenance checklist). 2. Swale inlets (curb cuts or pipes) should maintain a calm flow of water entering the swale. Remove sediment as needed at the inlet if vegetation growth is inhibited in greater than 10% of the swale or if the sediment is blocking even distribution and entry of the water. Following sediment removal activities, replanting and/or reseeding of vegetation may be required for reestablishment. 3. Flow spreaders should provide even dispersion of flows across the swale. Sediments and debris should be removed from the flow spreader if blocking flows. Splash pads should be repaired if needed to prevent erosion. Spreader level should be checked and releveled if necessary. 4. Side slopes should be maintained to prevent erosion that introduces sediment into the swale. Slopes should be stabilized and planted using appropriate erosion control measures when native soil is exposed or erosion channels are forming. 5. Swales should drain within 48 hours of the end of a storm. Till the swale if compaction or clogging occurs and revegetate. The perforated underdrain pipe, if present, should be cleaned if necessary. 6. Vegetation should be healthy and dense enough to provide filtering while protecting underlying soils from erosion: • Mulch should be replenished as needed to ensure survival of vegetation. • Vegetation, large shrubs or trees that interfere with landscape swale operation should be pruned. • Fallen leaves and debris from deciduous plant foliage should be removed. • Grassy swales should be mowed to keep grass 4” to 6” in height. Grass clippings shall be removed. • Invasive vegetation, such as Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitalis) must be removed and replaced with non- invasive species. Invasive species should never contribute more than 10% of the vegetated area. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-15 8/23/2010 of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. • Dead vegetation should be removed if greater than 10% of area coverage or when swale function is impaired. Vegetation should be replaced and established before the wet season to maintain cover density and control erosion where soils are exposed. 7. Check dams (if present) should control and distribute flow across the swale. Causes for altered water flow and/or channelization should be identified and obstructions cleared. Check dams and swale should be repaired if damaged. 8. The vegetated swale should be well maintained; trash and debris, sediment, visual contamination (e.g., oils), noxious or nuisance weeds, should all be removed. Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for vegetated swales is shown in Table 3-1. Detailed routine and major maintenance standards are listed in Tables 3- 2 and 3-3. Table 3-1: Vegetated Swale Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Remove excess sediment as needed • Removal trash and debris • Clean underdrain (where applicable) and/or unclog outlet to eliminate standing water • Clean and reset flow spreaders as needed to restore original function • Restore sunlight access to shaded regions. Remove overhanging tree branches as needed to prevent excessive shading. • Remove any evidence of visual contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Mow routinely to maintain ideal grass height and to suppress weeds • Replace invasive vegetation with non-invasive species • Remove sediment and debris accumulation near inlet and outlet structures • Stabilize/repair minor erosion and scouring with gravel • Take photographs before and after maintenance (encouraged) Major Maintenance • Regrade swale bottom and reseed to mitigate ponding of water between storms or excessive erosion and scouring • Install or replace low flow channel using pea gravel media to better convey nuisance flows • Revegetate bare exposed portions of the swale to restore vegetation to original level of coverage • De-thatch grass to remove accumulated sediment and aerate compacted areas to promote infiltration Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-16 8/23/2010 Table 3-2: Routine Maintenance Standards - Vegetated Swales Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Sediment Accumulation Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches or covers vegetation. Sediment deposits on grass treatment area of the vegetated swale removed without significant disturbance of the vegetation. When finished, swale should be level from side to side and drain freely toward outlet. There should be no areas of standing water once inflow has ceased. Annually prior to wet season After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs Trash and Debris Accumulation Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (one standard garbage can). Trash and debris removed from vegetated swale. Standing Water When water stands in the swale between storms and does not drain freely. There should be no areas of standing water once inflow has ceased. Outlet structures and underdrain (if installed) shall drain freely. Flow Spreader Flow spreader uneven or clogged so that flows are not uniformly distributed through entire swale width. Spreader leveled and cleaned such that flows are distributed evenly over entire swale width. Excessive Shading Vegetation growth is poor because sunlight does not reach swale. Over-hanging limbs and brushy vegetation on side slopes are trimmed back. Erosion/ Scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to flow channelization or higher flows. No erosion or scouring in swale bottom. For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches wide, damaged areas repaired by filling with crushed gravel. Over time, the grass will have started to cover the rock. Visual Contaminants and Pollution Any visual evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants. No visual contaminants or pollutants present. Vegetation Length When the grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 10-inches); when nuisance weeds and other vegetation starts to take over. Vegetation mowed or nuisance vegetation removed so that flow is not impeded. Grass should be mowed to a height of 4 to 6 inches (depending on landscape requirements). Grass clippings removed. Monthly (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Vegetated Swales 3-17 8/23/2010 Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Inlet/Outlet Blockage Inlet/outlet areas clogged with sediment and/or debris. Material removed so that there is no clogging or blockage in the inlet and outlet area. Low Flow Channel Overflow Nuisance flows are ponding, swale is continually wet. Low flow channel media is renewed to adequately convey nuisance flows. Table 3-3: Major Maintenance Standards - Vegetated Swales Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Standing Water When water stands in the swale between storms and does not drain freely. There should be no areas of standing water once inflow has ceased. Any of the following may apply: improved grade from head to foot of swale, removed clogged check dams, added underdrains or converted to a wet biofiltration swale. Annual – preferably at end of wet season or as needed (infrequent) After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs Erosion/ Scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to flow channelization, or higher flows. No erosion or scouring in swale bottom. Bare areas greater than 12 inches wide are regraded and reseeded. Constant Baseflow When small quantities of water continually flow through the swale, even when it has been dry for weeks and an eroded, muddy channel has formed in the swale bottom No eroded, muddy channel on the bottom. A low-flow pea-gravel drain added to the length of the swale, or an underdrain installed. Poor Vegetation Coverage When grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur in more than 10% of the swale bottom. Vegetation coverage in more than 90% of the swale bottom. Poorly vegetated areas are replanted with plugs of grass from the upper slope and reseeded there, plugs planted in the swale bottom with no gaps, or reseeded into loosened, fertile soil. Semiannual – at beginning and end of wet season Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-1 8/23/2010 4. FILTER STRIPS Definition Filter strips are vegetated areas designed to treat sheet flow runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces or intensive landscaped areas such as golf courses. Filter strips decrease runoff velocity, filter out TSS and associated pollutants, and provide some infiltration into underlying soils. While some assimilation of dissolved constituents may occur, filter strips are generally more effective in trapping sediment and particulate-bound metals, nutrients, and pesticides. Nutrients that bind to sediment include phosphorus and ammonium; soluble nutrients include nitrate. Filter strips are more effective when the runoff passes through the vegetation and thatch layer in the form of shallow, uniform flow. Biological and chemical processes may help break down pesticides, uptake metals, and utilize nutrients that are trapped in the filter. Filter strips rely on dense turf vegetation with a thick thatch, growing on a moderately permeable soil and are well suited to treat runoff from roads and highways, driveways, roof downspouts, small parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. They are also good for use as vegetated buffers between developed areas and natural drainages. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • High flow velocity - steep terrain and/or large tributary area may cause concentrated, erosive flows • Sheet flow - shallow, evenly-distributed flow across entire width of strip required. The maximum flow path from a contributory impervious surface should not exceed 150 feet. • Shallow grades - limited site slope may cause ponding • Availability of pervious area adjacent to impervious area - filter strips require sheet flow from impervious areas Multi-Use Opportunities Filter strips can be easily integrated into roadside vegetated buffers or parking lot landscaping. Filter Strip Design Specifications The main challenge associated with filter strips is maintaining sheet flow, which is critical to performance of this BMP. If flows are concentrated then little or no treatment of stormwater runoff is achieved and erosive rilling is likely. The use of a level spreading device (e.g., gravel trench) to deliver shallow, evenly-distributed sheet flow to the strip is required. A filter strip is illustrated schematically in Figure 4-1. Location 1. The use of filter strips is limited to gently sloping areas where the vegetative cover is robust and diffuse, and where shallow flow characteristics are possible. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-2 8/23/2010 2. The filter strip shall be located away from building or tree shadows to avoid poor plant growth. 3. Groundwater levels should be at least 2 ft lower than the strip surface to ensure that the filter strip does not remain wet between storms. Tributary Area Length 1. Maximum length (in the direction of flow towards the filter strip) of the tributary area shall be 150 feet. 2. The lateral slope of the contributing area (parallel to the edge of the pavement) shall be 4% or less. 3. The longitudinal slope of the contributing area (parallel to the flow) should be 5% or less. Sizing Step 1: Calculate the design flow The design flow is calculated as described in A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended). Step 2: Calculate the design flow depth The design flow depth (d) is calculated based on the width and the slope (parallel to the flow path) using a modified Manning’s equation as follows: 6.05.0 ]49.1/[WsnQdwqwqf= (Equation 4-1) where: df = design flow depth (ft) Qwq = design flow (cfs) W = width (perpendicular to flow = width of impervious surface contributing area (ft) s = slope (ft/ft) of strip parallel to flow, average over the whole width nwq = Manning’s roughness coefficient (0.25-0.3) If df is greater than 1 inch, then a smaller slope is required, or a filter strip cannot be used. Step 3: Calculate the design velocity The design flow velocity is based on the design flow, design flow depth, and width of the strip: WdQVfwqwq/= (Equation 4-2) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-3 8/23/2010 Step 4: Calculate the desired length of the filter strip Determine the required length (L) to achieve a desired minimum residence time of 10 minutes using: wqhrVtL60= (Equation 4-3) Where: L = minimum allowable strip length (ft) thr = hydraulic residence time (s) Vwq = design flow velocity (fps) Geometry 1. The width of the filter strip vegetative surface should extend across the full width of the tributary area. The upstream boundary of the filter should be located contiguous to the developed area. 2. The filter strip should be at least 4 feet long (in direction of flow) to provide adequate water quality treatment. 3. Filter strips should be designed on slopes (parallel to the direction of flow) between 2% and 15%; steeper slopes tend to result in concentrated flow. Slopes less than 2% could pond runoff, and in poorly permeable soils, create a mosquito breeding habitat. 4. The lateral slope of strip (parallel to the edge of the pavement, perpendicular to the direction of flow) shall be 4% or less. 5. Grading should be even: a filter strip with uneven grading perpendicular to the flow path will develop flow channels over time. 6. The top of the strip should be installed 2 to 5 inches below the adjacent pavement to allow for vegetation and sediment accumulation at the edge of the strip. A beveled transition is acceptable and may be required per roadside design specifications. 7. Both the top and toe of the slope should be as flat as possible to encourage sheet flow and prevent channeling and erosion. For engineered vegetative strips, the facility surface should be graded flat prior to placement of vegetation. Energy Dissipation / Level Spreading Runoff entering a filter strip must not be concentrated. A flow spreader shall be installed at the edge of the pavement to uniformly distribute the flow along the entire width of the filter strip. 1. At a minimum, a gravel flow spreader (gravel-filled trench) shall be placed between the impervious area contributing flows and the filter strip, and meet the following requirements: a) The gravel flow spreader shall be a minimum of 6 inches deep and shall be 12 inches wide. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-4 8/23/2010 b) The gravel shall be a minimum of 1 inch below the pavement surface. Intent: This allows sediment from the paved surface to be accommodated without blocking drainage onto the strip. c) Where the ground surface is not level, the gravel spreader must be installed so that the bottom of the gravel trench and the outlet lip are level. d) Along roadways, gravel flow spreaders must be placed and designed in accordance with County road design specifications for compacted road shoulders. 2. A notched curb spreader and through-curb port spreader may only be used in conjunction with a gravel spreader to better ensure that water sheet-flows onto the strip, provided: a. Curb ports use fabricated openings that allow concrete curbing to be poured or extruded while still providing an opening through the curb to admit water to the filter strip. Openings in the curb shall be at regular intervals but at least every 6 feet. The width of each curb port opening shall be a minimum of 11 inches. Approximately 15 percent or more of the curb section length should be in open ports, and no port should discharge more than about 10 percent of the flow. b. Interrupted curbs are sections of curb placed to have gaps spaced at regular intervals along the total width of the treatment area. At a minimum, gaps shall be every 6 feet to allow distribution of flows into the treatment facility before they become too concentrated. The opening shall be a minimum of 11 inches. As a general rule, no opening should discharge more than 10 percent of the overall flow entering the facility. 3. Energy dissipaters are needed in a filter strip if sudden slope drops occur, such as locations where flows in a filter strip pass over a rockery or retaining wall aligned perpendicular to the direction of flow. Adequate energy dissipation at the base of a drop section can be provided by a riprap pad. Access Access shall be provided at the upper edge of a filter strip to enable maintenance of the inflow spreader throughout the strip width and allow access for mowing equipment. Water depth and Velocity 1. The design water depth should not exceed 1 inch. 2. Runoff flow velocities should not exceed approximately 1 foot per second across the vegetated surface. Soils 1. Filter strip soils shall be amended with 2 inches of well-rotted compost, unless the organic content is already greater than 10%. The compost shall be mixed into the native soils to a depth of 6 inches to prevent soil layering and washout of compost. The compost will contain no sawdust, green or under-composted material, or any other toxic or harmful Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-5 8/23/2010 substance. It should contain no un-sterilized manure which can lead to high levels of pathogen indictors (coliform bacteria) in the runoff. Vegetation 1. The filter area should be densely vegetated with a mix of erosion-resistant plant species that effectively bind the soil. Native or adapted grasses are preferred because they generally require less fertilizer and are more drought resistant than exotic plants. 2. Sod can be used instead of grass seed, as long as there is complete coverage. 3. Irrigation shall be provided to establish the grass. Trees or shrubs shall not be used because they shade the turf. Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-7 8/23/2010 Filter Strip Operations and Maintenance General Requirements Filter strips mainly require vegetation management; therefore little special training is needed for maintenance crews. Typical maintenance activities and frequencies include: 1. Inspect strips at least twice annually for erosion or damage to vegetation, preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer maintenance and in the fall to ensure the strip is ready for winter (see Appendix E for guidance on facility inspection). However, additional inspection after periods of heavy runoff is most desirable. The strip should be checked for debris and litter and areas of sediment accumulation (see Appendix F for dry extended detention basin inspection and maintenance checklist). 2. Mow as frequently as necessary (at least twice a year) for safety and aesthetics or to suppress weeds and woody vegetation. 3. Trash tends to accumulate in strip areas, particularly along roadways. The need for litter removal should be determined through periodic inspection. Litter should always be removed prior to mowing. 4. Regularly inspect vegetated buffer strips for pools of standing water. Vegetated filter strips can become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding in level spreaders (unless designed to dewater completely in less than 72 hours), in pools of standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation, invasive vegetation), and/or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained. 5. Activities that lead to ruts or depressions on the surface of the filter strip shall be prevented or the integrity of the strip shall be restored by leveling and reseeding. Examples are vehicle tracks, utility maintenance, and pedestrian (short-cut) tracks. Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for filter strips is shown in Table 4-1. Detailed Routine and major maintenance standards are listed in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-8 8/23/2010 Table 4-1: Filter Strip Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Remove excess sediment as needed • Stabilize/repair minor erosion and scouring with crushed gravel • Remove trash and debris • Remove any evidence of visual contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Mow routinely to maintain ideal grass height and to suppress weeds • Remove invasive vegetation and revegetate with non-invasive species • Take photographs before and after maintenance (encouraged) Major Maintenance • Regrade and revegetate to repair damage from severe erosion/scour channelization and to restore sheet flow • Clean and reset flow spreaders as needed to restore original function Table 4-2: Routine Maintenance – Filter Strips Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Sediment Accumulation Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches or covers vegetation. Sediment deposits removed, releveled so slope is even and flows pass evenly through strip. Semi-annually, prior to wet season and after the wet season After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs Erosion/Scouring Eroded or scoured areas due to flow channelization, or higher flows. No erosion or scouring evident. For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches wide, damaged areas repaired by filling with crushed gravel. The grass will creep in over the rock in time. Flow Spreader Clogged/Uneven Flow spreader uneven or clogged so that flows are not uniformly distributed through entire filter width. Spreader leveled and cleaned so that flows are spread evenly over entire filter width. Visual Contaminants and Pollution Any visual evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants. No visual contaminants or pollutants present. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Filter Strips 4-9 8/23/2010 Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Aesthetics Minor vegetation removal and thinning. Mowing berms and surroundings Facility is well kept. Semi-annually (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor) Litter removal and mowing frequency is dependent on site conditions and desired aesthetics and should be done at a frequency to meet those objectives Vegetation Length, Nuisance Weeds When the grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 10-inches); when nuisance weeds and other vegetation starts to take over. Grass mowed, nuisance vegetation controlled, such that flow is not impeded. Grass mowed to a height between 2-4 inches and clippings removed. Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash and debris accumulated on the filter strip. Trash and debris removed from filter. Noxious Weeds Any evidence of noxious weeds. All noxious weeds eradicated and future establishment controlled with use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, if applicable. See http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ for more information. Table 4-3: Major Maintenance – Filter Strips Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Erosion/Scouring Bare spots greater than 12 inches No erosion visible. Large, bare areas greater than 12 inches wide regraded and reseeded. As needed Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-1 8/23/2010 5. BIORETENTION Definition Bioretention areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Bioretention areas also remove pollutants by filtering stormwater through plants adapted to the local climate and soil moisture conditions and an engineered soil mix. In bioretention areas, pore spaces, microbes, and organic material in the engineered soils help to retain water in the form of soil moisture and to promote the adsorption of pollutants (e.g., dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons) into the soil matrix. Plants utilize soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration. If no underdrain is provided, exfiltration of the stored water in the bioretention area engineered soil into the underlying soils occurs over a period of days. For areas with low permeability native soils or steep slopes, bioretention areas can be designed with an underdrain system that routes the treated runoff to the storm drain system rather than depending on infiltration. In this situation, treatment is achieved mainly through filtration and adsorption in the vegetation and engineered soils in the biofiltration area. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • Native soil infiltration rate - underdrain is required in low permeability soils • Vertical relief and proximity to storm drain - site must have adequate relief between land surface and storm drain to permit vertical percolation through the soil media and collection and conveyance in underdrain to storm drain system • Depth to groundwater - shallow groundwater table may not permit complete drawdown between storms Multi-Use Opportunities Bioretention areas can be applied in various settings, including: • Individual lots for rooftop, driveway, and other on-lot impervious surface infiltration. • Shared facilities located in common areas for individual lots. • Areas within loop roads or cul-de-sacs. • Landscaped parking lot islands. • Within right-of-ways along roads. • Common landscaped areas in apartment complexes or other multifamily housing designs. • In parks and along open space edges. Bioretention Design Specifications Geotechnical and Landscape Considerations 1. Bioretention areas located within 50 feet of a sensitive steep slope shall incorporate an underdrain. A geotechnical report must be provided to address the potential effects of Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-2 8/23/2010 infiltration on the steep slope if a bioretention area without an underdrain is sited within 200 feet of the slope or hazardous landslide area. 2. An underdrain should be provided for the bioretention area when native soils permeability is less than 0.5 inches/hour, as determined by an in-situ percolation test. Pretreatment 1. Bioretention areas shall use a filter strip to pretreat and spread incoming flows from roadways. Bioretention areas that treat runoff from residential roofs, sidewalks, driveways, or other “cleaner” surfaces do not require pretreatment. 2. If sheet flow is conveyed to the treatment area over stabilized grassed areas, the site must be graded in such a way that minimizes erosive conditions. Sheet flow velocities shall not exceed 1 foot per second. Sizing Criteria Bioretention areas can be sized using one of two methods: a simple sizing method or a routing method. The simple sizing procedure is summarized below. Continuous simulation modeling, routing spreadsheets, and/or other forms of routing modeling that incorporate rainfall-runoff relationships and infiltrative (flow) capacities of bioretention may be used to size facilities. Alternative sizing methodologies should be prepared with good engineering practices. For the routing modeling method, refer to Section 10 - Sand Filters. A bioretention sizing worksheet and example are provided in Appendix B. With either method, the runoff entering the facility must completely drain the ponding area and the planting soil within 48 hours. Bioretention provides storage above ground, in the voids of the planting soil, and (if used) in the voids of gravel drainage layer. Bioretention is to be sized, with or without underdrains, such that the SUSMP volume will fill the available ponding depth, the void spaces in the planting soil, and (if provided) the gravel drainage layer. Step 1: Calculate the design volume Bioretention areas should be sized to capture and treat the SUSMP volume (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)). Step 2: Determine the design percolation rate The design percolation rate, Pdesign, will differ depending on whether the native soil percolation rate falls above or below a rate of 0.5 in/hr. Sites where the native soil percolation rate is equal to or exceeds 0.5 in/hr, measured per the Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance (see Appendix G), do not require the use of an underdrain, while sites where native soil percolation rates are less than 0.5 in/hr require the use of an underdrain. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-3 8/23/2010 Option 1: Determining the design percolation rate, Pdesign, with an underdrain If the bioretention includes an underdrain, then the design percolation rate will be that of the planting soil. The planting soil design specifications listed below are assumed to have a design percolation rate of 2.5 in/hr. Option 2: Determining the design percolation rate, Pdesign, of the native subsoil (no underdrain) If the bioretention area does not include an underdrain, then the design percolation rate will be the limiting percolation rate (slowest) of the native subsoil, using in-situ tests described in Appendix G, and the planting soil. In most cases, the limiting percolation rate will be that of the native subsoil. It is important that adequate conservatism is incorporated in the selection of design percolation rates. The design percolation rate discussed here is the percolation rate of the underlying subsoil and not the percolation rate of the planting soil. The design percolation rate may be calculated by applying correction factors to the field- measured percolation rate. A percolation testing correction factor applied to bioretention sizing of 0.25 (providing a safety factor of 4) should be applied to results of the percolation testing conducted per Appendix G. Pdesign = Pmeasured x Ftesting (Equation 5-1) Where: Pdesign = design percolation rate (in/hr) Pmeasured = field measured percolation rate (in/hr) Ftesting = correction factor for testing method; use 0.25 Step 3: Calculate the bioretention surface area Determine the bottom surface area of the bioretention (surface area at the base of sideslopes, not at the top of sideslopes) using the following equation: l))(d(t)(P )(l)(V design designA +=12/ (Equation 5-2) Where: Vdesign = SUSMP volume (ft3) Pdesign = design percolation rate (in/hr) d = ponding depth (ft) [max 1.5 ft] l = depth of planting media (ft) [min 2 ft] t = required drawdown time (hr) [max 48 hrs] Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-4 8/23/2010 Gravel Drainage Layer. A gravel drainage layer should be provided where underlying native soil permeability is greater than 0.5 in/hr and percolation is allowed. The base of the drainage layer should have zero slope (level). The drawdown time for the gravel drainage layer should not exceed 72 hours. The planting soil and gravel layers should be separated with a thin, 2- to 4- inch layer of sand and a thin layer (nominally two inches) of #8 stone. Determine the maximum depth of runoff that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (72 hr) as follows: tPdesignd∗=12max (Equation 5-3) Where: dmax = the maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (ft) Pdesign = native subsoil design percolation rate (in/hr) [measured percolation rate x 0.25] t = required drain time (hrs) [72 hours] Choose the gravel drainage layer depth (l) such that: lnd∗≥max (Equation 5-4) Where: dmax = the maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (ft) n = gravel drainage layer porosity (unitless) l = depth of gravel drainage layer (ft) Calculate the infiltrating surface area (filter bottom area) required: nlTPdesign designVA+= 12 (Equation 5-5) Where: Vdesign = SUSMP volume (ft3) n = gravel drainage layer porosity (unitless) Pdesign = native subsoil design percolation rate (in/hr) [measured percolation rate x 0.25] l = depth of gravel drainage layer (ft) T = fill time (time to fill bioretention area with water) (hrs) [use 2 hours for most designs] A = surface area of gravel drainage layer (ft2) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-5 8/23/2010 Geometry 1. Bioretention areas shall be sized to capture and treat the SUSMP volume (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)) with an 18-inch maximum ponding depth. 2. Planting soil depth shall be a minimum of 2 feet, although 3 feet is preferred. Intent: The planting soil depth should provide a beneficial root zone for the chosen plant palette and adequate water storage for the water quality design volume. A deeper planting soil depth will provide a smaller surface area footprint. 3. Bioretention areas shall be designed to drain in less than 48 hours. Intent: Soils must be allowed to dry out periodically in order to restore hydraulic capacity to receive flows from subsequent storms, maintain percolation rates, maintain adequate soil oxygen levels for healthy soil biota and vegetation, and to provide proper soil conditions for biodegradation and retention of pollutants. Flow Entrance and Energy Dissipation The following types of flow entrance can be used for bioretention cells: 1. Dispersed, low velocity flow across a landscape area. Dispersed flow may not be possible given space limitations or if the facility is controlling roadway or parking lot flows where curbs are mandatory. 2. Dispersed flow across pavement or gravel and past wheel stops for parking areas. 3. Flow spreading trench around perimeter of bioretention area. May be filled with pea gravel or vegetated with 3:1 side slopes similar to a swale. A vertical-walled open trench may also be used at the discretion of the County. 4. Curb cuts for roadside or parking lot areas: curb cuts should include rock or other erosion protection material in the channel entrance to dissipate energy. Flow entrance should drop 2 to 3 inches from curb line and provide an area for settling and periodic removal of sediment and coarse material before flow dissipates to the remainder of the cell. 5. Pipe flow entrance: Piped entrances, such as roof downspouts, should include rock, splash blocks, or other erosion protection material at the entrance to dissipate energy and disperse flows. 6. Woody plants (trees, shrubs, etc.) can restrict or concentrate flows and can be damaged by erosion around the root ball and shall not be placed directly in the entrance flow path. Underdrains If underdrains are required, then they must meet the following criteria: 1. 6-inch minimum diameter. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-6 8/23/2010 2. Underdrains must be made of slotted, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (PVC SDR 35 or approved equivalent). Intent: As compared to round-hole perforated pipe, slotted underdrains provide greater intake capacity, clog resistant drainage, and reduced entrance velocity into the pipe, thereby reducing the chances of solids migration. 3. Slotted pipe shall have 2 to 4 rows of slots cut perpendicular to the axis of the pipe or at right angles to the pitch of corrugations. Slots shall be 0.04 to 0.1-inch and shall have a length of 1-inch to 1.25-inch. Slots shall be longitudinally spaced such that the pipe has a minimum of one square inch per lineal foot. 4. Underdrains shall be sloped at a minimum of 0.5%. 5. Rigid non-perforated observation pipes with a diameter equal to the underdrain diameter shall be connected to the underdrain every 250 to 300 feet to provide a clean-out port as well as an observation well to monitor dewatering rates. The wells/cleanouts shall be connected to the perforated underdrain with the appropriate manufactured connections. The wells/cleanouts shall extend 6 inches above the top elevation of the bioretention facility mulch, and shall be capped with a lockable screw cap. The ends of underdrain pipes not terminating in an observation well/cleanout shall also be capped. 6. The following aggregate shall be used to provide a gravel blanket and bedding for the underdrain pipe. Place the underdrain on a bed of washed aggregate at a minimum thickness of 6 inches and cover with the same aggregate to provide a 1-foot minimum depth around the top and sides of the slotted pipe. Sieve size Percent Passing ¾ inch 100 ¼ inch 30-60 US No. 8 20-50 US No. 50 3-12 US No. 200 0-1 7. At the option of the designer/geotechnical engineer, a geotextile fabric may be placed between the planting media and the drain rock. If a geotextile fabric is used it must meet the following minimum materials requirements. Geotextile Property Value Test Method Trapezoidal Tear (lbs) 40 (min) ASTM D4533 Permeability (cm/sec) 0.2 (min) ASTM D4491 AOS (sieve size) #60 - #70 (min) ASTM D4751 Ultraviolet resistance 70% or greater ASTM D4355 Preferably, aggregate should be used in place of filter fabric to reduce the potential for clogging. This aggregate layer should consist of 2 - 4 inches of washed sand underlain with 2 inches of Choking Stone (Typically #8 or #89 washed). 8. The underdrain shall be elevated from the bottom of the bioretention facility by 6 inches within the gravel blanket to create a fluctuating anaerobic/aerobic zone below the drain Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-7 8/23/2010 pipe. Intent: denitrification within the anaerobic/anoxic zone is facilitated by microbes using forms of nitrogen (NO2 and NO3) instead of oxygen for respiration. 9. The underdrain must drain freely to an acceptable discharge point. The underdrain can be connected to a downstream open conveyance (vegetated swale), to another bioretention cell as part of a connected treatment system, daylight to a vegetated dispersion area using an effective flow dispersion device, stored for reuse, or to a storm drain. Overflow An overflow device is required at the 18-inch ponding depth. The following, or equivalent, should be provided: 1. A vertical PVC pipe (SDR 35) shall be connected to the underdrain. 2. The overflow riser(s) should be 6 inches or greater in diameter, so it can be cleaned without damage to the pipe. The vertical pipe will provide access to cleaning the underdrains. 3. The inlet to the riser should be 6 inches above the planting media, and be capped with a spider cap to exclude floating mulch and debris. Hydraulic Restriction Layers Infiltration pathways may need to be restricted due to the close proximity of roads, foundations, or other infrastructure. A geomembrane liner may be placed along the vertical walls to reduce lateral flows. This liner shall have a minimum thickness of 30 mils. Planting/Storage Media 1. The planting media placed in the cell shall be highly permeable and high in organic matter (e.g., loamy sand mixed thoroughly with compost amendment) and a surface mulch layer. 2. Planting media shall consist of 60 to 70% sand, 15 to 25% compost, and 10 to 20% clean topsoil. The organic content of the soil mixture should be 8% to 12%; the pH range should be 5.5 to 7.5. 3. Sand should be free of stones, stumps, roots or other similar objects larger than 5 millimeters, and have the following gradation: Particle Size (ASTM D422) % Passing #4 100 #6 88-100 #8 79-97 #50 11-35 #200 5-15 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-8 8/23/2010 4. Compost should be free of stones, stumps, roots or other similar objects larger than ¾ inches; have a particle size of 98% passing through ¾” screen or smaller; and meet the following characteristics: • Soluble Salt Concentration: < 10 mmhos/cm (dS/m) • pH: 5.0-8.5 • Moisture: 30-60% wet weight basis • Organic Matter: 30-65% dry weight basis • Stability (Carbon Dioxide evolution rate): >80% relative to positive control • Maturity (Seed emergence and seedling vigor): >80% relative to positive control • Physical contaminants: < 1% dry weight basis 5. Topsoil shall be free of stones, stumps, roots or other similar objects larger than 2 inches, and have the following characteristics: • Soluble salts: < 4.0 mmhos/cm (dS/m) • pH range: 5.5 to 7.0 • Organic matter: > 5% • Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio: < 20:1 • Moisture content: 25-55% 6. The bioretention area shall be covered with 2 – 4 inches (average 3 inches) of mulch at the start and an annual placement of 1-2 inches of mulch beneath plants. Intent: this will help sustain nutrient levels, suppress weeds, and maintain infiltrative capacity. Mulch shall be: • Well-aged, shredded or chipped woody debris or plant material. Well-aged mulch is defined as mulch that has been stockpiled or stored for at least twelve (12) months. Compost meeting the requirements above may also be used (compost is less likely to float and is a better source for organic materials). • Free of weed seeds, soil, roots and other material that is not bole or branch wood and bark. • A maximum of 2 to 3 inches thick (intent: thicker applications can inhibit proper oxygen and carbon dioxide cycling between the soil and atmosphere). • Grass clippings or pure bark shall not be used as mulch. 7. Planting media design height shall be marked appropriately, such as a collar on the vertical riser (if installed), or with a stake inserted 2 feet into the planting media and notched to show bioretention surface level and ponding level. 8. The bioretention soil mix shall be tested and meet the following criteria: Particle Size (ASTM D422, D1140) % Passing 3/4" 98 Sand (0.05 - 2.0 mm ) 50-75 Silt (0.002 - 0.05 mm) 15-40 Clay < 5 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-9 8/23/2010 Item Criteria Test Method Corrected pH 5.5 – 7.5 ASTM D4972 Magnesium Minimum 32 ppm * Phosphorus (Phosphate - P2O5) Not to exceed 69 ppm * Potassium (K2O) Minimum 78 ppm * Soluble Salts Not to exceed 500 ppm * * Use authorized soil test procedures. Should the pH fall outside of the acceptable range, it may be modified with lime (to raise) or iron sulfate plus sulfur (to lower). The lime or iron sulfate must be mixed uniformly into the soil mix prior to use in bioretention facilities. Should the soil mix not meet the minimum requirement for magnesium, it may be modified with magnesium sulfate. Likewise, should the soil mix not meet the minimum requirement for potassium, it may be modified with potash. Magnesium sulfate and potash must be mixed uniformly into the soil mix prior to use in bioretention facilities. Limestone. Limestone shall contain not less than 85 percent calcium and magnesium carbonates. Dolomitic (magnesium) limestone shall contain at least 10 percent magnesium as magnesium oxide and 85 percent calcium and magnesium carbonates. Limestone shall conform to the following gradation: Sieve Size Minimum Percent Passing By Weight No. 10 100 No. 20 98 No. 100 50 Iron Sulfate. Iron sulfate shall be a constituent of an approved horticultural product produced as a fertilizer for supplying iron and as a soil acidifier. Magnesium Sulfate. Magnesium sulfate shall be a constituent of an approved horticultural product produced as a fertilizer. Potash. Potash (potassium oxide) shall be a constituent of an approved horticultural product produced as a fertilizer. Plants 1. Prior to installation, a licensed landscape architect shall certify that all plants, unless otherwise specifically permitted, conform to the standards of the current edition of American Standard for Nursery Stock as approved by the American Standards Institute, Inc. All plant grades shall be those established in the current edition of American Standards for Nursery Stock. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-10 8/23/2010 2. Shade trees shall have a single main trunk. Trunks shall be free of branches below the following heights: CALIPER (in) HEIGHT (ft) 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 5 3 6 • Plant materials shall be tolerant of summer drought, ponding fluctuations, and saturated soil conditions for 48 hours. • It is recommended that a minimum of three tree, three shrubs, and three herbaceous groundcover species be incorporated to protect against facility failure due to disease and insect infestations of a single species. Plant rooting depths shall not damage underdrain if present. Slotted or perforated underdrain pipe should be more than 5 feet from tree locations (if space allows). • Native plant species and/or hardy cultivars that are not invasive and do not require chemical inputs shall be used to the maximum extent practicable. Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-12 8/23/2010 Bioretention Operations and Maintenance General Requirements Bioretention areas require annual plant, soil, and mulch layer maintenance to ensure optimum infiltration, storage, and pollutant removal capabilities. In general, bioretention maintenance requirements are typical landscape care procedures and include: 1. Watering: Plants should be selected to be drought tolerant and not require watering after establishment (2 to 3 years). Watering may be required during prolonged dry periods after plants are established. 2. Erosion control: Inspect flow entrances, ponding area, and surface overflow areas periodically, and replace soil, plant material, and/or mulch layer in areas if erosion has occurred (see Appendix E for guidance on facility inspection and Appendix F for a bioretention inspection and maintenance checklist). Properly designed facilities with appropriate flow velocities should not have erosion problems except perhaps in extreme events. If erosion problems occur the following should be reassessed: (1) flow velocities and gradients within the cell, and (2) flow dissipation and erosion protection strategies in the pretreatment area and flow entrance. If sediment is deposited in the bioretention area, immediately determine the source within the contributing area, stabilize, and remove excess surface deposits. 3. Plant material: Depending on aesthetic requirements, occasional pruning and removing of dead plant material may be necessary. Replace all dead plants and if specific plants have a high mortality rate, assess the cause and, if necessary, replace with more appropriate species. Periodic weeding is necessary until plants are established. The weeding schedule should become less frequent if the appropriate plant species and planting density have been used and, as a result, undesirable plants excluded. 4. Nutrient and pesticides: The soil mix and plants are selected for optimum fertility, plant establishment, and growth. Nutrient and pesticide inputs should not be required and may degrade the pollutant processing capability of the bioretention area, as well as contribute pollutant loads to receiving waters. By design, bioretention facilities are located in areas where phosphorous and nitrogen levels are often elevated and these should not be limiting nutrients. If in question, have soil analyzed for fertility. 5. Mulch: Replace mulch annually in bioretention facilities where heavy metal deposition is likely (e.g., contributing areas that include industrial and auto dealer/repair parking lots and roads). In residential lots or other areas where metal deposition is not a concern, replace or add mulch as needed to maintain a 2 to 3 inch depth at least once every two years. 6. Soil: Soil mixes for bioretention facilities are designed to maintain long-term fertility and pollutant processing capability. Estimates from metal attenuation research suggest that metal accumulation should not present an environmental concern for at least 20 years in bioretention systems. Replacing mulch in bioretention facilities where heavy metal Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-13 8/23/2010 deposition is likely provides an additional level of protection for prolonged performance. If in question, have soil analyzed for fertility and pollutant levels. Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for bioretention areas is shown in Table 5-1. Detailed Routine and major maintenance standards are listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Table 5-1: Bioretention Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Repair small eroded areas and ruts by filling with gravel. Overseed bare areas to reestablish vegetation • Remove trash and debris and rake surface soils to mitigate ponding • Remove accumulated fine sediments, dead leaves and trash to restore surface permeability • Remove any evidence of visual contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Eradicate weeds and prune back excess plant growth that interferes with facility operation. Remove invasive vegetation and replace with non-invasive species • Remove sediment and debris accumulation near inlet and outlet structures to alleviate clogging • Clean and reset flow spreaders (if present) as needed to restore original function • Mow routinely to maintain ideal grass height and to suppress weeds • Periodically observe function under wet weather conditions Major Maintenance • Repair structural damage to flow control structures including inlet, outlet and overflow structures • Clean out under-drain, if present, to alleviate ponding. Replace media if ponding or loss of infiltrative capacity persists and revegetate • Regrade and revegetate to repair damage from severe erosion/scour channelization and to restore sheet flow • Take photographs before and after major maintenance (encouraged) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-14 8/23/2010 Table 5-2: Routine Maintenance – Bioretention Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Erosion Splash pads or spreader incorrectly placed; eroded or scoured areas due to flow channelization, or higher flows. No erosion on surface of basin. No erosion or scouring evident. For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches wide, damaged areas repaired by filling with crushed gravel. The grass will creep in over the rock in time. Annually prior to wet season. After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs Standing Water When water stands in the basin between storms and does not drain freely (with 36- 48 hours after storm event). Water drains completely from basin as designed and surface is clear of trash and debris. Underdrains (if installed) are cleared. Loss of Surface Permeability Accumulation of fine sediments, dead leaves, trash and other debris on surface Surface permeability restored. Surface layer removed and replaced with fresh mulch. Visual Contaminants and Pollution Any visual evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants. No visual contaminants or pollutants present. Monthly (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor Vegetation Weeds, excessive plant growth, plants interfering with basin operation, plants diseased or dying Basin tidy, plants healthy and pruned. Any plants that interfere with function are removed. Invasive or non- acclimated plants replaced. Inlet/Overflow Inlet/outlet areas clogged with sediment and/or debris. Material removed so that there is no clogging or blockage of the inlet or overflow area. Trash and Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (one standard garbage can). Trash and debris removed and facility looks well kept. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Bioretention 5-15 8/23/2010 Table 5-3: Major Maintenance – Bioretention Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Standing water When water stands in the basin between storms and does not drain freely (with 36- 48 hours after storm event). Filter media (sand, gravel, and topsoil) and vegetation removed and replaced. Annually prior to wet season Erosion/ Scouring Bare spots greater than 12 inches No erosion on surface of basin. Large bare areas are regraded and reseeded/replanted. As needed Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-1 8/23/2010 6. INFILTRATION FACILITIES Definition Infiltration facilities included in this manual include infiltration basins and infiltration trenches. In general, infiltration facilities are similar to stormwater detention systems but are constructed with a highly permeable base that is specifically designed to infiltrate runoff. It is usually not practical to infiltrate runoff at the same rate that it is generated; therefore, these facilities generally include both a storage component and a drainage component. Infiltration basins are usually shallow with flat, vegetated bottoms and side slopes and can be incised by excavating a depression below the existing grade or constructed above grade by constructing a perimeter berm. Infiltration trenches are long, narrow, rock-filled trenches that receive stormwater runoff from small drainage areas. These facilities may include a shallow depression at the surface, but the majority of runoff is stored in the void space between the stones and infiltrates through the sides and bottom of the trench. Pretreatment BMPs such as swales, filter strips, and sediment forebays/basins/manholes that minimize sediment loads to infiltration facilities are recommended to increase longevity and reduce the maintenance burden of infiltration facilities. Infiltration facilities are ideal for hydromodification control, where surface runoff volume reductions are desired. Infiltration facilities are also good candidates for the removal of fine sediment, particulate bound pollutants, and bacteria. The primary pollutant removal processes in infiltration facilities include volume and associated pollutant load reduction, sedimentation, filtration, and adsorption. Sedimentation of coarse particles should, however, be minimized in infiltration facilities through the use of appropriate pretreatment devices to prevent clogging. Infiltration facilities can be used to provide complete reduction of pollutant loads to downstream receiving water systems. Ideal sites for infiltration facilities are areas with permeable soils and depth to seasonally high groundwater levels that is at least 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Infiltration facilities should not be used for industrial sites or locations where hazardous materials spills may occur. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • Slope stability - infiltration facilities are not permitted near steep slope hazard areas • Setbacks - a minimum setback from structures or leach fields is required for infiltration facilities • Native soil infiltration rate - performance can be limited by the permeability of native soils • Depth to groundwater - a vertical separation is required between the infiltration surface and the shallow groundwater table to ensure that the facility will completely drain between storms and that infiltrating water will receive adequate treatment though the soils before it reaches the groundwater Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-2 8/23/2010 • Depth to bedrock or impervious soil layer - a shallow confining layer may inhibit complete infiltration of SUSMP volume • Contaminated soils - infiltration facilities are not permitted at sites with existing soil contamination • Surface space availability - large footprint required • High sediment loading rates - may clog quickly if sediment loads are high (e.g., unstabilized site) or flows are not adequately pretreated Multi-Use Opportunities Under special circumstances an infiltration basin may be combined with a detention basin to provide both water quality control and peak flow control. However, this practice is not recommended at sites receiving high sediment loadings due to the potential for clogging and the associated maintenance burden. Infiltration basins may also be integrated into the design of a park or playfield. Recreational multi-use facilities must be inspected after every storm and may require a greater maintenance frequency than dedicated water quality basins as to ensure aesthetics and public safety are not compromised. Any planned multi-use facility must obtain approval by the affected County department(s). Infiltration Facility Design Specifications Geotechnical Considerations Due to the potential to contaminate groundwater, cause slope instability, impact surrounding structures, and potential for insufficient infiltration capacity, an extensive geotechnical site investigation must be undertaken early in the site planning process to verify site suitability for the installation of infiltration facilities. Soil infiltration rates and the water table depth should be evaluated to ensure that conditions are satisfactory for proper operation of an infiltration facility. See Appendix G, Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance. The applicant must demonstrate through infiltration testing, soil logs, and the written opinion of a licensed civil engineer that sufficiently permeable soils exist on site to allow the construction of a properly functioning infiltration facility. 1. Infiltration facilities require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour. If infiltration rates exceed 2.4 inches/hour, then the runoff should be fully treated in an upstream BMP prior to infiltration to protect groundwater quality. Pretreatment for coarse sediment removal is required in all instances. 2. Groundwater separation must be at least 10 feet from the basin or trench bottom to the measured groundwater elevation and at least 100 horizontal feet from any drinking water wells. Measurements of groundwater levels must be made during the time when water level is expected to be at a maximum (i.e., toward the end of the wet season). 3. Infiltration facilities are not suitable to collect runoff from sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials outside. [Note: Infiltration facilities are not suitable for industrial Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-3 8/23/2010 sites or locations where spills can occur. In these areas, one of the other BMPs in this manual should be used]. 4. Infiltration facilities are not suitable for un-remediated “brownfield sites” where there is known groundwater or soil contamination. 5. Sites with a slope greater than 25% (4:1) shall be excluded. A geotechnical analysis and report addressing slope stability are required if located on slopes greater than 15%. 6. An infiltration facility must not be located within 15 feet of a 2:1 or greater slope. The geotechnical report must address the potential effects of infiltration on the stability of the slope if the facility is sited within 200 feet of the slope or a mapped landslide. Site Geotechnical Investigation 1. A geotechnical report shall state whether the site is suitable for the proposed infiltration basin, and shall recommend a design infiltration rate (see “Design Infiltration Rate” under the “Sizing Criteria” section). The geotechnical investigation should be such that a good understanding is gained as to how the stormwater runoff will move in the soil (horizontally or vertically) and if there are any geological conditions that could inhibit the movement of water. Setbacks 1. Infiltration facilities shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drain fields and drinking water wells. 2. Infiltration facilities shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from any 2:1 or steeper slope. 3. Infiltration facilities shall be setback 8 feet from any structural foundation. The 8-foot setback may be reduced to a minimum of 5 feet if geotechnical evaluations address the potential impacts of the facility’s phreatic surface on adjacent structural foundations. Pretreatment Pretreatment is provided for infiltration facilities in order to reduce the sediment load entering the facility and maintain the infiltration rate of the basin. Pretreatment refers to design features that provide settling of large particles before runoff reaches a management practice; easing the long-term maintenance burden. Pretreatment is important for all structural stormwater management practices, but it is particularly important for infiltration practices. To ensure that pretreatment mechanisms are effective, designers shall incorporate sediment reduction practices. Sediment reductions BMPs may include vegetated swales, vegetated filter strips, sedimentation basins or forebays, sedimentation manholes and hydrodynamic separation devices. The use of at least two pretreatment devices is highly recommended for infiltration facilities. For design specification of selected pre-treatment devices, refer to: • Filter Strip (Section 4) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-4 8/23/2010 • Vegetated Swales (Section 3) • Proprietary Devices (Section 11) Sizing Criteria As with sand filters, infiltration facilities can be sized using one of two methods: a simple sizing method or a routing modeling method. With either method the SUSMP volume must be completely infiltrated within 72 hours. Infiltration basins provide the majority of storage above ground while infiltration trenches provide the majority of storage in the voids of the rock fill. The simple sizing procedures provided below can be used for either infiltration basins or trenches. For the routing modeling method, refer to Section 10 - Sand Filters. Step 1: Calculate the design volume Infiltration facilities shall be sized to capture and infiltrate the SUSMP volume (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)). Step 2: Determine the design percolation rate The percolation rate will decline between maintenance cycles as the surface becomes occluded and particulates accumulate in the infiltrative layer. Monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that the full-scale infiltration rate is far lower than the rate measured by small-scale testing. It is important that adequate conservatism is incorporated in the selection of design percolation rates. For infiltration trenches, the design percolation rate discussed here is the percolation rate of the underlying soils and not the percolation rate of the filter media bed (refer to the “Facility Geometry” section for the recommended composition of the filter media bed for infiltration trenches). A simplified method may be used to determine the design percolation rate by applying correction factors to the field measured percolation rate. These factors take into account uncertainty in measurement procedure, depth to water table or impermeable strata, infiltration facility geometry, and long term reductions in permeability due to biofouling and accumulation of fines. Pdesign = Pmeasured x Ftesting x Fplugging x Fgeometry (Equation 6-1) Where: Pdesign = design percolation rate (in/hr) Pmeasured = measured percolation rate (per Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance, Appendix G or as amended) (in/hr) F = correction factor Ftesting takes into account uncertainties in the testing method and is 0.5. Fplugging accounts for reductions in infiltration rates over the long term caused by plugging of soils. The factor is: Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-5 8/23/2010 • 0.7 for loams and sandy loams • 0.8 for fine sands and loamy sands • 0.9 for medium sands • 1.0 for coarse sands or cobbles or for any facility preceded by a full specification filter strip or vegetated swale. Fgeometry accounts for the influence of facility geometry and depth to the water table or impervious strata on the actual infiltration rate. Fgeometry must be between 0.25 and 1.0 as determined by the following equation: Fgeometry = 4 D/W + 0.05 (Equation 6-2) Where: D = depth from the bottom of the facility to the maximum wet-season water table elevation or nearest impervious layer, whichever is less (ft) W = width of the facility (ft) Note that adjusted percolation rate (Pdesign) may be different for basins and trenches installed in the same location due to differences in dimension. Step 3: Calculate the surface area Determine the size of the required infiltrating surface by assuming the SUSMP volume will fill the available ponding depth plus the void spaces based on the computed porosity of the filter media (normally about 32%). 1. Determine the maximum depth of runoff that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (72 hr) as follows: tPddesign 12max= (Equation 6-3) Where: t = required drain time (hrs) [Use 72 hours] Pdesign = design percolation rate of underlying soils (in/hr) dmax = the maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (ft) 2. Choose the ponding depth (dp) and/or trench depth (dt) such that: pdd≥max For Infiltration Basins (Equation 6-4) pttddnd+≥max For Infiltration Trenches (Equation 6-5) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-6 8/23/2010 Where: dp = ponding depth (ft) nt = trench fill aggregate porosity (unitless) dt = depth of trench fill (ft) dmax = the maximum depth of water that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (ft) 3. Calculate infiltrating surface area (filter bottom area) required: ())12/(pdesign v dTP WQA += For Infiltration Basins (Equation 6-6) ())12/(pttdesign v ddnTP WQA ++= For Infiltration Trenches (Equation 6-7) (Adapted from Georgia Stormwater Manual: http://www.georgiastormwater.com/vol2/3-2-5.pdf ) Where: WQv = design water quality volume (ft3) nt = trench fill aggregate porosity (unitless) Pdesign = design percolation rate (in/hr) dp = ponding depth (ft) dt = depth of trench fill (ft) T = fill time (time to fill to max ponding depth with water) (hrs) [use 2 hours for most designs] Facility Geometry Infiltration Basins 1. Infiltration basins shall be designed and constructed with the flattest bottom slope possible to promote uniform ponding and infiltration across the facility. 2. A sediment forebay is required unless adequate pretreatment is provided in a separate pretreatment unit (e.g. upstream hydrodynamic device or vegetated swale) to address sediment loads, or the tributary catchment is mostly impervious. The sediment forebay, if present, shall have a volume equal to 25% of the total infiltration basin volume. 3. The forebay shall be designed with a minimum length to width ratio of 2:1 and must completely drain to the main basin through an 8-inch minimum low-flow outlet. 4. All inlets shall enter the sediment forebay. If there are multiple inlets into the forebay, the length-to-width ratio shall be based on the average flowpath length for all inlets. 5. Side-slopes shall be no steeper than 3H:1V. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-7 8/23/2010 Infiltration Trench 1. Infiltration trenches shall be at least 24 inches wide and 3 to 5 feet deep. 2. The longitudinal slope of the trench should not exceed 3% 3. The filter bed media layers shall have the following composition and thickness: • Top layer (top 2 inches of pea gravel) • Middle layer (3-5 feet of washed 2 to 6-inch gravel). Void space should be in the range of 30 percent to 40 percent. • Bottom layer (6 inches of sand or fabric equivalent) 4. An observation well should be installed at the lower end of the infiltration trench to check for water levels and drawdown time. A typical observation well consists of a slotted PVC well screen, 4 to 6 inches in diameter, capped with a lockable, above-ground lid. Ensure that the screened interval is short and placed near the bottom of the trench to avoid piping. Embankments 1. Embankments are earthen slopes or berms used to detain or redirect the flow of water. 2. The minimum top width of all berm embankments shall be 20 feet, or as approved by the Geotechnical and Materials Division. 3. Basin berm embankments must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable fill soils analyzed by a licensed geotechnical engineer) free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris. 4. Earthworks shall be in accordance with Section 300-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, most recent edition. 5. Basin berm embankments greater than 4 feet in height must be constructed by excavating a key equal to 50% of the berm embankment cross-sectional height and width. This requirement may be waived if specifically recommended by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 6. The berm embankment shall be constructed of compacted soil (95% minimum dry density, modified proctor method per ASTM D1557), placed in 6-inch lifts. 7. Low growing native or non-invasive perennial grasses shall be planted on downstream embankment slopes. See the Vegetation Management on Embankment Dams of Public Works' Debris Control Facilities, Attachment B, for a recommended plant list. Additional Control Functions Infiltration basins can be designed to provide channel protection, and/or flood control by providing storage capacity in excess of that provided for water quality and incorporating outlet controls. The additional storage and outlet structure should be provided per the requirements Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-8 8/23/2010 outlined in the Extended Detention Basins section of this document (see Section 2). Note that the selected outlet structure shall not be designed to drain the water quality volume and shall be similar to outlet structures that maintain a permanent pool (see Section 8 - Wetponds and Lakes). Drainage 1. The bottom of infiltration bed must be native soil, over-excavated to at least one foot in depth and the soil replaced uniformly without compaction. Amending the excavated soil with 2-4 inches (~15-30%) of coarse sand is recommended. 2. The use of vertical piping, either for distribution or infiltration enhancement shall not be allowed to avoid device classification as a Class V injection well per 40 CFR146.5(e)(4). 3. The hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface layers should be sufficient to ensure a maximum 72-hr drawdown time. An observation well shall be incorporated to allow observation of drain time. 4. For infiltration basins, an underdrain shall be installed within the bottom layer to provide drainage in case of standing water. The underdrain shall be operated by opening a valve, which shall be closed during normal operation. Cleanouts shall be provided for the underdrain. Emergency Overflow There must be an overflow route for stormwater flows that overtop the facility or in case the infiltration facility becomes clogged. 1. For online facilities, the overflow channel must be able to safely convey flows from the capital storm to the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. Sizing is based on the LACDPW Hydraulics and Hydrology/Sedimentation manuals. Vegetation Infiltration Basin 1. A thick mat of drought tolerant grass should be established on the basin floor and side- slopes following construction. Grasses can help prevent erosion and increase evapotranspiration and their rhizomes discourage compaction within the root zone helping to maintain the surface infiltration rates. Additionally, the active growing vegetation can help break up surface crusts that accumulate from sedimentation of fine particulates. 2. Grass may need to be irrigated during establishment. 3. Facility will not be accepted by the County/Flood Control District until vegetation is well established and functioning. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-9 8/23/2010 Infiltration Trench 1. Infiltration trenches shall be kept free of vegetation. 2. Trees and other large vegetation should be planted away from trenches such that drip lines do not overhang infiltration beds. Maintenance Access Infiltration Basin Infiltration basins require access provisions similar to dry extended detention basins (Section 2). A maintenance access road(s) shall be provided to the drainage structures associated with the basin (e.g., inlet, emergency overflow or bypass structures). Manhole and catch basin lids must be in or at the edge of the access road. An access ramp to the basin bottom is required to facilitate the entry of sediment removal and vegetation maintenance equipment without compaction of the basin bottom and side slopes. Access roads shall meet the following design criteria: 1. All access ramps and roads shall be paved with a minimum of 6 inches of concrete over 3 inches of crushed aggregate base material. This requirement may be modified depending on the soil conditions and intended use of the road at the discretion of the Department. 2. Maximum grade shall be 12% unless otherwise approved by the Department. 3. Centerline turning radius shall be 40 feet, minimum. 4. Access roads less than 500 ft long shall have 12 feet wide pavement within a minimum 15 feet wide bench. Access roads greater than 500 feet long shall have 16 feet wide pavement within a minimum 20 feet wide bench. 5. All access roads shall terminate with turnaround areas of 40 feet by 40 feet. A hammer type turn around area or a circle drive around the top of the facility is also acceptable. 6. Adequate double-drive gates and commercial driveways are required at street crossings. Gates should be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street curb except in residential areas where the gates may be located along the property line provided there is adequate site distance to see oncoming vehicles at the posted speed limit. Infiltration Trench 1. The facility and outlet structures must all be safely accessible during wet and dry weather conditions. 2. An access road along the entire length of the trench is required unless the trench is located along an existing road or parking lot that can be safely used for maintenance access. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-10 8/23/2010 3. If the infiltration facility becomes plugged and fails, then access is needed to excavate the facility to remove and replace the filter bed media, as well as to increase all dimensions of the facility by 2 inches to provide a fresh surface for infiltration. To prevent damage and compaction, access must be able to accommodate a backhoe working at “arms length” from the berm. Construction 1. Infiltration facilities shall not be hydraulically connected to the storm drain system until all contributing drainage areas are stabilized (e.g., with vegetation or pavement) as shown on the Contract Plans and to the satisfaction of the Engineer. Infiltration facilities shall not be used as sediment control facilities. 2. To preserve and avoid the loss of infiltration capacity, the following construction guidelines must be specified: • The entire area draining to the facility must be stabilized before construction begins. If this is infeasible, a diversion berm must be placed around the perimeter of the infiltration site to prevent sediment entrance during construction and landscape establishment. • Compaction of the subgrade with heavy equipment should be minimized to the maximum extent possible. If the use of heavy equipment on the base of the facility cannot be avoided, the infiltrative capacity should be restored by tilling or aerating prior to placing the infiltrative bed. • The exposed soils must be inspected by a soil engineer after excavation to confirm that soil conditions are suitable. Landscaping Landscaping outside of the basin, but within the easement/right-of-way, is required for infiltration basins and must adhere to the following criteria so as not to hinder maintenance operations: 1. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or manmade drainage structures such as spillways, flow spreaders, or earthen embankments. Species with roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, shall not be used within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) should not be planted in or near detention basins. 2. Prohibited non-native plant species will not be permitted. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-11 8/23/2010 3. Other resources for identifying suitable plant types for specific BMP areas can be found by consulting a nurseryman, arborist, landscape architect or referring to various online sources such as: • CalFlora - a database of wild California plants that include plant characteristics and photos http://www.calflora.org • L.A. River Master Plan Landscaping and Plant Palettes - a guidance document providing a listing of native plant communities in the Los Angeles area http://ladpw.org/wmd/watershed/LA/LAR_planting_guidelines_webversion.pdf a. Jepson Online Interchange For California Floristics - a database that provides information on identification, taxonomy, distribution, ecology, relationships, and diversity of California vascular plants. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html • VegSpec - a web-based decision support system that assists land managers in the planning and design of vegetative establishment practices http://ironwood.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/Netdynamics/Vegspec/pages/HomeVegspec.htm • USDA Plants Database - an extensive database of native and non-native plants of the United States with over 100 plant characteristics http://plants.usda.gov/index.html Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-14 8/23/2010 Infiltration Facility Operations and Maintenance General Requirements Infiltration facility maintenance should include frequent inspections to ensure that water infiltrates into the subsurface completely within the recommended infiltration time of 72 hours or less after a storm (see Appendix E for guidance on facility inspection and Appendix F for an infiltration inspection and maintenance checklist). Maintenance and regular inspections are of primary importance if infiltration basins and trenches are to continue to function as originally designed. A specific maintenance plan shall be developed specific to each facility outlining the schedule and scope of maintenance operations, as well as the documentation and reporting requirements. The following are general maintenance requirements: 1. Regular inspection should determine if the sediment pretreatment structures require routine maintenance. 2. If water is noticed in the basin more than 72 hours after a major storm or in the observation well of the infiltration trench more than 48 hours after a major storm, the infiltration facility may be clogged. Maintenance activities triggered by a potentially clogged facility include: • Check for debris/sediment accumulation, rake surface and remove sediment (if any) and evaluate potential sources of sediment and vegetative or other debris (e.g., embankment erosion, channel scour, overhanging trees, etc). If suspected upland sources are outside of the County's jurisdiction, additional pretreatment operations (e.g., trash racks, vegetated swales, etc.) may be necessary. • For basins, removal of the top layer of native soil may be required to restore infiltrative capacity. • For trenches, assess the condition of the top aggregate layer for sediment buildup and crusting. Remove top layer of pea gravel and replace. If slow draining conditions persist, entire trench may need to be excavated and replaced. 3. Any debris or algae growth located on top of the infiltration facility should be removed and disposed of properly. 4. Facilities should be inspected annually. Trash and debris should be removed as needed, but at least annually prior to the beginning of the wet season. 5. Site vegetation should be maintained as frequently as necessary to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the site, and as follows: • Vegetation, large shrubs, or trees that limit access or interfere with basin operation should be pruned or removed. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-15 8/23/2010 • Slope areas that have become bare should be revegetated and eroded areas should be regraded prior to being revegetated. • Grass should be mowed to 4”-9” high and grass clippings should be removed. • Fallen leaves and debris from deciduous plant foliage should be raked and removed. • Invasive vegetation, such as Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitalis) must be removed and replaced with non- invasive species. Invasive species should never contribute more than 25% of the vegetated area. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. . • Dead vegetation should be removed if it exceeds 10% of area coverage. Vegetation should be replaced immediately to maintain cover density and control erosion where soils are exposed. 6. For infiltration basins, sediment buildup exceeding 50% of the forebay sediment storage capacity, as indicated by the steel markers, should be removed. Sediment from the remainder of the basin should be removed when 6 inches of sediment accumulates. Sediments should be tested for toxic substance accumulation in compliance with current disposal requirements if visual or olfactory indications of pollution are noticed. If toxic substances are encountered at concentrations exceeding thresholds of Title 22, Section 66261 of the California Code of Regulations, the sediment must be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill and the source of the contaminated sediments should be investigated and mitigated to the extent possible. 7. Following sediment removal activities, replanting and/or reseeding of vegetation may be required for reestablishment. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-16 8/23/2010 Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for infiltration facilities is shown in Table 6-1. Detailed routine and major maintenance standards are listed in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. Table 6-1: Infiltration Facility Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Remove trash and debris as required • Repair and reseed erosion near inlet if necessary • Remove any visual evidence of contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Clean under-drain (if present) and outlet piping to alleviate ponding and restore infiltrative capacity. • Remove minor sediment accumulation, debris and obstructions near inlet and outlet structures as needed • Mow routinely to maintain ideal grass height and to suppress weeds • Periodically observe function under wet weather conditions • Take photographs before and after maintenance (encouraged) Major Maintenance • Clean out under-drains if present to alleviate ponding. Replace media if ponding or loss of infiltrative capacity persists and revegetate • Repair structural damage to flow control structures including inlet, outlet and overflow structures • De-thatch grass to remove accumulated sediment and aerate compacted areas to promote infiltration Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-17 8/23/2010 Table 6-2: Routine Maintenance – Infiltration Facilities Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Trash & Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (one standard garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold, all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. Trash and debris cleared from site. Annually prior to wet season. After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs. Litter removal is dependent on site conditions and desired aesthetics and should be done at a frequency to meet those objectives. Inlet Erosion Visible evidence of erosion occurring near inlet structures. Eroded areas repaired/reseeded Visual Contaminants and Pollution Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants. No contaminants or pollutants present. Slow Drain Time Standing water long after storm has passed (after 48 to 72 hours), or visual inspection of wells (if available) indicates that design drain times are not being achieved. Water drains within 48 to 72 hours. Drainage pipe is cleared, accumulated litter on surface is removed, and top 1-2” of soil is raked or replaced. Inlets Blocked Trash and debris or sediment blocking inlet structures. Inlets clear and free of trash and debris. Appearance of Poisonous, Noxious or Nuisance Vegetation Excessive grass and weed growth. Noxious weeds, woody vegetation establishing, Turf growing over rock filter. Vegetation is mowed or trimmed to restore function. Weeds are removed to prevent noxious and nuisance plants from becoming established. Monthly (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor). Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Infiltration Facilities 6-18 8/23/2010 Table 6-3: Major Maintenance – Infiltration Facilities Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Standing Water Standing water long after storm has passed (after 24 to 48 hours), or visual inspection of wells (if available) indicates that design drain times are not being achieved Design infiltration rate restored, either through excavation and filter media replacement or surface sediment removal. If applicable, underdrain cleaned, reset or replaced. As needed Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-1 8/23/2010 7. STORMWATER WETLAND BASINS Definition A stormwater wetland basin is a treatment system consisting of a sediment forebay and a permanent micro-pool with aquatic vegetation covering a significant portion of the basin. Stormwater wetland basins typically include components such as an inlet with energy dissipation, a sediment forebay for settling out coarse solids, and to facilitate maintenance, a base with shallow sections (1 to 2 feet deep) planted with emergent vegetation, deeper areas or micro pools (3 to 5 feet deep) , and a water quality outlet structure. The aquatic vegetation and the associated biological unit processes are a fundamental part of stormwater wetland basins. Therefore, it is critical that dry weather base flows exceed evaporation and infiltration losses to prevent loss of aquatic vegetation and to avoid stagnation and vector problems. In situations where dry weather flows are inadequate to support a wetland basin sized for the entire water quality design volume, an additional source of water may be needed during summer months. Otherwise, the wetland should be sized based on the available flow and the design should incorporate extended detention up to the water quality storm volume. It is important to note the difference between stormwater wetlands and wetlands that are constructed as part of mitigation requirements. Constructed mitigation wetlands are intended to provide fully functional habitat similar to the habitat they replace. Stormwater wetlands are a treatment BMP designed to capture and treat pollutants to protect receiving waters, including natural wetlands and other ecologically significant habitat. The accumulation of pollutants in sediment and vegetation of stormwater wetlands may impact the health of aquatic biota. As such, periodic sediment and vegetation removal within stormwater wetlands may be required. These maintenance activities may temporarily interrupt the use of stormwater wetlands by wildlife. The applications for stormwater wetlands include peak flow attenuation, volume reduction, and pollutant removal. The pollutant removal processes that occur in wetlands include sedimentation, filtration, plant uptake and storage, and microbially-mediated transformations. Other benefits provided by stormwater wetlands include opportunities for education and aesthetics. In theory, there are no limitations to the size of the tributary area to a stormwater wetland; however, stormwater wetlands are typically used for treating areas larger than 10 acres. Factors that favor the selection of stormwater wetlands over other kinds of BMPs include enhanced treatment capability (including dry-weather flow treatment), aesthetics, and the ability to mitigate large tributary areas. Factors that may limit the use of stormwater wetland basins include overly permeable soils and/or non-existent base flows, public acceptance with regards to the potential for vector infestation, large footprint to treated area ratios (up to 12% percent of tributary area, dependant on overall imperviousness of the tributary area) and high initial capital cost of implementation. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • Availability of base flows - stormwater wetlands require a regular source of water to support wetland biota Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-2 8/23/2010 • Slope stability - stormwater wetlands are not permitted near 2:1 (H:V) slopes • Surface space availability - large footprint required • Compatibility with flood control - basins must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures Multi-Use Opportunities Provided adequate surcharge storage, a stormwater wetland may be combined with a flood control basin to provide both water quality control and peak flow control. Stormwater wetlands can also be designed with wildlife viewing areas and walking trails around the perimeter to provide passive recreation. Any planned multi-use facility must obtain special approval by the LACDPW. Stormwater Wetland Basin Design Specifications Basin Sizing and Geometry 1. Stormwater wetland basins shall be sized to capture and treat the SUSMP volume (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)). If extended detention is included, then the extended detention volume must provide at least 12 hours detention of 20% of the water quality storm. 2. Stormwater wetlands should consist of at least two cells including a sediment forebay and a wetland basin (see Figure 7-1). 3. The sediment forebay must contain between 10 and 20 percent of the total basin volume. 4. The depth of the sediment forebay should be between 4 and 8 feet. 5. One foot of sediment storage shall be provided in the sediment forebay. 6. The “berm” separating the two cells shall be uniform in cross-section and shaped such that its downstream side gradually slopes to the main wetland basin. 7. The top of the berm shall be either at the water quality design water surface or submerged 1 foot below the water quality design water surface, as with wetponds. Correspondingly, the side slopes of the berm must meet the following criteria: a) If the top of the berm is at the water quality design water surface, the berm side slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (H:V). b) If the top of berm is submerged 1 foot, the upstream side slope may be a max of 2:1 (H:V). 8. The wetland basin should be designed with a “naturalistic” shape and a range of depths intermixed throughout the wetland basin to a maximum of 5 feet. See Table 7-1 for a recommended depth distribution. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-3 8/23/2010 Table 7-1: Recommended Distribution of Depths in Wetland Basin Depth Range (feet) Percent by Area 0.1 to 1 15 1 to 3 55 3 to 5 30 9. The flowpath length-to-width ratio should be a minimum of 3:1, but preferably at least 4:1 or greater. Intent: a high flow path length to width ratio will maximize fine sediment removal. 10. The minimum freeboard shall be 2 feet above the maximum water surface elevation for online basins and 1 foot above the maximum water surface elevation for offline basins. 11. Wetland pools should be designed such that the residence time for dry weather flows is no greater than 7 days. Intent: Minimize vector and stagnation issues. Water Supply 1. Water balance calculations shall be provided to demonstrate that adequate water supply will be present to maintain a permanent pool of water during a drought year when precipitation is 50% of average for the site. Water balance calculations shall include evapotranspiration, infiltration, precipitation, spillway discharge, and nuisance flow (where appropriate). 2. Where water balance indicates that losses will exceed inputs, a source of water shall be provided to maintain the basin water surface elevation throughout the year. The water supply shall be of sufficient quantity and quality to not have an adverse impact on the stormwater wetland water quality. Soils Considerations 1. Stormwater wetland implementation in areas with high permeability soils (>0.1 in/hr) requires liners to increase the chances of maintaining permanent pools and/or micro-pools in the basin. Liners can be either synthetic materials or imported lower permeability soils (i.e., clays). The water balance assessment should determine whether a liner is required. The following conditions can be used as a guideline. a) The wetland basin must retain water for at least 10 months of the year. b) The sediment forebay must retain at least 3 feet of water year-round. Many wetland plants can adapt to periods of summer drought, so a limited drought period is allowed in the wetland basin. This may allow for a soil liner rather than a geosynthetic liner. The sediment forebay must retain water year-round for presettling to be effective. 2. If low permeability soils are used for the liner, a minimum of 18 inches of native soil amended with good topsoil or compost (one part compost mixed with 3 parts native soil) must be placed over the liner. If a synthetic material is used, a soil depth of 2 feet is recommended to prevent damage to the liner during planting. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-4 8/23/2010 Buffer Zone 1. A minimum of 25 feet buffer shall be provided around the top perimeter of the stormwater wetland. Energy Dissipation 1. The inlet to the stormwater wetland shall be submerged with the inlet pipe invert a minimum of 2 feet from the pond bottom (not including sediment storage). The top of the inlet pipe should be submerged at least 1 foot, if possible. Intent: The inlet is submerged to dissipate energy of the incoming flow. The distance from the bottom is set to minimize resuspension of settled sediments. Alternative inlet designs that accomplish these objectives are acceptable. 2. Energy dissipation controls must also be used at the outlet from the stormwater wetland unless the basin discharges to a storm drain or hardened channel. 3. Consult the LACDPW Design Division or Land Development Division for type and design of energy dissipation structure. Vegetation The wetland cell shall be planted with emergent wetland plants following the recommendations of a wetlands specialist. Outlet Structure and Spillway 1. An outlet pipe and outlet structure shall be provided. The outlet pipe may be a perforated riser strapped to a manhole (see Figure 7-2) or placed in an embankment, suitable for extended detention, or may be back-sloped to a catch basin with a grated opening (jail house window) or manhole with a cone grate (birdcage) (see Figure 7-3). The grate or birdcage openings provide an overflow route should the basin outlet pipe become clogged. 2. The wetland outlet pipe shall be sized, at a minimum, to pass flows above the water quality design peak flow for off-line basins or flow from the capital storm for on-line basins. 3. Spillways shall meet the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Small Embankment Dams (http://damsafety.water.ca.gov/docs/GuidelinesSmallDams.pdf). Online Basins 1. Online basins must have an emergency overflow spillway to prevent overtopping of the walls or berms should blockage of the riser occur based on a downstream risk assessment. 2. The overflow spillway must be sized to pass flow from the capital storm. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-5 8/23/2010 Offline Basins 1. An emergency overflow spillway or an emergency overflow riser must be provided. The emergency overflow must be designed to pass the SUSMP peak flow, with a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard, directly to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. Where an emergency overflow spillway would discharge to a steep slope, an emergency overflow riser, in addition to the spillway shall be provided. 2. The emergency overflow spillway shall be armored to withstand the energy of the spillway flows (Figure 2-4). The spillway shall be armored full width, beginning at a point midway across the berm embankment and extending downstream to where emergency overflows reenters the conveyance system. Side Slopes 1. Interior side slopes up to the emergency overflow water surface shall be no steeper than 3:1 (H:V), unless stabilization has been approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 2. Exterior side slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 (H:V), unless stabilization has been approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 3. For any slope (interior or exterior) greater than 2:1 (H:V) a geotechnical report must be submitted and approved by the County’s Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division. Embankments 1. Embankments are earthen slopes or berms used for detaining or redirecting the flow of water. 2. The minimum top width of all berm embankments shall be 20 feet, or as approved by the geotechnical engineer and the LACDPW Materials Division. 3. Basin berm embankments must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable fill soils analyzed by a licensed geotechnical engineer) free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris. 4. Earthworks shall be in accordance with Section 300-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, most recent edition. 5. Basin berm embankments greater than 4 feet in height must be constructed by excavating a key equal to 50% of the berm embankment cross-sectional height and width. This requirement may be waived if specifically recommended by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 6. The berm embankment shall be constructed of compacted soil (95% minimum dry density, modified proctor method per ASTM D1557), placed in 6-inch lifts. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-6 8/23/2010 7. Low growing native perennial grasses shall be planted on downstream embankment slopes. See the Vegetation Management on Embankment Dams of Public Works' Debris Control Facilities, Attachment B, for a recommended plant list. Fencing Safety is provided by fencing of the facility. 1. Fences shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Title 11, Section 11.48 of the Los Angeles County Code and must be located at or above the overflow water surface elevation. Shrubs (County approved, California-adapted species) can be used to hide the fencing. Right-of-Way 1. Wetland basins and associated access roads to be maintained by the County shall be dedicated in fee to Los Angeles County with appropriate access. Maintenance Access Maintenance access road(s) shall be provided to the control structure and other drainage structures associated with the basin (e.g., inlet, emergency overflow or bypass structures). Manhole and catch basin lids must be in or at the edge of the access road. An access ramp is required for removal of sediment with a backhoe or loader and truck. The ramp must extend to the basin bottom to avoid damage to vegetation planted on the basin slope. Access roads shall meet the following design criteria: 1. All access ramps and roads shall be paved with a minimum of 3 inches of concrete over 4 inches of crushed aggregate base material. This requirement may be modified depending on the soil conditions and intended use of the road at the discretion of the Department. 2. Maximum grade shall be 125% unless otherwise approved by the Department. 3. Centerline turning radius shall be 40 feet, minimum. 4. Access roads less than 500 ft long shall have 12 feet wide pavement within a minimum 15 feet wide bench. Access roads greater than 500 feet long shall have 16 feet wide pavement within a minimum 20 feet wide bench. 5. All access roads shall terminate with turnaround areas of 40 feet by 40 feet. A hammer type turn around area or a circle drive around the top of the facility is also acceptable 6. Adequate double-drive gates and commercial driveways are required at street crossings. Gates should be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street curb except in residential areas where the gates may be located along the property line provided there is adequate site distance to see oncoming vehicles at the posted speed limit. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-7 8/23/2010 Landscaping Outside of the Facility Site landscaping is required and must adhere to the following criteria so as not to hinder maintenance operations: 1. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or man-made drainage structures such as spillways, flow spreaders, or earthen embankments. Species with roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, shall not be used within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) should not be planted in or near detention basins. 2. Prohibited non-native plant species will not be permitted. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. The use of galvanized fencing is permitted if in accordance with the fencing requirement above. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-11 8/23/2010 Stormwater Wetland Basin Maintenance Standards General Requirements Maintenance is critical if stormwater wetland basins are to function as originally designed. A specific maintenance plan shall be developed for each facility outlining the schedule and scope of maintenance operations, as well as the documentation and reporting requirements. The following are general maintenance requirements: 1. The stormwater wetland basin should be inspected annually and inspections after major storm events are encouraged (see Appendix E for guidance on BMP facility inspection and Appendix F for a wetland basin inspection and maintenance checklist). Trash and debris should be removed as needed, but at least annually prior to the beginning of the wet season. 2. Site vegetation should be maintained as frequently as necessary to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the site and to prevent clogging of outlets, creation of dead volumes, and barriers to mosquito fish to access pooled areas, and as follows: • Vegetation, large shrubs, or trees that limit access or interfere with basin operation should be pruned or removed. • Slope areas that have become bare should be revegetated and eroded areas should be regraded prior to being revegetated. • Invasive vegetation, such as Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitalis) must be removed and replaced with non- invasive species. Invasive species should never contribute more than 25% of the vegetated area. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. • Dead vegetation should be removed if it exceeds 10% of area coverage. This does not include seasonal die-back where roots would grow back later in colder areas. Vegetation should be replaced immediately to maintain cover density and control erosion where soils are exposed. 3. Sediment buildup exceeding 6 inches over the storage capacity in the first cell should be removed. Sediments should be tested for toxic substance accumulation in compliance with current disposal requirements visual or olfactory indications of pollution are noticed. If toxic substances are encountered at concentrations exceeding thresholds of Title 22, Section 66261 of the California Code of Regulations, the sediment must be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. 4. Following sediment removal activities, replanting and/or reseeding of vegetation may be required for reestablishment. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-12 8/23/2010 Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for wetland basins is shown in Table 7-2. Detailed routine and major maintenance standards listed in Tables 7-3 and 7-4 are intended to be measures to determine if maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection. They are not intended to be measures of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. Table 7-2: Wetland Basin Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Removal trash and debris • Remove minor sediment accumulation near inlet and outlet structures • Stabilize/Repair eroded banks and fill in animal burrows if present • Remove any evidence of visual contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Eliminate pests and conditions suitable for creating ideal breeding habitat • Install or repair pond liner to ensure that first cell maintains a permanent pool • Remove algae mats as often as needed to prevent coverage of more than 20% of pond surface • Mow berms routinely if applicable to maintain aesthetic appeal and to suppress weeds Major Maintenance • Remove dead, diseased, or dying trees and woody vegetation that interfere with facility maintenance. • Correct problems associated with berm settlement • Repair berm/dike breaches and stabilize eroded parts of the berm • Repair and rebuild spillway as needed to reverse the effects of severe erosion • Remove sediment build up in forebay and main basin area to restore original sediment holding capacity • Regrade main basin bottom to restore bottom slope and eliminate the incidence of standing pools • Aerate compacted areas to promote infiltration if volume reductions are desired • Repair or replace gates, fences, flow control structures, and inlet/outlet structures as needed to maintain full functionality Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-13 8/23/2010 Table 7-3: Routine Maintenance Standards – Stormwater Wetland Basins Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Trash & Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 sf of pond area (one standard garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. If trash and debris is observed blocking or partially blocking an outlet structure or inhibiting flows between cells, it should be removed quickly Trash and debris cleared from site. Annually prior to wet season After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs Sediment Accumulation Sediment accumulation in basin bottom that exceeds the depth of sediment zone plus 6 inches in the sediment forebay. If sediment is blocking an inlet or outlet, it should be removed. Sediment cleaned out. Erosion Erosion of basin side slopes and/or scouring of basin bottom. Slopes should be stabilized using appropriate erosion control measure(s) and repair methods. Oil Sheen on Water Prevalent and visible oil sheen. No oil sheen present. Noxious Pests Visual observations or receipt of complaints of numbers of pests that would not be naturally occurring and could pose a threat to human or aquatic health. Vectors controlled per LACDPW standards. Water Level First cell empty, doesn’t hold water. Line the first cell to maintain at least 4 feet of water. The first cell must remain full to control turbulence of the incoming flow and reduce sediment resuspension. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-14 8/23/2010 Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Aesthetics Minor vegetation removal and thinning. Mowing berms and surroundings Facility is well kept. Monthly (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor) Noxious Weeds Any evidence of noxious weeds. Eradicate all noxious weeds; control and prevent the spread of all noxious weeds. Use Integrated Pest Management techniques, if applicable. See http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ for more information. Table 7-4: Major Maintenance Standards – Stormwater Wetland Basins Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Tree Growth Tree growth does not allow maintenance access or interferes with maintenance activity (i.e., slope mowing, silt removal, vactoring, or equipment movements). If trees are not interfering, do not remove. Dead, diseased, or dying trees should be removed. Trees do not hinder maintenance activities. Remove dead, diseased, or dying trees. (Use a certified Arborist to determine health of tree or removal requirements) Annual or as needed (infrequent) After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks of some basins indicate widespread damage/ maintenance needs. Settling of Berm If settlement is apparent. Settling can be an indication of more severe problems with the berm or outlet works. A geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine the source of the settlement if the dike/berm is serving as a dam. Dike is built back to the design elevation. Piping through Berm Discernable water flow through basin berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to continue. A licensed geotechnical engineer should be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Piping eliminated. Erosion potential resolved and berm stability achieved. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Stormwater Wetland Basins 7-15 8/23/2010 Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Tree and Large Shrub Growth on Downstream Slope of Embankments Tree and large shrub growth on downstream slopes of embankments may prevent inspection and provide habitat for burrowing rodents. Trees and large shrubs should be removed. All dead roots should be removed if practical. Otherwise, dead roots should be removed to a minimum of 36 inches below grade and replaced with cement grout to 12 inches below grade. The top 12 inches of the root holes should be filled with compacted, in-situ soils. The area facility engineer may require additional root removal if necessary for dam safety or maintenance purposes. Erosion on Spillway Rock is missing and soil is exposed at top of spillway or outside slope. Rocks and pad depth are restored to design standards. Gate/Fence Damage Damage to gate/fence, including missing locks and hinges Gate/Fence repaired. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-1 8/23/2010 8. SAND FILTERS Definition A sand filter operates much like a bioretention facility; however, instead of filtering stormwater through engineered soils, stormwater is filtered through a constructed sand bed with an underdrain system. Runoff enters the filter and spreads over the surface. As flows increase, water backs up on the surface of the filter where it is held until it can percolate through the sand. The treatment pathway is vertical (downward through the sand). High flows in excess of the design volume are bypassed. Water that has percolated through the sand is collected via a perforated underdrain system before being conveyed to the downstream storm drainage system or to an infiltration facility. As stormwater passes through the sand, pollutants are trapped in the small pore spaces between sand grains or are adsorbed to the sand surface. Over time, bacteria can grow in the sand bed and provide some biological treatment. However, continuous dry weather flows would be required to maintain the moisture required by the bacteria. A sand filter may be used in nearly all developments where site characteristics provide adequate hydraulic head to effectively operate the filter. Approximately 4 ft of elevation difference is recommended between the inlet and outlet of the filter. Landscape uses of sand filters are limited due to the small numbers of plant species that can survive in sand. Large trees and shrubs that generate leaf litter should not be located near a sand filter, as the leaves tend to clog the surface of the filter and reduce infiltrative capacity. Sand filters are designed to prevent water backup in the sand layer, as saturated sands can lead to anoxic conditions where metals and phosphorus can be mobilized. The underdrain system must flow freely. In areas with high groundwater tables that could potentially flood the underdrain system, an impermeable liner must be provided. Sand filters have a propensity to clog under high sediment loads; therefore, in areas with high predicted sediment load, pretreatment must be provided. General Constraints and Siting Considerations • High loading rates - may clog quickly if flows are not adequately pretreated • Vertical relief and proximity to storm drain - site must have adequate relief between land surface and storm drain to permit vertical percolation through the sand filter and collection and conveyance in underdrain to storm drain system Sand Filter Design Specifications Basin Sizing and Geometry 1. Sand Filters shall be sized to capture and infiltrate the SUSMP volume (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)). 2. Sand filters may be designed in any geometric configuration, but rectangular with a 1.5:1 length-to-width ratio or greater is preferred (See Figure 8-1). Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-2 8/23/2010 3. Sand depth must be at least 24 inches, but 36 inches is preferred. 4. Depth of storage over the sand bed shall be 6 feet maximum. 5. Sand filters should be placed off-line to prevent scouring of the filter bed by high flows. The overflow structure must be designed to pass the SUSMP peak flow rate. Sizing Methodology A sand filter is designed with two parts: (1) a temporary storage reservoir to store runoff, and (2) a sand filter bed through which the stored runoff must percolate. Usually the storage reservoir is simply placed directly above the filter, and the floor of the reservoir pond is the top of the sand bed. For this case, the storage volume also determines the hydraulic head over the filter surface, which increases the rate of flow through the sand. Two methods are available for sizing sand filters: a simple method and a routing modeling method. The simple method uses standard values to define filter hydraulic characteristics for determining the sand surface area. This method is useful for planning purposes, for a first approximation to begin iterations in the detailed method, or when use of the detailed computer model is not desired or not available. The simple method very often results in a larger filter than the routing method. Background Sand filter design is based on Darcy’s law: KiAQ= (Equation 8-1) Where, Q = the water quality design flow (cfs) K = hydraulic conductivity (fps) A = surface area perpendicular to the direction of flow (sf) i = hydraulic gradient (ft/ft) for a constant head and constant media depth, computed as follows: l lhi+= (Equation 8-2) Where, h = average depth of water above the filter (ft), defined for this design as d/2 d = maximum storage depth above the filter (ft) l = thickness of sand media (ft) Darcy’s law underlies both the simple and the routing methods of design. The filtration rate V, or more correctly, 1/V, is the direct input in the sand filter design. The relationship between Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-3 8/23/2010 the filtration rate V and hydraulic conductivity K is revealed by equating Darcy’s law and the equation of continuity, Q = VA. Specifically: KiAQ= and VAQ= So, KiAVA= or: KiV= (Equation 8-3) Where, V = filtration rate (ft/s) Note that V ≠ K. That is, the filtration rate is not the same as the hydraulic conductivity, but they do have the same units (distance per time). K can be equated to V by dividing V by the hydraulic gradient i, which is defined above. The hydraulic conductivity K does not change with head nor is it dependent on the thickness of the media, only on the characteristics of the media and the fluid. A design hydraulic conductivity of 1 inch per hour (2 feet per day) used in this simple sizing method is based on bench-scale tests of conditioned rather than clean sand (KCSWDM, 2005) and represents the average sand bed condition as silt is captured and held in the sand bed. Unlike the hydraulic conductivity, the filtration rate V changes with head and media thickness, although the media thickness is constant in the sand filter design. Simple Sizing Method The simple sizing method does not route flows through the filter. It determines the size of the filter based on the simple assumption that inflow is immediately discharged through the filter as if there were no storage volume. An adjustment factor (0.7) is applied to compensate for the greater filter size resulting from this method. Even with the adjustment factor, the simple method generally produces a larger filter size than the routing method. Step 1: Determine maximum storage depth of water Determine the maximum water storage depth (d ) above the sand filter. This depth is defined as the depth at which water begins to overflow the reservoir pond, and it depends on the site topography and hydraulic constraints. The depth is chosen by the designer, but shall be 6 feet or less. Step 2: Calculate the design flow Determine SUSMP volume (Vwq) (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)). Step 3: Calculate the sand filter area Determine the sand filter area using the following equation: )(LhKt RLVAwq sf += (Equation 8-4) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-4 8/23/2010 Where, Asf = surface area of the sand filter bed (ft2) Vwq = water quality design volume (ft3) R = routing adjustment factor (use R = 0.7) L = sand bed depth (ft) K = design hydraulic conductivity (use 2 ft/day) t = drawdown time (use 1 day) h = average depth of water above the filter (ft), (use d/2 with d from Step 1) Routing Method A continuous runoff model, such as US EPA’s SWMM Model, can be used to optimally size a sand filter. A continuous simulation model consists of three components: a representative long term period of rainfall data (≈ 20 years or greater) as the primary model input; a model component representing the tributary area to the sand filter that takes into account the amount of impervious area, soil types of the pervious area, vegetation, evapotranspiration, etc.; and a component that simulates the sand filter. Using this method, the filter should be sized to capture and treat the WQ design volume from the post-development tributary area. The continuous simulation model routes predicted tributary runoff to the sand filter, where treatment is simulated as a function of the infiltrative (flow) capacity of the sand filter and the available storage volume above the sand filter. In a continuous runoff model such as SWMM, the physical parameters of the sand filter are represented with stage-storage-discharge relationships. Due to the computational power of ordinary desktop computers, long-term continuous simulations generally take only minutes to run. This allows the modeler to run several simulations for a range of sand filter sizes, varying either the surface area of the filter (and resulting flow capacity) or the storage capacity above the sand filter, or both. Sufficient continuous model simulations should be completed so that results encompass the WQ design volume capture goal. Model results should be plotted for both varying storage depths above the filter and for varying filter surface area (and resulting flow capacity) while keeping all other parameters constant. The resulting relationship of percent capture as a function of sand filter flow and storage capacity can be used to optimally size a sand filter based on site conditions and restraints. In addition to continuous simulation modeling, routing spreadsheets and/or other forms of routing modeling that incorporate rainfall-runoff relationships and infiltrative (flow) capacities of sand filters may be used to size facilities. Alternative sizing methodologies should be prepared with good engineering practices. Sand Specification Ideally the effective diameter of the sand, d10, should be just small enough to ensure a good quality effluent while preventing penetration of stormwater particles to such a depth that they cannot be removed by surface scraping (~2-3 inches). This effective diameter usually lies in the range 0.20-0.35 mm. In addition, the coefficient of uniformity, Cu = d60/d10, should be less than 3. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-5 8/23/2010 The sand in a filter should consist of a medium sand with very little fines meeting ASTM C 33 size gradation (by weight) or equivalent as given in the table below. U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/8 inch 100 U.S. No. 4 95 to 100 U.S. No. 8 80 to 100 U.S. No. 16 50 to 85 U.S. No. 30 25 to 60 U.S. No. 50 5 to 30 U.S. No. 100 Less than 10 Finally, the silica (SiO2) content of the sand should be greater than 95% by weight. Underdrains 1. Several underdrain systems can be used in a sand filter design: a. A central underdrain collection pipe with lateral collection pipes in an 8 inch minimum gravel backfill or drain rock bed. b. Longitudinal pipes in an 8 inch minimum gravel backfill or drain rock bed, with a collection pipe at the outfall. c. Small sand filters may utilize a single underdrain pipe in an 8 inch minimum gravel backfill or drain rock bed. 2. All underdrain pipes and connectors must be 6 inches or greater so they can be cleaned without damage to the pipe. Clean-out risers with diameters equal to the underdrain pipe must be placed at the terminal ends of all pipes and extend to the surface of the filter. A valve box should be provided for access to the cleanouts and the cleanout assembly must be water tight to prevent short circuiting of the sand filter. 3. The underdrain pipe must be sized and perforated as to ensure free draining of the sand filter bed. Round perforations must be at least 1/2-inch in diameter and the pipe must be laid with holes downward. 4. The maximum perpendicular distance between any two lateral collection pipes or from the edge of the filter and the collection pipes shall be 9 feet. 5. All pipes must be placed with a minimum slope of 0.5%. 6. The invert of the underdrain outlet must be above the seasonal high groundwater level. 7. At least 8 inches of gravel backfill must be maintained over all underdrain piping, and at least 6 inches must be maintained on both side and beneath the pipe to prevent damage by heavy equipment during maintenance. Either drain rock or gravel backfill may be used between pipes. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-6 8/23/2010 8. The bottom gravel layer should have a diameter at least 2X the size of the openings into the drainage system. The grains should be hard, preferably rounded, with a specific gravity of at least 2.5, and free of clay, debris and organic impurities. 9. Either a geotextile fabric or a two-inch transition gradation layer (preferred) must be placed between the sand layer and the drain rock or gravel backfill layer. If a geotextile is used, one inch of drain rock or gravel backfill should be place above the fabric. This allows for a transitional zone between sand and gravel and may reduce pooling of water at the liner interface. The geotextile must meet the following minimum materials requirements. Geotextile Property Value Test Method Trapezoidal Tear (lbs) 40 (min) ASTM D4533 Permeability (cm/sec) 0.2 (min) ASTM D4491 AOS (sieve size) #60 - #70 (min) ASTM D4751 Ultraviolet resistance 70% or greater ASTM D4355 Pretreatment Pretreatment must be provided for sand filters in order to reduce the sediment load entering the filter. Pretreatment refers to design features that provide settling of large particles before runoff reaches a management practice, easing the long-term maintenance burden. To ensure that pretreatment mechanisms are effective, designers shall incorporate practices such as vegetated swales, vegetated filter strips, or sediment forebays, or proprietary devices such as hydrodynamic separators. For design specification of pre-treatment devices, refer to: • Filter Strip (see Section 4) • Vegetated Swales (see Section 3) • Sediment Forebays (See Section 2 – Dry Extended Detention Basins) • Hydrodynamic Separators (See Section 9 – Proprietary Devices) Flow Spreading 1. A flow spreader shall be installed at the inlet along one side of the filter to evenly distribute incoming runoff across the filter and to prevent erosion of the filter surface. a. If the sand filter is curved or an irregular shape, a flow spreader shall be provided for a minimum of 20 percent of the filter perimeter. b. If the length-to-width ratio of the filter is 2:1 or greater, a flow spreader must be located on the longer side and for a minimum length of 20 percent of the facility perimeter. c. In other situations, use good engineering judgment in positioning the spreader. 2. Erosion protection shall be provided along the first foot of the sand bed adjacent to the flow spreader. Geotextile weighted with sand bags at 15-foot intervals may be used. Quarry spalls may also be used. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-7 8/23/2010 Vegetation 1. The use of vegetation in sand filters is optional. However, no top soil should be added to the sand filter bed because the fine-grained materials (silt and clay) reduce the hydraulic capacity of the filter. 2. Growing grass or other vegetation requires the selection of species that can tolerate the demanding environment of a sand filter bed. Plants not receiving sufficient dry weather flows must be able to withstand long periods of drought during summer periods, followed by periods of saturation during storm events. A horticultural specialist should be consulted for advice on species selection. 3. A sod grown in sand may be used on the sand surface as long as there is no clay in the sand substrate and the particle size gradation of the substrate meets the sand filter specifications. No other sod shall be used due to the high clay content in most sod soils. 4. To prevent uses that could compact and damage the filter surface, permanent structures are not permitted on sand filters (e.g. playground equipment). Emergency Overflow Structure Sand filters may only be placed off-line, but an emergency overflow must still be provided in the event the filter becomes clogged. The overflow structure must be able to safely convey flows from the SUSMP storm to the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point (Figure 2-4). Side Slopes 1. Interior side slopes up to the emergency overflow water surface shall be no steeper than 3H:1V, unless stabilization has been approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 2. Exterior side slopes shall be no steeper than 2H:1V, unless stabilization has been approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 3. For any slope (interior or exterior) greater than 2H:1V a geotechnical report must be submitted and approved by the County’s Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division. 4. Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls, provided: (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete, (b) a fence, which prevents access, is provided along the top of the wall (see fencing below) or further back, and (c) the design is stamped by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the County. Embankments 1. Embankments are earthen slopes or berms used for detaining or redirecting the flow of water. 2. The minimum top width of all berm embankments shall be 20 feet, or as approved by the geotechnical engineer and the Los Angeles County Materials Division. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-8 8/23/2010 3. Basin berm embankments must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable fill soils analyzed by a licensed geotechnical engineer) free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris. 4. Earthworks shall be in accordance with Section 300-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, most recent edition. 5. Basin berm embankments greater than 4 feet in height must be constructed by excavating a key equal to 50% of the berm embankment cross-sectional height and width. This requirement may be waived if specifically recommended by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 6. The berm embankment shall be constructed of compacted soil (95% minimum dry density, modified proctor method per ASTM D1557), placed in 6-inch lifts. Fencing Safety is provided by fencing of the facility. 1. Fences shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Title 11, Section 11.48 of the Los Angeles County Code and must be located at or above the overflow water surface elevation. Shrubs (County approved, California-adapted species) can be used to hide the fencing. Right-of-Way 1. Sand filters to be maintained by the County shall be in a lot or easement dedicated in fee to Los Angeles County with appropriate access. Maintenance Access Maintenance access road(s) shall be provided to the control structure and other drainage structures associated with the basin (e.g., inlet, emergency overflow or bypass structures). Manhole and catch basin lids must be in or at the edge of the access road. An access ramp is required for removal of sediment with a backhoe or loader and truck. The ramp must extend to the bottom of the sand filter. Access roads shall meet the following design criteria: 1. All access ramps and roads shall be paved with a minimum of 3 inches concrete over 4 inches of crushed aggregate base material. This requirement may be modified depending on the soil conditions and intended use of the road at the discretion of the Department. 2. Maximum grade shall be 12% unless otherwise approved by the Department. 3. Centerline turning radius shall be 40 feet, minimum. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-9 8/23/2010 4. Access roads less than 500 ft long shall have 12 feet wide pavement within a minimum 15 feet wide bench. Access roads greater than 500 feet long shall have 16 feet wide pavement within a minimum 20 feet wide bench. 5. All access roads shall terminate with turnaround areas of 40 feet by 40 feet. A hammer type turn around area or a circle drive around the top of the facility is also acceptable. 6. Adequate gates and commercial driveways are required at street crossings. Gates should be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street curb except in residential areas where the gates may be located along the property line provided there is adequate site distance to see oncoming vehicles at the posted speed limit. Landscaping Outside of the Facility A sand filter can add aesthetics to a site and should be incorporated into a project’s landscape design. Interior side slopes may be stepped with flat areas to provide informal seating with a game or play area below. Perennial beds may be planted above the overflow water surface elevation. Large shrubs and trees are not recommended, however, as shading limits evaporation and falling leaves can clog the filter surface. If a sand filter area is intended for recreational uses, such as a volleyball area, the interior side slopes of the filter embankment should be no steeper than 3:1 and may be stepped. 1. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or manmade drainage structures such as spillways, flow spreaders, or earthen embankments. Species with roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, shall not be used within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. 2. Prohibited non-native plant species will not be permitted. For more information on invasive weeds, including biology and control of listed weeds, look at the “encycloweedia” located at the California Department of Food and Agriculture website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/wma or the California Invasive Plant Council website at http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. Restricted Construction Materials The use of treated wood or galvanized metal anywhere inside the facility is prohibited. The use of galvanized fencing is permitted if in accordance with the Fencing requirement above. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-11 8/23/2010 Sand Filter Maintenance Standards General Requirements Sand filters are subject to clogging by fine sediment, oil and grease, and other debris (e.g., trash and organic matter such as leaves). Filters and pretreatment facilities should be inspected every 6 months during the first year of operation (see Appendix E for guidance on BMP facility inspection and Appendix F for a sand filter inspection and maintenance checklist). Inspection should also occur immediately following a storm event to assess the filtration capacity of the filter. Once the filter is performing as designed, the frequency of inspection may be reduced to once per year. Most of the maintenance should be concentrated on the pretreatment practices, such as buffer strips and swales upstream of the trench to ensure that sediment does not reach the infiltration trench. Regular inspection should determine if the sediment removal structures require routine maintenance. Maintenance Standards A summary of the routine and major maintenance activities recommended for sand filters is shown in Table 8-1. Detailed routine and major maintenance standards are listed in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. Table 8-1: Sand filter Routine and Major Maintenance Quick Guide Inspection and Maintenance Activities Summary Routine Maintenance • Remove trash and debris • Repair and reseed erosion near inlet • Remove any evidence of visual contamination from floatables such as oil and grease • Clean under-drain and outlet piping to alleviate ponding and restore infiltrative capacity if needed • Clean and reset flow spreaders as needed to maintain even distribution of low flows • Remove minor sediment accumulation, debris and obstructions near inlet and outlet structures as needed • Mow, weed and trim routinely (where applicable) to maintain ideal grass height and to suppress weeds Major Maintenance • Scrape top 2 – 4 inches of sand and replace with clean sand to restore filtration rate • Clean out under-drains if present to alleviate ponding. Replace media if ponding or loss of infiltrative capacity persists and revegetate as needed • Reset settled piping, add fill material to maintain original pipe flow line elevations • Repair structural damage to flow control structures including inlet, outlet and overflow structures Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-12 8/23/2010 Table 8-2: Routine Maintenance – Sand Filters Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Trash & Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 5 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet of filter bed area (one standard garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. Trash and debris cleared from site. Annually prior to wet season After major storm events (>0.75 in/24 hrs) if spot checks indicate widespread damage/maintenance needs Litter removal is dependent on site conditions and desired aesthetics and should be done at a frequency to meet those objectives Inlet Erosion Visible evidence of erosion occurring near flow spreader outlets. Eroded areas repaired/reseeded. Slow Drain Time Standing water long after storm has passed (after 24 to 48 hours) and/or flow through the overflow pipes occurs frequently. Water drains within 48 hours. This is achieved through removing accumulated litter on surface, removing and renewing top 2-4” of sand. If this does not cure the problem, backflush the drainage pipe. If this does not cure problem, then see major maintenance. Concentrated Flow Flow spreader uneven or clogged so that flows are not uniformly distributed across the sand filter. Level the spreader and clean so that flows are spread evenly over the sand filter bed. Appearance of Poisonous, Noxious or Nuisance Vegetation Excessive grass and weed growth. Noxious weeds, woody vegetation establishing. Mowing, weeding and trimming to restore function and prevent noxious and nuisance plants from establishing. Monthly (or as dictated by agreement between County and landscape contractor) Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Sand Filters 8-13 8/23/2010 Table 8-3: Major Maintenance – Sand Filters Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Frequency Standing Water Standing water long after storm has passed (after 24 to 48 hours), and/or flow through the overflow pipes occurs frequently. Design infiltration rate achieved, either through excavation and filter media replacement. If the underdrain is clogged, filter fabric must be removed and the pipe cleaned. As needed Pipe Settlement If piping has visibly settled more than 1 inch. Pipe is returned to original height. Add fill material to bring pipe back to grade. If erosion is evident around pipe, inspect for cracks or leaks. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Proprietary Devices 9-1 8/23/2010 9. PROPRIETARY DEVICES Definition Proprietary devices are commercial products that typically aim at providing stormwater treatment in space-limited applications, often using patented innovative technologies. The most commonly encountered classes of proprietary stormwater management controls include hydrodynamic separation, catch basin insert technologies, cartridge filter-type controls, and proprietary biotreatment devices. Hydrodynamic separation devices (alternatively, swirl concentrators) are devices that remove trash, debris, and coarse sediment from incoming flows using screening, gravity settling, and centrifugal forces generated by forcing the influent into a circular motion. By having the water move in a circular fashion, rather than a straight line, it is possible to obtain significant removal of suspended sediments and attached pollutants with less space as compared to wet vaults and other settling devices. Hydrodynamic devices were originally developed for combined sewer overflows (CSOs), where they were used primarily to remove coarse inorganic solids. Hydrodynamic separation has been adapted for stormwater treatment by several manufacturers and is currently used to remove trash, debris, and other coarse solids down to sand-sized particles. Several types of hydrodynamic separation devices are also designed to remove floating oils and grease using sorbent media. For more information on specific hydrodynamic devices and their vendors refer to Table 9-1 or check the Yellow Pages link at www.BMPLA.org for vendor contact information. Catch basin inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris and may include sorbent media to remove floating oils and grease. There are a multitude of inserts of various shapes and configurations, typically falling into one of three groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock-type filters are typically constructed of a fabric, usually polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet may hold the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene “bag” is placed in the wire mesh box and the bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are one box; that is, settling and filtration through media occur in the same box. Other products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer. Types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. Inserts are an easy and inexpensive retrofitting option because drain inlets are already a component of most standard drainage systems. Inserts are usually only suitable for mitigating relatively small tributary areas (less than 1 acre). For more information on specific catch basin inserts and their vendors refer to Table 9-1 or check the Yellow Pages link at www.BMPLA.org for vendor contact information. Cartridge filter–type controls typically consist of a series of vertical filters contained in a vault or catch basin that provide treatment through filtration and sedimentation. The vault may be divided into multiple chambers where the first chamber acts as a pre-settling basin for removal of coarse sediment while another chamber acts as the filter bay and houses the filter cartridges. The performance and capacity of a cartridge filter installation depends on the properties of the media contained in the cartridges. Cartridge filter manufacturers often provide an array of Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Proprietary Devices 9-2 8/23/2010 media types each with varying properties, targeting various pollutants and a range of particle sizes. Commonly used media include media that target solids, such as perlite, and media that target both dissolved and non-dissolved constituents, such as compost leaf media, zeolite, and iron-infused polymers. Manufacturers try to distinguish their products through innovative designs that aim at providing self cleaning and draining, uniformly loaded, and clog resistant cartridges that functional properly over a wide range of hydraulic loadings and pollutant concentrations. For more information on specific cartridge filter models and their vendors refer to Table 9-1 or check the Yellow Pages link at www.BMPLA.org for vendor contact information. Proprietary biotreatment devices are devices that are manufactured to mimic natural systems such as wetlands by incorporating plants, soil, and microbes engineered to provide treatment at higher flow rates or higher volumes and with smaller footprints than their natural counterparts. Incoming flows are typically filtered through natural media (mulch, compost, soil, plants, microbes, etc) and either infiltrated or collected by an underdrain and delivered to the storm system. Tributary areas for biotreatment devices tend to be limited to 0.5 to 1.0 acres. The vendors of the various proprietary BMPs provide detailed documentation for device selection, sizing, and maintenance requirements. Tributary area sizes are limited to the capacities of the largest available model. The latest manufacturer supplied documentation must be used for sizing and selection of all proprietary devices. Links to the websites of a number of vendors of proprietary devices is included in Table 9-1 or check the Yellow Pages link at www.BMPLA.org for vendor contact information. General Design Specifications Proprietary BMP vendors are constantly updating and expanding their product lines, so refer to the latest design guidance from the vendors. General guidelines on the performance, sizing, and operation and maintenance of proprietary devices are provided through LACDPW Watershed Division. Expected Performance For hydrodynamic devices, it has been stated with respect to CSOs that the practical lower limit of hydrodynamic separation is a particle with a settling velocity of 12 to 16.5 feet per hour (0.10 to 0.14 cm/s). As such, the focus for hydrodynamic separation in CSOs has been with settleable solids generally 200 microns and larger, given the presence of the lighter organic solids. For inorganic sediment, the above settling velocity range represents a particle diameter of 50 to 100 microns. Thus hydrodynamic separation devices are effective for removal of course sediment, trash, and debris, and are useful as pretreatment in combination with other types of BMPs that target smaller particle sizes. Catch basin inserts come in such a wide range of configurations that it is practically impossible to generalize the expected performance. Inserts should mainly be used for catching coarse sediments and floatable trash, and are effective as pretreatment in combination with other types of BMPs. Trash and large objects can greatly reduce the effectiveness of catch basin inserts with respect to sediment and hydrocarbon capture. Frequent maintenance and the use of screens and grates to keep trash out may decrease the likelihood of clogging and prevent obstruction and bypass of incoming flows. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Proprietary Devices 9-3 8/23/2010 Cartridge filters have been proven to provide efficient removals for both dissolved and non- dissolved constituents. Cartridge filters are, however, less adept at handling high flow rates as compared to catch basin inserts and hydrodynamic devices, mainly due to the enhanced treatment provided through the filtration mechanism. Proprietary biotreatment devices are relatively new compared to the other types of proprietary treatment devices included in this document. Therefore, there are fewer third party studies on proprietary biotreatment devices and the available performance information is mostly vendor- supplied. According to the vendors, like their natural counterparts, proprietary biotreatment devices are highly efficient at mitigating dissolved metals, nutrients, and suspended solids. More detailed performance information is available from the vendors of each class of proprietary device. The performance numbers are typically presented as percent removals rather than effluent quality measurements and can be found on the vendor websites using the links provide in Table 9-1. Sizing Hydrodynamic devices, catch basin inserts and cartridge filters are flow-based BMPs and therefore should be sized to capture and treat the SUSMP peak flow rate if used as a standalone BMP. Proprietary biotreatment devices on the other hand include both volume-based and flow-based BMPs. Volume-based proprietary devices should be sized to capture and treat the water quality design volume if used as a standalone BMP. Auxiliary components of proprietary devices such as sorbent media, screens, baffles, and sumps are selected based on site specific conditions such as the loading that is expected and the desired frequency of maintenance. Sizing of proprietary devices is reduced to a simple process whereby a model can simply be selected from a table or a chart based on a few known quantities (tributary area, location, design flow rate, design volume, etc). A few of the manufacturers either size the devices for potential clients or offer calculators on their websites that simplify the design process even further and lessens the possibility of using obsolete design information. For the latest sizing guidelines, refer to the manufacturer’s website. Operation and Maintenance Hydrodynamic Separation Devices Hydrodynamic separators do not have any moving parts and are consequently not maintenance intensive. Maintenance is important, however, to ensure that they are operating as efficiently as possible. Proper maintenance involves frequent inspections throughout the first year of installation, especially after major storm events. The systems are considered full when the sediment level is within one foot of the unit’s top, at which point it must be cleaned out. Removal of sediment can be performed with a sump vac or vactor truck. Some hydrodynamic separator systems may contribute to mosquito breeding if they hold standing water between storms. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Proprietary Devices 9-4 8/23/2010 Refer to manufacturer’s guidelines for inspection and maintenance activities. Catch Basin Inserts Catch basin inserts can be maintenance intensive due to their susceptibility for accumulating trash and debris. Regular maintenance activities include the cleanup and removal of accumulated trash and sediment, while major maintenance activities include replacing filter media (if used) and or repairing/replacing geotextile fabrics. There are a number of proprietary catch basin inserts and proper maintenance procedures should be determined based on manufacturer’s recommendations for the selected catch-basin insert. Cartridge filters Maintenance activities include periodically removing captured trash, debris, and sediment from the vault floor, typically twice per year depending on the accumulation rate, using a sump vac or vactor truck. The media in media filters has to be replaced when it becomes saturated, typically about once every other year, also depending on the pollutant accumulation rate. The manufacturers of these devices typically provide contract operation and maintenance services. All stormwater vaults that contain standing water can become a breeding area for mosquitoes. Manufacturers have developed systems to completely drain the vault, such as a perforated pipe installed in the bottom of the vault that is encased in a filter sock to prevent clogging. Biotreatment Devices Maintenance of biotreatment devices can be provided by the manufacturers and typically consists of routine inspection and hand removal of accumulated trash and debris. As opposed to other proprietary treatment devices, no vactor trucks or mechanical maintenance is needed. Online Resources Table 9-1 provides a list of links to the websites of several proprietary stormwater management controls manufactures current as of January 2009. Note that this is not an exclusive list of the proprietary products that are available. Also check the BMPLA Yellow Pages (www.BMPLA.org). The products listed in Table 9-1 and in the BMPLA Yellow Pages are proprietary and nonproprietary products that are meant to improve or eliminate pollution associated with urban runoff and stormwater. The phrase "Best Management Practice" is a common term used in Federal, State, and local regulations to label these types of products, activities, and services. Usage of the term does not imply that some products, activities, or services are better than others, or that the County of Los Angeles evaluates or decides which product, activity, or service should be listed. The inclusion of vendors, manufacturers, and products on this list in no way represents an endorsement or guarantee of effectiveness as a result of the use of these products, nor for any compliance issues regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please contact the vendor and follow the manufacturers' specifications for preparation, installation, and maintenance of these products. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Proprietary Devices 9-5 8/23/2010 Table 9-1: Proprietary Device Manufacturer Websites Category Device Manufacturer Website Catch Basin Insert Curb Inlet Basket, Grate Inlet Skimmer Suntree Technologies Inc. www.suntreetech.com Catch Basin Insert Ultra- CurbGuard UltraTech International, Inc. www.Stormwater-Products.com Catch Basin Insert Hydro-Kleen Hydro Compliance Management, Inc. www.HydroCompliance.com Catch Basin Insert The Hydro-Cartridge® Advanced Aquatic International, Inc. www.hydro-cartridge.com Catch Basin Insert Streamguard™ Catch Basin Insert B & B Marketing Corp http://www.b-bmarketingcorp.com/streamguard.htm Catch Basin Insert Aqua- Guardian™ Catch Basin Insert Aquashield, Inc. http://aquashieldinc.com/aqua-guardian.htm Catch Basin Insert Ultra-Urban Filter AbTech Industries www.abtechindustries.com Catch Basin Insert FloGard+Plus, PerkFilter™ Percolation Filter KriStar Enterprises, Inc. www.kristar.com Cartridge Filter StormScreen™, StormFilter™ Stormwater 360º http://www.contech- cpi.com/stormwater/products/filtration/stormfilter/15 Hydrodynamic Device BaySaver Separation System BaySaver Inc. www.baysaver.com Hydrodynamic Device V2B1™ Stormwater Treatment System Environment 21, LLC http://www.env21.com/V2B1.html Hydrodynamic Device Aqua-Swirl™ Concentrator Aquashield, Inc. http://www.aquashieldinc.com/aqua-swirl.html Hydrodynamic Device Vortechs™ Stormwater Treatment System Contech Construction Products Inc. http://www.contech- cpi.com/stormwater/products/hydrodynamic_separation/vortechs/72 Hydrodynamic Device Downstream Defender™ Hydro International http://www.hydro-international.biz/stormwater/downstream.php Hydrodynamic Device Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) Unit, Contech Construction Products Inc. http://www.contech-cpi.com/stormwater/products/hydrodynamic_separation/cds/558 Hydrodynamic Device CrystalStream CrystalStream Technologies www.crystalstream.com Proprietary Biotreatment Filterra Americast http://www.americastusa.com/index.php/filterra/ Proprietary Biotreatment StormTreat Systems StormTreat Systems Inc http://www.stormtreat.com/home.htm Note: Web links last accessed in January 2009 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual References 10-1 8/23/2010 10. REFERENCES County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (1991). Design Manual Debris Dams and Basins, Los Angeles County Flood Control District. October, 1979. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2002). Development Planning for Stormwater Management – A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), September 2002. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/NPDES/SUSMP_MANUAL.pdf County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2004). Technical Manual for Stormwater Best Management Practices in the County of Los Angeles, February 2004. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2006). Hydrology Manual. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/services/publications.cfm County of Los Angeles Flood Control District (1982). Design Manual Hydraulic, March 1982. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/services/publications.cfm Geosyntec (2006). Los Angeles County-Wide Structural BMP Prioritization Methodology. Submitted by Heal the Bay and the County and City of Los Angles to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. SWRCB Agreement Number: 03-203-554-0. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/bmpmethod/overview.shtm King County Surface Water Design Manual, 2005. King County, Washington Department of Natural Resources and Parks. January 24, 2005. http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surface-water- design-manual.aspx Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Division of Environmental Services (2000). “Maintaining Your BMP”. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_Builder/Maintenance_Manual/9%20- %20BMP%20Maint%20Ed%20Materials%20and%20Links/maintaining_bmps.pdf Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPP) Fact Sheets (2003). SCVURPP C.3 Guidance Manual. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/guidance_tools.htm State Water Resources Control Board (2006). California Nonpoint Source Encyclopedia. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. [Online] http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/docs/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.pdf Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (2003). California Stormwater Quality Association. http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/ Stormwater Management Manual (2004) City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Portland, Oregon. http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=35117 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual References 10-2 8/23/2010 Strecker, E.; Huber, W.; Heaney, J.; Bodine, D.; Sansalone, J.; Quigley, M.; Leisenring, M.; Pankani, D.; and Thayumanavan, A. (2005). "Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection Issues." Final report to the Water Environment Research Foundation. WERF 02-SW-1. Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. (2002). Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. http://www.vcstormwater.org/documents/programs_planninglanddevelopment/tech-man1- 03.pdf UDFCD, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (1999). Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Denver, CO. http://oldhome.udfcd.org/usdcm/usdcm_orders.htm Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Acknowledgments 11-1 8/23/2010 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Document Preparation Team The following members of the BMP Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Technical Advisory Committee contributed to the formulation of this document: Steve Sheridan – Land Development Division Amir Ibrahim – Land Development Division Steve Burger – Land Development Division Amir Alam – Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division Bill Depoto – Watershed Management Division Joe Gaydosh – Road Maintenance Division Ron Lacayo – Flood Maintenance Division Mitch Miller – Building and Safety Division Tim Smith – Environmental Programs Division Jim Thurow – Design Division Special Acknowledgement Public Works would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for providing technical support in the formulation of this document. Ms. Lisa Austin, P.E. and Marc Leisenring, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants 2566 Overland Avenue, Suite 670 Los Angeles, California 90064 Office: (310) 839-6040 E-mail: laustin@Geosyntec.com/mleisenring@Geosyntec.com A special thank you to Corey Harpole, Newhall Land, who provided funding and moral support in the formulation of this document. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix A: Glossary APPENDIX A GLOSSARY Best Management Practice (BMP): Methods, measures, or practices designed and selected to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to surface waters from point and nonpoint source discharges including storm water. BMPs include structural and nonstructural controls, and operation and maintenance procedures, which can be applied before, during, and/or after pollution producing activities. Bioretention Facility: A facility that utilizes soil infiltration and both woody and herbaceous plants to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Runoff is typically captured and infiltrated over a period of 24 to 48 hours. Capacity: The capacity of a stormwater drainage facility is the flow volume or rate that the facility (e.g., pipe, pond, vault, swale, ditch, drywell, etc.) is designed to safely contain, receive, convey, reduce pollutants from, or infiltrate stormwater to meet a specific performance standard. There are different performance standards for pollution reduction, flow control, conveyance, and destination/ disposal, depending on location. Catch Basin: A structural facility located just below the ground surface, used to collect stormwater runoff for conveyance purposes. Generally located in streets and parking lots, catch basins have grated lids, allowing stormwater from the surface to pass through for collection. Catch basins also include a sumped bottom and submerged outlet pipe (downturned 90 degree elbow, hood, or baffle board) to trap coarse sediment and oils. Check Dam: Small temporary barrier, grade control structure, or dam constructed across a swale, drainage ditch, or area of concentrated flow with the intent to slow or stop runoff. Control Device: A device used to hold back or direct a calculated amount of stormwater to or from a stormwater management facility. Typical control structures include vaults or manholes fitted with baffles, weirs, or orifices. Conveyance: The transport of stormwater from one point to another. Detention Facility: A facility designed to receive and hold stormwater and release it at a slower rate, usually over a number of hours. The full volume of stormwater that enters the facility is eventually released. Detention Tank, Vault, or Oversized Pipe: A structural subsurface facility used to provide flow control for a particular drainage basin. Drainage Basin: A specific area that contributes stormwater runoff to a particular point of interest, such as a stormwater management facility, drainageway, wetland, river, or pipe. Embankment: A long artificial mound of stone or earth; built to hold back water. A-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix A: Glossary Extended Detention Basin: A surface vegetated basin used to provide flow control for a particular drainage basin. Stormwater temporarily fills the extended detention pond during large storm events and is slowly released over a number of hours, reducing peak flow rates. Filter Strip: A gently sloping, densely grassed area used to filter, slow, and infiltrate stormwater. Flow Control Facility: Any structure or drainage device that is designed, constructed, and maintained to collect, retain, infiltrate, or detain surface water runoff during and after a storm event for the purpose of controlling post-development quantity leaving the site. Flow Control: The practice of limiting the release of peak flow rates, flow durations, and volumes from a site. Flow control is intended to protect downstream properties, infrastructure, and natural resources from the increased stormwater runoff flow rates and volumes resulting from development. Hydrodynamic Separation: Flow-through structures with a settling or separation unit to remove sediments and other pollutants in which no outside power source is required, because the energy of the flowing water allows the sediments to efficiently separate. Depending on the type of unit, this separation may be by means of swirl action or indirect filtration. Impervious Surface / Area: A hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Infiltration Trench: A linear excavation, backfilled with gravel, used to filter pollutants and infiltrate stormwater. Infiltration: The percolation of water into the ground. Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP): A balanced approach to pest management which incorporates the many aspects of plant health care in ways that mitigate harmful environmental impacts and protect human health. Landscaping: The vegetation (plantings), topsoil, rocks, and other surface elements associated with stormwater facility design. Open Channel: A fluid passageway which allows part of the fluid to be exposed to the atmosphere. Operations and Maintenance (O&M): The continuing activities required to keep stormwater management facilities and their components functioning in accordance with design objectives. A-2 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix A: Glossary Outfall / Outlet: A location where collected and concentrated water is discharged. Outfalls can include discharge from stormwater management facilities, drainage pipe systems, and constructed open channels. Planter Box: A structural facility filled with topsoil and gravel and planted with vegetation. The planter is completely sealed, and a perforated collection pipe is placed under the soil and gravel, along with an overflow provision, and directed to an acceptable destination point. The stormwater planter receives runoff from impervious surfaces, which is filtered and retained for a period of time. Pollutant: An elemental or physical material that can be mobilized or dissolved by water or air and creates a negative impact to human health and/ or the environment. Pollutants include suspended solids (sediment), heavy metals (such as lead, copper, zinc, and cadmium), nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus), bacteria and viruses, organics (such as oil, grease, hydrocarbons, pesticides, and fertilizers), floatable debris, and increased temperature. Pollutants of Concern: Pollutants that exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: current loadings or historic deposits of the pollutant are impacting the beneficial uses of a receiving water, elevated levels of the pollutant are found in sediments of a receiving water and/or have the potential to bioaccumulate in organisms therein, or the detectable inputs of the pollutant are at concentrations or loads considered potentially toxic to humans and/or flora and fauna. Pollution Reduction: The practice of filtering, retaining, or detaining surface water runoff during and after a storm event for the purpose of maintaining or improving surface and/or groundwater quality. Practicable: Available and capable of being done, after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose. Public Facility: A street, right-of-way, sewer, drainage, stormwater management, or other facility that is either currently owned by the City/County or will be conveyed to the City/County for maintenance responsibility after construction. Retention Facility: A facility designed to receive and hold stormwater runoff. Rather than storing and releasing the entire runoff volume, retention facilities permanently retain a portion of the water on-site, where it infiltrates, evaporates, or is absorbed by surrounding vegetation. In this way, the full volume of stormwater that enters the facility is not released off-site. Roadway: Any paved surface used to carry vehicular traffic (cars/trucks, forklifts, farm machinery, or any other large machinery). Runoff: Stormwater flows across the ground surface during and after a rainfall event. Also simply referred to as stormwater. Stormwater: Water runoff that originates as precipitation on a particular site, basin, or watershed. Also referred to as runoff. A-3 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix A: Glossary A-4 Stormwater Management: The overall culmination of techniques used to reduce pollutants from, detain and/or retain, and provide a destination for stormwater to best preserve or mimic the natural hydrologic cycle, to accomplish goals of reducing combined sewer overflows or basement sewer backups, or to fit within the capacity of existing infrastructure. Surface Conveyance: The transport of stormwater on the ground surface from one point to another. Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Matter suspended in stormwater excluding litter, debris, and other gross solids exceeding 1 millimeter in diameter. Underground Injection Control (UIC): A federal program under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates the injection of water below ground. The intent of the program is to protect groundwater aquifers, primarily those used as a source of drinking water, from contamination. Vegetated Facilities: Stormwater management facilities that rely on plantings to enhance their performance. Plantings can provide wildlife habitat and enhance many facility functions, including infiltration, pollutant removal, water cooling, flow calming, and prevention of erosion. Vegetated Swale: A long and narrow, trapezoidal or semicircular channel, planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses or with a dense mix of grasses. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces is directed through the swale, where it is slowed and in some cases infiltrated, allowing pollutants to settle out. Check dams are often used to create small ponded areas to facilitate infiltration. Water Body: Water bodies include coastal waters, rivers, sloughs, continuous and intermittent streams and seeps, ponds, lakes, aquifers, and wetlands. Watercourse: A channel in which a flow of water occurs, either continuously or intermittently, with some degree of regularity. Watercourses may be either natural or artificial. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets APPENDIX B BMP Sizing Worksheets Dry Extended Detention Basin Worksheet Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C = 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)), Pi Pi = in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P = ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq = ft3 Step 2: Calculate the volume of the active basin 2-1. Calculate basin active volume (includes SUSMP volume + sediment storage volume), Va = 1.05Vwq Va = ft3 Step 3: Determine Detention Basin Location and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints 3-1. Based on site constraints, determine the basin geometry and the storage available by developing an elevation-storage relationship for the basin. For this simple example, assume a trapezoidal geometry for cell 1 (forebay) and cell 2. 3-2. Enter the total surface area of the basin footprint based on site constraints, Atot Atot = ft2 3-3. Enter the length of the basin footprint based on site constraints, Ltot (L:W = 1.5:1 min) Ltot = ft 3-4. Calculate the width of the basin footprint, Wtot = Atot / Ltot Wtot = ft 3-5. Enter interior side slope as length per unit height (min = 3), Z Z = 3-6. Enter desired freeboard depth, dfb (min: 2 ft on-line; 1 ft offline) dfb = ft 3-7. Calculate the length of the active volume surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Lav-tot = Ltot - 2Zdfb Lav-tot = ft 3-8. Calculate the width of the active volume surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Wav-tot = Wtot - 2Zdfb Wav-tot = ft 3-9. Calculate the total active volume surface area including the internal berm and excluding freeboard, Aav-tot = Lav-tot • Wav-tot Aav-tot = ft2 3-10. Enter the width of the internal berm (6 ft min), Wberm Wberm = ft 3-11. Enter the length of the internal berm, Lberm = Wav-tot Lberm = ft 3-12. Calculate the area of the berm, Aberm = Wberm • Lberm Aberm = ft2 3-13. Calculate the SUSMP surface area excluding the internal berm and freeboard, Aav = Aav-tot - Aberm Aav = ft2 B-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 4: Determine Dimensions of Cell 1 4-1. Enter the percent of Va in Cell 1 (25% required), %V1 %V1 = % 4-2. Calculate the active volume of Cell 1, V1 = (Va • %V1)/100 V1 = ft3 4-3. Enter a desired average depth for the active volume of Cell 1, d1 d1 = ft 4-4. Calculate the surface area for the active volume of Cell 1, A1 = V1 / d1 A1 = ft2 4-5. Enter the width of Cell 1, W1 = Wwq-tot = Lberm W1 = ft 4-6. Calculate the length of Cell 1 (Note: inlet and outlet should be configured to maximize the residence time), L1 = A1 / W1 L1 = ft Step 5: Determine Dimensions of Cell 2 5-1. Calculate the active volume of Cell 2, V2 = Va - V1 V2 = ft3 5-2. Calculate the surface area of the active volume of Cell 2, A2 = Aav - A1 A2 = ft2 5-3. Calculate the average depth for the active volume of Cell 2, d2 = V2 / A2 d2 = ft 5-4. Enter the width of Cell 2, W2 = W1 = Wav-tot = Lberm W2 = ft 5-5. Calculate the length of Cell 2, L2 = A2 / W2 L2 = ft 5-6. Calculate the width of Cell 2 at half of d2, Wmid2 = W2 - Zd2 Wmid2 = ft 5-7. Calculate the length of Cell 2 at half of d2, Lmid2 = W2 - Zd2 Lmid2 = ft 5-8. Verify that the length-to-width ratio of Cell 2 at half of d2 is at least 1.5:1 with ≥ 2:1 preferred. If the length-to-width ratio is less than 1.5:1, modify input parameters until a ratio of at least 1.5:1 is achieved. If the input parameters cannot be modified as a result of site constraints, another site for the basin should be chosen, LWmid2 = Lmid2 / Wmid2 LWmid2 = Step 6: Ensure Design Requirements and Site Constraints are Achieved 6-1. Check design requirements and site constraints. Modify design geometry until requirements are met. If the chosen site for the basin is inadequate to meet the design requirements, choose a new location or alternative treatment BMP. Step 7: Size Outlet Structure 7-1. Refer to Appendix C for pond outlet structure sizing methodologies and examples. The total drawdown time for the basin should be 36-48 hours. The outlet structure shall be designed to release the bottom 50% of the detention volume (half-full to empty) over 24-32 hours, and the top half (full to half-full) in 12-16 hours. A primary overflow should be sized to pass the peak flow rate from the developed capital design storm. B-2 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 8: Determine Emergency Spillway Requirements 8-1. For online basins, an emergency overflow spillway should be sized to pass the capital design storm in order to prevent overtopping of the walls or berms in the event that a blockage of the riser occurs. For offline basins, an emergency spillway or riser should be sized to pass the SUSMP storm. For sites where the emergency spillway discharges to a steep slope, an emergency overflow riser, in addition to the spillway should be provided. B-3 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Dry Extended Detention Basin Design Example Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume For this design example, a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area is considered. Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = 10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C = 0.59 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended)), Pi Pi = 1.2 in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P = 0.10 ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq = 25,700 ft3 Step 2: Calculate Volume of the Active Basin and the Forebay Basin Step 2: Calculate the design volume of the active basin 2-1. Calculate basin active design volume (includes SUSMP + sediment storage volume), Va = 1.05Vwq Va = 26,985 ft3 Step 3: Determine Detention Basin Location and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints The detention basin in this example has an internal berm separating the forebay (Cell 1) and the main basin (Cell 2). The internal berm elevation is 2 ft below the elevation of the SUSMP volume within the entire basin. The berm length is equal to the width of the basin when filled to the active design volume. Step 3: Determine Detention Basin Location and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints 3-1. Based on site constraints, determine the basin geometry and the storage available by developing an elevation-storage relationship for the basin. For this simple example, assume a trapezoidal geometry for cell 1 (forebay) and cell 2. 3-2. Enter the total surface area of the basin footprint based on site constraints, Atot Atot = 11,000 ft2 3-3. Enter the length of the basin footprint based on site constraints, Ltot (L:W = 1.5:1 min) Ltot = 200 ft 3-4. Calculate the width of the basin footprint, Wtot = Atot / Ltot Wtot = 55 ft 3-5. Enter interior side slope as length per unit height (min = 3), Z Z = 3 B-4 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 3: Determine Detention Basin Location and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints 3-6. Enter desired freeboard depth, dfb (min: 2 ft on-line; 1 ft offline) dfb = 2 ft 3-7. Calculate the length of the active volume surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Lav-tot = Ltot - 2Zdfb Lav-tot = 188 ft 3-8. Calculate the width of the active volume surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Wav-tot = Wtot - 2Zdfb Wav-tot = 43 ft 3-9. Calculate the total active volume surface area including the internal berm and excluding freeboard, Aav-tot = Lav-tot • Wav-tot Aav-tot = 8,084 ft2 3-10. Enter the width of the internal berm (6 ft min), Wberm Wberm = 6 ft 3-11. Enter the length of the internal berm, Lberm = Wav-tot Lberm = 43 ft 3-12. Calculate the area of the berm, Aberm = Wberm • Lberm Aberm = 258 ft2 3-13. Calculate the SUSMP surface area excluding the internal berm and freeboard, Aav = Aav-tot - Aberm Aav = 7,826 ft2 Step 4: Calculate Dimensions of Cell 1 Calculate the dimensions of the forebay (Cell 1) based on the active design volume for Cell 1 (25% of Va) and a desired average depth, d1. The width of the forebay, W1, is equivalent to the length of the berm, Lberm, and the width of Cell 2, W2. Step 4: Determine Dimensions of Cell 1 4-1. Enter the percent of Va in Cell 1 (25% required), %V1 %V1 = 25 % 4-2. Calculate the active volume of Cell 1 (including sediment storage), V1 = (Va • %V1)/100 V1 = 6,746 ft3 4-3. Enter a desired average depth for the active volume of Cell 1, d1 d1 = 5 ft 4-4. Calculate the surface area for the active volume of Cell 1, A1 = V1 / d1 A1 = 1,349 ft2 4-5. Enter the width of Cell 1, W1 = Wwq-tot = Lberm W1 = 43 ft 4-6. Calculate the length of Cell 1 (Note: inlet and outlet should be configured to maximize the residence time), L1 = A1 / W1 L1 = 31 ft Step 5: Calculate the Dimensions of Cell 2 Calculate the dimensions of the main basin (Cell 2) based on the active design volume for Cell 2 and a desired average depth, d2. A calculation of the length, Lmid2, and width, Wmid2, at half basin depth, d2, is conducted in order to verify that the length-to-width ratio at half d2 is greater than 1.5:1. B-5 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 5: Calculate the dimensions of Cell 2 5-1. Calculate the active volume of Cell 2, V2 = Va - V1 V2 = 20,239 ft3 5-2. Calculate the surface area of the active volume of Cell 2, A2 = Aav - A1 A2 = 6,477 ft2 5-3. Calculate the average depth of the active volume of Cell 2, d2 = V2 / A2 d2 = 3 ft 5-4. Enter the width of Cell 2, W2 = W1 = Wav-tot = Lberm W2 = 43 ft 5-5. Calculate the length of Cell 2, L2 = A2 / W2 L2 = 151 ft 5-6. Calculate the width of Cell 2 at half of d2, Wmid2 = W2 - Zd2 Wmid2 = 34 ft 5-7. Calculate the length of Cell 2 at half of d2, Lmid2 = W2 - Zd2 Lmid2 = 52 ft 5-8. Verify that the length-to-width ratio of Cell 2 at half of d2 is at least 1.5:1 with ≥ 2:1 preferred. If the length-to-width ratio is less than 1.5:1, modify input parameters until a ratio of at least 1.5:1 is achieved. If the input parameters cannot be modified as a result of site constraints, another site for the basin should be chosen, LWmid2 = Lmid2 / Wmid2 LWmid2 = 1.6 Step 6: Ensure Design Requirements and Site Constraints are Achieved Check design requirements and site constraints. Modify design geometry until requirements are met. If the chosen site for the basin is inadequate to meet the design requirements, choose a new location or an alternative treatment BMP. Step 7: Size Outlet Structure Refer to Appendix C for basin outlet structure sizing methodologies and examples. The total drawdown time for the basin should be 36-48 hours. The outlet structure shall be designed to release the bottom 50% of the detention volume (half-full to empty) over 24-32 hours, and the top half (full to half-full) in 12-16 hours. A primary overflow should be sized to pass the peak flow rate from the developed capital design storm. Step 8: Determine Emergency Spillway Requirements For online basins, an emergency overflow spillway should be sized to pass the capital design storm in order to prevent overtopping of the walls or berms in the event that a blockage of the riser occurs. For offline basins, an emergency spillway or riser should be sized to pass the SUSMP storm. For sites where the emergency spillway discharges to a steep slope, an emergency overflow riser, in addition to the spillway should be provided. B-6 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Vegetated Swale Worksheet Step 1: Determine SUSMP flow 1-1. Enter drainage area, A (acres) A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp (eg. 60% = 0.60) Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9 • Imp + 0.05 C = 1-4. Enter design rainfall intensity, i (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for sizing methods for flow-based controls) i = in/hr 1-5. Calculate SUSMP flow, Qwq = C•i•A Qwq = cfs Step 2: Calculate swale bottom width 2-1. Enter Manning's roughness coefficient for shallow flow conditions (use 0.2), nwq nwq = 2-2. Enter expected vegetation height, yg yg = ft 2-3. Calculate design flow depth, y = 2/3yg (0.17 for mowed turf) y = ft 2-4. Enter longitudinal slope (along direction of flow), sf sf = ft/ft 2-5. Calculate bottom width of swale, b = Qwqnwq / 1.49y1.67sf0.5 b = ft 2-6. If b is between 2 and 10 feet, go to Step 3 2-7. If b is less than 2 ft, assume b = 2 ft and recalculate flow depth, y = (Qwqnwq / 2.98sf0.5)0.6 y = ft 2-8. If b is greater than 10 ft, one of the following design adjustments must be made: 1) increase the longitudinal slope to a maximum of 0.06 ft/ft (check dams may be used to achieve this), and repeat steps 2-3 to 2-5 above. 2) increase the design flow depth to a maximum of 4 in (0.33 ft) and repeat steps 2-2 to 2-5 above. 3) include a flow splitter longitudinally along the swale bottom (Figure 3-1) that extends at least three-quarters of the swale length (beginning at the inlet). Step 3: Determine design flow velocity 3-1. Enter side slope length per unit height (e.g. 3 if side slope are 3H :1V), Z Z = 3-2. Calculate the cross-sectional area of flow at design depth, Awq = b·y + Z·y2 Awq = ft2 3-3. Calculate design flow velocity, Vwq = Qwq / Awq Vwq = ft/s B-7 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 4: Calculate swale length 4-1. Enter target residence time (10 minutes minimum) tHR = s 4-2. Calculate swale length, L = 60tHRVwq L = ft 4-3. If L is too long for the site, proceed to Step 5 to adjust the swale layout 4-4. If L is greater than 100 ft and will fit within the constraints of the site skip to Step 6 4-5. If L is less than 100 ft, increase the length to a minimum of 100 ft leaving the bottom width unchanged, skip to Step 6 Step 5: Adjust swale layout to fit within site constraints 5-1. Choose a reduced swale length, Lf Lf = ft 5-2. Recalculate flow velocity, Vwq = Lf / (60tHR) Vwq = ft/s 5-3. Recalculate cross-sectional area, Awq = Qwq / Vwq Awq = ft2 5-4. Calculate an increased bottom width bf = Q / (Vwqy) bf = ft 5-5. Recalculate longitudinal slope, sf = [Qwqnwq / (1.49Awqy2/3)]2 sf = % 5-6. If sf is between 1.5% and 6%, the swale design is acceptable for water quality, proceed to Step 6 5-7. If sf is between 1% and 1.5%, the swale design is acceptable for water quality with underdrains (see design requirements). Proceed to Step 6. 2. If longitudinal slopes are less than 1.5% and the soils are poorly drained (e.g., silts and clays), then underdrains shall be provided. A soils report to verify soils properties shall be provided for swales less than 1.5%. 5-8. If sf is <1%, the swale design is unacceptable. Consider subdividing drainage area and repeat all above steps, or choose a different BMP for the site. Step 6: Provide conveyance capacity for flows higher than Qwq (if swale is on-line) 6-1. If the swale already includes a high-flow bypass to convey flows higher than the SUSMP flow rate, skip this step and verify that all parameters meet design requirements to complete sizing 6-2. If swale does not include a high-flow bypass, check the swale size for capital storm peak flow conveyance (Refer to Design Manual Hydraulic, Section C, “Criteria for Hydraulic Design: Open Channels". Calculate the capital peak flow velocity, Vp Vp = ft/s 6-3. If Vp > 3.0 feet per second, return to Step 2 and increase the bottom width or flatten the longitudinal slope as necessary to reduce the capital storm peak flow velocity to 3.0 feet per second or less. If the longitudinal slope is flattened, the swale bottom width must be recalculated (Step 2) and must meet all design criteria. B-8 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Vegetated Swale Design Example Step 1: Determine SUSMP Flow For this design example, a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area is considered. Flow-based sizing Method 1 as described in A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) is assumed. Therefore, the design intensity is 0.2 in/hr. Step 1: Determine SUSMP flow 1-1. Enter drainage area, A (acres) A =10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp =0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9 • Imp + 0.05 C =0.59 1-4. Enter design rainfall intensity, i (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for sizing methods for flow- based controls) i =0.2 in/hr 1-5. Calculate SUSMP flow, Qwq = C•i•A Qwq = 1.18 cfs Step 2: Calculate Swale Bottom Width The swale bottom width is calculated based on Manning's equation. The grass height in the swale will be maintained at 4-inches. Therefore, the design depth is assumed to be 2/3 of 4 inches, or 2.7 inches (0.22 ft). The default Manning's roughness coefficient is assumed appropriate for expected vegetation density and design depth. Step 2: Calculate swale bottom width 2-1. Enter Manning's roughness coefficient for shallow flow conditions (0.2 typical), nwq nwq =0.2 2-2. Enter expected vegetation height, yg yg =0.5 ft 2-3. Calculate design flow depth, y = 2/3yg (0.33 ft for mowed turf) y =0.33 ft 2-4. Enter longitudinal slope (along direction of flow), sf sf =0.04 ft/ft 2-5. Calculate bottom width of swale, b = Qwqnwq / 1.49y1.67sf0.5 b =5.0 ft 2-6. If b is between 2 and 10 feet, go to Step 3 Step 3: Determine Design Flow Velocity The side slopes are will be designed as 3H :1V, so Z = 3. B-9 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 3: Determine design flow velocity 3-1. Enter side slope length per unit height (e.g. 3 if side slope are 3H :1V), Z Z =3 3-2. Calculate the cross-sectional area of flow at design depth, Awq = b•y + Z•y2 Awq =2.0 ft2 3-3. Calculate design flow velocity, Vwq = Qwq / Awq Vwq =0.6 ft/s Step 4: Calculate Swale Length Using the design flow velocity and a minimum residence time of 10 minutes, the length of the swale is calculated as follows. The swale length must be a minimum of 100 ft. Step 4: Calculate swale length 4-1. Enter target residence time (10 minutes minimum), tHR tHR =10 min 4-2. Calculate swale length, L = 60·tHR·Vwq L =360 ft 4-3. If L is too long for the site, proceed to step 5 to adjust the swale layout 4-4. If L is greater than 100 ft and will fit within the constraints of the site skip to Step 6 4-5. If L is less than 100 ft, increase the length to a minimum of 100 ft leaving the bottom width unchanged, skip to Step 6 Site constraints only allow a swale length of 250 feet. Therefore proceed to Step 5 to adjust the swale length. Step 5: Adjust Swale Layout to Fit Within Site Constraints To adjust swale length to 250 feet, the bottom width needs to be increased (up to a maximum of 16 ft if a divider is provided). Step 5: Adjust swale layout to fit within site constraints 5-1. Choose a reduced swale length, Lf Lf = 250 ft 5-2. Recalculate flow velocity, Vwq = Lf / (60tHR) Vwq = 0.42 ft/s 5-3. Recalculate cross-sectional area, Awq = Qwq / Vwq Awq = 2.8 ft2 5-4. Calculate an increased bottom width bf = Qwq / (Vwq•y) bf = 8.5 ft 5-5. Recalculate longitudinal slope, sf = [Qwqnwq / (1.49Awqy2/3)]2 sf = 1.4 % 5-6. If sf is between 1.0% and 6%, the swale design is acceptable for water quality, proceed to Step 6 Since longitudinal slopes are less than 1.5%, if the soils are poorly drained (e.g., silts and clays), then an underdrains should be provided. A soils report to verify soils properties should be provided for swales less than 1.5%. B-10 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 6: Provide Conveyance Capacity for Flows Higher than Qwq The swale will be offline such that all flows greater than Qwq will be bypassed B-11 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Filter Strip Worksheet Step 1: Calculate the design flow 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.9•Imp + 0.05) C = 1-4. Enter design rainfall intensity, i (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for flow-based controls sizing Method 1) i = in/hr 1-5. Calculate SUSMP flow, Qwq = CiA Qwq = cfs Step 2: Calculate the design flow depth 2-1. Enter filter strip longitudinal slope, s s = 2-2. Enter Manning roughness coefficient (0.25-.3), nwq nwq = 2-3. Enter width of impervious surface contributing area, W W = ft 2-4. Calculate average depth of water using Manning eq, df = 12[Qwqnwq/1.49Ws0.5]0.6 df = in 2-5. If df > 1", go step 2-1 and decrease the slope 2-6. If the slope cannot be changed due to construction constraints, go to step 2-3 and increase the width perpendicular to flow Step 3: Calculate the design velocity 3-1. Calculate design flow velocity, Vwq = Qwq/dfW Vwq = ft/s 3-2. If the Vwq >1 ft/s go to step 2-1 and decrease the slope Step 4: Calculate the length of the filter strip 4-1. Enter residence time (10 minutes, min.), t t = min 4-2. Calculate length of the filter strip, L = 60tVwq L = ft 4-3. If L < 4 ft, go to step 2-1 and increase the slope B-12 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Filter Strip Design Example Step 1: Calculate the Design Flow For this design example, a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area is considered. Flow-based sizing Method 1, as described in A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended), is assumed. Therefore, the design rainfall intensity is assumed to be 0.2 in. Step 1: Calculate the design flow 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A =10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp =0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.9 x Imp + 0.05) C =0.59 1-4. Enter design rainfall intensity, i (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for flow-based controls sizing Method 1) i =0.2 in/hr 1-5. Calculate SUSMP flow, Qwq = CiA Qwq = 1.18 cfs Step 2: Calculate the Design Flow Depth Based on the site constraints we choose the width of the filter strip 150 ft and the filter strip longitudinal slope as 3%. The design water depth should not exceed 1 inch. Step 2: Calculate the design flow depth 2-1. Enter filter strip longitudinal slope , s s =0.03 2-2. Enter Manning roughness coefficient (0.25-.3), nwq nwq =0.27 2-3. Enter width of impervious surface contributing area , W W =150 ft 2-4. Calculate average depth of water using Manning eq, dt = 12[Qwqnwq/1.49Ws0.5]0.6 df =0.67 in 2-5. If df > 1" , go step 2-1 and decrease the slope 2-6. If the slope cannot be changed due to construction constraints, go to step 2-3 and increase the width perpendicular to flow Step 3: Calculate the Design Velocity The designed flow velocity should not exceed 1 foot/second across the filter strip. Step 3: Calculate the design velocity 3-1. Calculate design flow velocity, Vwq = Qwq/dfW Vwq =0.1401 ft/s 3-2. If the design flow velocity is higher than 1ft/s go to step 2-1 and decrease the slope B-13 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 4: Calculate the Length of the Filter Strip The filter strip should be at least 4 feet long (in the direction of flow) and accommodate a minimum residence time of 10 minutes to provide adequate water quality treatment. Step 4: Calculate the length of the filter strip 4-1. Enter residence time(10 minutes, min.), t t =10 min 4-2. Calculate length of the filter strip, L = 60tVwq L =84.1 ft 4-3. If L < 4 ft, go to step 2-1 and increase the slope B-14 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Bioretention Area Worksheet Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C = 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi = in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P = ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq=43560•P*A*C VWQ = ft3 Step 2: Pretreatment 2-1. If required please go to filter strips worksheet Step 3: Calculate bioretention area 3-1. Enter thickness of planting mix (min. 24"), l l = in 3-2. Enter storage depth (max. 18”) above the filter, d d = in 3-3. Enter design percolation rate (with an underdrain, assume 0.375"/hr min.; without an underdrain, use measured percolation rate x 0.25), Pdesign Pdesign = in/hr 3-4. Enter drawdown time (48 hrs, max.), t t = hr 3-5. Calculate bioretention area necessary, l))(d(t)(P )(l)(V /design designA +=12 Asf = ft2 Step 4: Calculate underdrain system or size gravel layer 4-1. Calculated filtered flow rate to be conveyed by the longitudinal drain pipe, Qf = Pdesign •Asf/43200 (note: for this example, step 4-1 is equivalent to step 5-1 of the Sand Filter Worksheet). Qf = cfs 4-2. Please follow steps 5-2 through 5-7 of the Sand Filter Worksheet to calculate the underdrain system capacity. 4-3. If no underdrain, size a gravel layer. Calculate the maximum depth of runoff that can be infiltrated within the required drain time (max. 72 hr), tPdesignd∗=12max dmax = ft 4-4. Choose the gravel drainage layer porosity n (typically n = 4-5. Choose the gravel drainage layer depth (l) such that lnd∗≥max l = ft B-15 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 4: Calculate underdrain system or size gravel layer (cont) 4-6. Choose the fill time T (time to fill bioretention area with water) (hrs) [use 2 hours for most designs] T = hrs 4-6. Calculate the infiltrating surface area (filter bottom area) required: nlTPdesign designVA+= 12 A = ft2 Step 5: Provide Conveyance Capacity for Flows Higher than Qwq 5-1. An emergency overflow must still be provided in the event that the surface area becomes clogged or the bioretention area is placed online. B-16 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Bioretention Area Design Example Bioretention areas have several components that allow the pretreatment, spreading, filtration, collection and discharge of the incoming flows. Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume For this design example, a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area is considered. Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A =10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp =0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C =0.59 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi =1.2 in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P =0.10 ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq =25,700 ft3 Step 2: Pretreatment The bioretention areas that collect runoff from residential roofs, sidewalks, driveways, or other “cleaner” surfaces do not require pretreatment. If the runoff originates from locations other than “clean” surfaces, then pretreatment is required. Please refer to Filter Strips Worksheet for detailed calculations. Step 3: Determine bioretention area footprint area A bioretention area is designed with two components: (1) temporary storage reservoir to store runoff, and (2) a plant mix filter bed (planting soil mixed with sand content = 70%) through which the stored runoff must percolate to obtain treatment. The simple sizing method does not route flows through the filter which would allow a more accurate sizing of the facility. The size of the filter is determined based on the simple assumption that inflow is immediately discharged through the filter at a rate not less than 0.375 in/hr which is equivalent to drawing down the maximum 18” storage depth over 48 hours (0.375 in/hr = 18 in/48 hr). B-17 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 3: Calculate bioretention footprint area 3-1. Enter thickness of planting mix (min. 24"), l l =24 in 3-2. Enter storage depth (18” max.) above the filter, d d =18 in 3-3. Enter percolation rate (0.375"/hr min.), Pdesign Pdesign =0.375 in/hr 3-4. Enter drawdown time (48 hrs max.), t t =48 hr 3-5. Calculate bioretention area, l))(d(t)(P )(l)(V /design designA +=12 Asf =9,790 ft2 Step 4: Calculate Filter Longitudinal Underdrain Collection Pipe If an underdrain is required, please see the sand filter underdrain calculation. All underdrain pipes must be 6 inches or greater to facilitate cleaning. Step 4: Calculate filter underdrain system 4-1. Calculated filtered flow rate to be conveyed by the longitudinal drain pipe, Qf = Pdesign •Asf/43200 (note: for this example, step 4-1 is equivalent to step 5-1 of the Sand Filter Worksheet. Qf =0.1 cfs 4-2. Please follow steps 5-2 through 5-7 of the Sand Filter Worksheet to calculate the underdrain system capacity. Step 5: Provide Conveyance Capacity for Flows Higher than QWQ Provide conveyance capacity for flows higher than Qwq, SUSMP flow rate, to bypass the bioretention area. An emergency overflow must also be provided in the event that the surface area becomes clogged or the bioretention area is placed online. B-18 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Infiltration Facilities Worksheet Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C = 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi = in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P = ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq = ft3 Step 2: Calculate design infiltration rate 2-1. Enter measured soil percolation rate (0.5 in/hr min.), Pmeasured Pmeasured = in/hr 2-2. Enter correction factor for testing (0.5), Ft Ft = 2-3. Enter correction factor for plugging, (0.7 loams-sandy loams, 0.8 fine-loamy sands, 0.9 medium sands, 1.0 coarse sands- cobbles), Fp Fp = 2-4. Calculate Fgeometry (must be between 0.25 and 1.0), Fgeometry = 4 D/W + 0.05 , where D=depth from the bottom of the facility to the maximum wet-season water table elevation or nearest impervious layer, whichever is less (ft) and W = width of the facility (ft) Fgeometry = 2-5. Calculate the design percolation rate, Pdesign = Pmeasured FtFpFgeometry Pdesign = in/hr Step 3: Determine facility size 3-1. Enter drawdown time (72 hrs max.), td td = hrs 3-2. Calculate max.depth of runoff that can be infiltrated within the td, dmax = Pdesign td/12 dmax = ft 3-3. For basins, select ponding depth dp such that dp ≤ dmax dp = ft 3-4. For trenches, enter trench fill aggregate porosity, nt nt= 3-5. Enter depth of trench fill, dt dt = in 3-5. Select trench ponding depth dp such that dp ≤ dmax - ntdt dp= ft Step 4: Determine infiltrating surface area (filter bottom area) 4-1. Enter the time to fill infiltration basin or trench with water (Use 2 hours for most designs), T T = hrs 4-2. Calculate infiltrating surface area for infiltration basin: Ab = Vwq/(T Pdesign /12+dp) Ab = ft2 B-19 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets 4-3. Calculate infiltrating surface area for infiltration trenches: At = Vwq/(T Pdesign /12+ntdt+dp) At = ft2 Step 5: Provide conveyance capacity for filter clogging 5-1.The infiltration facility should be placed off-line, but an emergency overflow must still be provided in the event the filter becomes clogged. B-20 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Infiltration Facility Design Example Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume For this design example, an infiltration basin and trench are sized for a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area. Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A =10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp =0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C =0.59 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi =1.2 in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P =0.10 ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq =25,700 ft3 Step 2: Calculate Design Infiltration Rate Infiltration facilities require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr. If the rate exceeds 2.4 in/hr as in this example, then the runoff should be fully treated in an upstream BMP prior to infiltration to protect the groundwater quality. Step 2: Calculate design infiltration rate 2-1. Enter measured soil percolation rate (0.5 in/hr min.), Pmeasured Pmeasured =4 in/hr 2-2. Enter correction factor for testing (0.5), Ft Ft =0.5 ft 2-3. Enter correction factor for plugging, (0.7 loams-sandy loams, 0.8 fine-loamy sands, 0.9 medium sands, 1.0 coarse sands- cobbles), Fp Fp =0.8 2-4. Calculate Fgeometry (must be between 0.25 and 1.0), Fgeometry = 4 D/W + 0.05 , where D=depth from the bottom of the facility to the maximum wet-season water table elevation or nearest impervious layer, whichever is less (ft) and W = width of the facility (ft) Fgeometry =0.25 2-5. Calculate the design percolation rate, Pdesign = Pmeasured FtFpFgeometry Pdesign =0.4 in/hr Step 3: Determine Facility Size The simple sizing method requires that the SUSMP volume must be completely infiltrated within 72 hours. The size of the infiltration trench is determined based on the simple assumption that inflow is immediately discharged through the trench. B-21 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 3: Determine facility size 3-1. Enter drawdown time (72 hrs max.), td td =72 hrs 3-2. Calculate max. depth of runoff that can be infiltrated within the td, dmax = Pdesign td/12 dmax=2.4 ft 3-3. Enter trench fill aggregate porosity, nt nt=0.32 3-4. Enter depth of trench fill, dt dt =4 ft 3-5. Select trench ponding depth dp such that dp ≤ dmax - ntdt dp=1.1 ft Step 4: Determine Infiltrating Surface Area The size of the infiltrating surface is determined by assuming the SUSMP volume will fill the available ponding depth (plus the void spaces of the computed porosity (usually about 32%) of the gravel in the trench). Step 4: Determine infiltrating surface area (filter bottom area) 4-1. Enter the time to fill infiltration basin or trench with water (Use 2 hours for most designs), T T =2 hrs 4-2. Calculate infiltrating surface area for infiltration basin: Ab = Vwq/[(T Pdesign /12)+dp] Ab =10,420 ft2 4-3. Calculate infiltrating surface area for infiltration trenches: At = Vwq/(T Pdesign /12+ntdt+dp) At =10,500 ft2 Step 5: Provide Conveyance Capacity for Flows Higher than Qwq 5-1.The infiltration facility should be placed off-line, but an emergency overflow for flows greater than the SUSMP peak flow rate, Qwq, must still be provided in the event the filter becomes clogged. B-22 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Stormwater Wetland Worksheet Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C = 1-4. Enter the design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi = in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P = ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq = ft3 Step 2: Determine Wetland Location, Wetland Type and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints 2-1. Based on site constraints, determine the wetland geometry and the storage available by developing an elevation-storage relationship for the wetland. For this simple example, assume a trapezoidal geometry for cell 1 (forebay) and cell 2. The wetland does not have extended detention. 2-2. Enter the total surface area of the wetland footprint based on site constraints, Atot Atot = ft2 2-3. Enter the length of the wetland footprint based on site constraints, Ltot Ltot = ft 2-4. Calculate the width of the wetland footprint, Wtot = Atot / Ltot Wtot = ft 2-5. Enter interior side slope as length per unit height (min = 3), Z Z = 2-6. Enter desired freeboard depth, dfb dfb = ft 2-7. Calculate the length of the SUSMP surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Lwq-tot = Ltot - 2Zdfb Lwq-tot = ft 2-8. Calculate the width of the SUSMP surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Wwq-tot = Wtot - 2Zdfb Wwq-tot = ft 2-9. Calculate the total SUSMP surface area including the internal berm and excluding freeboard, Awq-tot = Lwq-tot • Wwq-tot Awq-tot = ft2 2-10. Enter the width of the internal berm (6 ft min), Wberm Wberm = ft 2-11. Enter the length of the internal berm, Lberm = Wwq-tot Lberm = ft 2-12. Calculate the area of the berm, Aberm = Wberm • Lberm Aberm = ft2 2-13. Calculate the SUSMP volume surface area excluding the internal berm and freeboard, Awq = Awq-tot - Aberm Awq = ft2 B-23 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 3: Determine Dimensions of Cell 1 (forebay) 3-1. Enter the percent of Vwq in Cell 1 (10-20% required), %V1 %V1 = % 3-2. Calculate the active volume of Cell 1 (includes SUSMP + sediment storage volume), V1 = (Vwq • %V1)/100 V1 = ft3 3-3. Enter desired average depth of Cell 1 (5-9 ft including sediment storage of 1 ft), d1 d1 = ft 3-4. Calculate the surface area for the SUSMP volume of Cell 1, A1 = V1 / d1 A1 = ft2 3-5. Enter the width of Cell 1, W1 = Wav-tot = Lberm W1 = ft 3-6. Calculate the length of Cell 1 (Note: inlet and outlet should be configured to maximize the residence time), L1 = A1 / W1 L1 = ft Step 4: Determine Dimensions of Cell 2 4-1. Calculate the active volume of Cell 2, V2 = Vwq - V1 V2 = ft3 4-2. Calculate surface area of Cell 2, A2 = Awq - A1 A2 = ft2 4-3. Enter width of Cell 2, W2 = W1 = Wwq-tot = Lberm W2 = ft 4-4. Calculate top length of Cell 2, L2 = A2 / W2 L2 = ft 4-5. Verify that the length-to-width ratio of Cell 2 is at least 3:1 with ≥ 4:1 preferred. If the length-to-width ratio is less than 3:1, modify input parameters until a ratio of at least 3:1 is achieved. If the input parameters cannot be modified as a result of site constraints, another site for the pond should be chosen, LW2 = L2 / W2 LW2 = 4-6. Enter percent of surface area of very shallow zone, %Avs (see recommended distribution of depths, pg. 7-3) %Avs = % 4-7. Calculate very shallow zone surface area, Avs = (A2 • %Avs)/100 Avs = ft2 4-8. Enter average depth of very shallow zone (0.1 - 1 ft), dvs dvs = ft 4-9. Calculate volume of very shallow zone, Vvs = Avs • dvs Vvs = ft3 4-10. Enter width of very shallow zone, Wvs = W2 Wvs = ft 4-11. Calculate length of very shallow zone, Lvs = Avs / Wvs Lvs = ft 4-12. Enter percent of surface area of shallow zone, %As %As = % 4-13. Calculate surface area of shallow zone, As = (A2 • %As)/100 As = ft2 4-14. Enter average depth of shallow zone (1 - 3 ft), ds ds = ft 4-15. Calculate volume of shallow zone, Vs = As • ds Vs = ft3 4-16. Enter width of shallow zone, Ws = W2 Ws = ft 4-17. Calculate length of shallow zone, Ls = As / Ws Ls = ft 4-18. Calculate surface area of deep zone, Adeep = A2 - Avs - As Adeep = ft2 4-19. Calculate volume of deep zone, Vdeep = V2 - Vvs - Vs Vdeep = ft3 B-24 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 4: Determine Dimensions of Cell 2 4-20. Calculate average depth of deep zone (3 - 5 ft), ddeep = Vdeep / Adeep ddeep = ft 4-21. Enter width of deep zone, Wdeep = W2 Wdeep = ft 4-22. Calculate length of deep zone, Ldeep = Adeep / Wdeeo Ldeep = ft Step 5: Ensure Design Requirements and Site Constraints are Achieved 5-1. Check design requirements and site constraints. Modify design geometry until requirements are met. If the chosen site for the wetland is inadequate to meet the design requirements, choose a new location for the wetland or select an alternative treatment BMP. Step 6: Size Outlet Structure 6-1. Please refer to Appendix C for wetland outlet structure sizing methodologies and examples. The wetland outlet pipe shall be sized, at a minimum, to pass flows greater than the SUSMP peak flow for off-line basins or flow from the capital storm for on-line basins. Step 7: Determine Emergency Spillway Requirements 7-1. For online basins, an emergency overflow spillway should be sized to pass the capital design storm to prevent overtopping of the walls or berms in the event that a blockage of the riser occurs. For offline basins, an emergency spillway or riser should be sized to pass the SUSMP storm. For sites where the emergency spillway discharges to a steep slope, an emergency overflow riser, in addition to the spillway should be provided. B-25 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Stormwater Wetland Design Example Wetland siting requires the following considerations prior to construction: (1) availability of base flow – stormwater wetlands require a regular source of water to support wetland biota, (2) slope stability – stormwater wetlands are not permitted near steep slope hazard areas, (3) surface space availability – large footprint area is required, and (4) compatibility with flood control – basins must not interfere with flood control functions of existing conveyance and detention structures. The wetland in this example does not have extended detention. An internal berm separates the forebay (Cell 1) and the main basin (Cell 2). The berm is at the elevation of the active volume (SUSMP plus sediment storage volume) design surface which is also the permanent wetpool elevation. Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume For this design example, a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area is considered. Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A =10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp =0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C =0.59 1-4. Enter the design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi =1.20 in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P =0.10 ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq =25,700 ft3 Step 2: Determine Pond Location and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints A total footprint area and total length available for the wetland is provided. This step calculates the total active volume surface area which is equivalent to the permanent wetpool surface area. This step also calculates the dimensions of the internal berm. Step 2: Determine Wetland Location, Wetland Type and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints 2-1. Based on site constraints, determine the wetland geometry and the storage available by developing an elevation-storage relationship for the wetland. For this simple example, assume a trapezoidal geometry for cell 1 (forebay) and cell 2. The wetland does not have extended detention. B-26 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 2: Determine Wetland Location, Wetland Type and Preliminary Geometry Based on Site Constraints 2-2. Enter the total surface area of the wetland footprint based on site constraints, Atot Atot =11,000 ft2 2-3. Enter the length of the wetland footprint based on site constraints, Ltot Ltot =200 ft 2-4. Calculate the width of the wetland footprint, Wtot = Atot / Ltot Wtot =55 ft 2-5. Enter interior side slope as length per unit height (min = 3), Z Z =3 2-6. Enter desired freeboard depth, dfb dfb =2 ft 2-7. Calculate the length of the SUSMP surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Lwq-tot = Ltot - 2Zdfb Lwq-tot =188 ft 2-8. Calculate the width of the SUSMP surface area including the internal berm but excluding freeboard, Wwq-tot = Wtot - 2Zdfb Wwq-tot =43 ft 2-9. Calculate the total SUSMP surface area including the internal berm and excluding freeboard, Awq-tot = Lwq-tot • Wwq-tot Awq-tot =8,084 ft2 2-10. Enter the width of the internal berm (6 ft min), Wberm Wberm =6 ft 2-11. Enter the length of the internal berm, Lberm = Wwq-tot Lberm =43 ft 2-12. Calculate the area of the berm, Aberm = Wberm • Lberm Aberm =258 ft2 2-13. Calculate the active volume surface area excluding the internal berm and freeboard, Awq = Awq-tot - Aberm Awq = 7,826 ft2 Step 3: Determine Dimensions of Cell 1 It should be assumed that cell 1 (the forebay) should be 15% of the SUSMP volume, Vwq. Step 3: Determine Dimensions of Cell 1 3-1. Enter the percent of Vwq in Cell 1 (10-20% required), %V1 %V1 =15 % 3-2. Calculate the active volume of Cell 1 (including sediment storage), V1 = (Vwq • %V1)/100 V1 =3,855 ft3 3-3. Enter desired average depth of Cell 1 (5-9 ft including sediment storage of 1 ft), d1 d1 =5 ft 3-4. Calculate the surface area for the SUSMP volume of Cell 1, A1 = V1 / d1 A1 =771 ft2 3-5. Enter the width of Cell 1, W1 = Wav-tot = Lberm W1 = 43 ft 3-6. Calculate the length of Cell 1 (Note: inlet and outlet should be configured to maximize the residence time), L1 = A1 / W1 L1 =18 ft Step 4: Determine Dimensions of Cell 2 Verify that the surface area and length-to-width ratio of Cell 2 meet the design criteria. Calculate volumes, depths and surface areas for the very shallow, shallow and deep zones. B-27 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 4: Determine Dimensions of Cell 2 4-1. Calculate the active volume of Cell 2, V2 = Vwq - V1 V2 =21,845 ft3 4-2. Calculate surface area of Cell 2, A2 = Awq - A1 A2 =7,055 ft2 4-3. Enter width of Cell 2, W2 = W1 = Wwq-tot = Lberm W2 =43 ft 4-4. Calculate top length of Cell 2, L2 = A2 / W2 L2 =164 ft 4-5. Verify that the length-to-width ratio of Cell 2 is at least 3:1 with ≥ 4:1 preferred. If the length-to-width ratio is less than 3:1, modify input parameters until a ratio of at least 3:1 is achieved. If the input parameters cannot be modified as a result of site constraints, another site for the pond should be chosen, LW2 = L2 / W2 LW2 =4 4-6. Enter percent of surface area of very shallow zone, %Avs %Avs =15 ft2 4-7. Calculate very shallow zone surface area, Avs = (A2 • %Avs)/100 Avs =1,058 ft2 4-8. Enter average depth of very shallow zone (0.1 - 1 ft), dvs dvs =1 ft 4-9. Calculate volume of very shallow zone, Vvs = Avs • dvs Vvs =1,058 ft3 4-10. Enter width of very shallow zone, Wvs = W2 Wvs =43 ft 4-11. Calculate length of very shallow zone, Lvs = Avs / Wvs Lvs =25 ft 4-12. Enter percent of surface area of shallow zone, %As %As =55 4-13. Calculate surface area of shallow zone, As = (A2 • %As)/100 As =3,880 ft2 4-14. Enter average depth of shallow zone (1 - 3 ft), ds ds = 3 ft 4-15. Calculate volume of shallow zone, Vs = As • ds Vs =11,641 ft3 4-16. Enter width of shallow zone, Ws = W2 Ws =43 ft 4-17. Calculate length of shallow zone, Ls = As / Ws Ls =90 ft 4-18. Calculate surface area of deep zone, Adeep = A2 - Avs - As Adeep =2,116 ft2 4-19. Calculate volume of deep zone, Vdeep = V2 - Vvs - Vs Vdeep =9,146 ft3 4-20. Calculate average depth of deep zone (3 - 5 ft), ddeep = Vdeep / Adeep ddeep =4 ft 4-21. Enter width of deep zone, Wdeep = W2 Wdeep =43 ft 4-22. Calculate length of deep zone, Ldeep = Adeep / Wdeeo Ldeep =49 ft Step 5: Ensure Design Requirements and Site Conditions are Achieved Check design requirements and site constraints. Modify design geometry until requirements are met. If the chosen site for the wetland is inadequate to meet the design requirements, choose a new location for the wetland or select and alternative treatment BMP. B-28 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 6: Size Outlet Structure Please refer to Appendix C for wetland outlet structure sizing methodologies and examples. The wetland outlet pipe shall be sized, at a minimum, to pass flows greater than the SUSMP peak flow for off-line basins or flow from the capital storm for on-line basins. Step 7: Determine Emergency Spillway Requirements For online basins, an emergency overflow spillway should be sized to pass the capital design storm to prevent overtopping of the walls or berms in the event that a blockage of the riser occurs. For offline basins, an emergency spillway or riser should be sized to pass the SUSMP storm. For sites where the emergency spillway discharges to a steep slope, an emergency overflow riser, in addition to the spillway should be provided. B-29 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Sand Filters Worksheet Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A = acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp = 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C = 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi = in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P = ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq=43560•P*A*C Vwq = ft3 Step 2: Calculate sand filter area 2-1. Enter thickness of sand filter (min. 2 ft, 3 ft preferred), L L = ft 2-2. Enter maximum storage depth (6 feet) above the filter, d d = ft 2-3. Enter routing adjustment factor, R R = 2-4. Calculate average depth of water above the filter, h = d/2 h = ft 2-5. Enter hydraulic conductivity (1"/hr), Ki Ki = in/hr 2-6. Calculate hydraulic conductivity (ft/day), Kday = 2Ki Kday = ft/day 2-7. Calculate hydraulic gradient, i = (h+L)/L i = ft/ft 2-8. Enter drawdown time, t t = day 2-9. Calculate sand filter area, Asf = (VwqRL)/(Kdayt(h+L)) Asf = ft2 Step 3: Determine filter dimensions 3-1. Sand filter area, Asf Asf = ft2 3-2. Enter geometric configuration, LR:W ratio (2:1), LR LR = 3-3. Calculate the width of the sand filter, W W = ft 3-4. Calculate the length of the sand filter, L L = ft 3-5. Calculate rate of filtration, rwq = Kdayi rwq = ft/d/ft2 Step 4: Calculate storage volume 4-1. Enter interior side slopes, 3H:1V(max), Z Z = 4-2. Calculate top length, Lt = L + 2Zd Lt = ft 4-3. Calculate top width, Wt = W +2Zd Wt = ft 4-4. Calculate filter storage volume, Vs = 1/3•d(Asf+At+(AsfAt)0.5) Where At = Lt*Wt Vs = ft3 B-30 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Step 5: Calculate filter longitudinal underdrain collection pipe 5-1. Calculated filtered flow rate, Qf = rwqAsf Qf = cfs 5-2. Enter minimum slope for energy gradient, Se Se = 5-3. Enter Hazen-Williams coefficient for plastic, C C = 5-4. Enter pipe diameter, D D = in 5-5. Calculate pipe hydraulic radius, Rh =D/48 Rh = ft 5-6. Calculate velocity at the outlet of the pipe, Vp= 1.318CRh0.63Se0.54 Vp = ft/s 5-7. Calculate pipe capacity, Qcap =0.25Π(D/12)^2Vp Qcap = cfs Step 6: Provide conveyance capacity for filter clogging 6-1. The sand filters should be placed off-line, but an emergency overflow must still be provided in the event the filter becomes clogged and verify that all parameters meet design requirements to complete sizing. B-31 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets Sand Filter Design Example Step 1: Determine SUSMP Volume For this design example, a 10-acre residential development with a 60% total impervious area is considered. Step 1: Determine SUSMP volume 1-1. Enter drainage area, A A =10 acres 1-2. Enter impervious fraction, Imp Imp =0.60 1-3. Calculate runoff coefficient, C = 0.9•Imp + 0.05 C =0.59 1-4. Enter design rainfall depth of the storm, (see A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, LACDPW, September 2002 (or as amended) for volume-based controls sizing methods), Pi Pi =1.2 in 1-5. Calculate rainfall depth, P = Pi/12 P =0.10 ft 1-6. Calculate SUSMP volume, Vwq = 43560•P*A*C Vwq =25,700 ft3 Step 2: Calculate Sand Filter Area A sand filter is designed with two components: (1) temporary storage reservoir to store runoff, and (2) a sand filter bed through which the stored runoff must percolate getting treatment. The simple sizing method does not rout flows through the filter. The size of the filter is determined based on the simple assumption that inflow is immediately discharged through the filter. The adjustment factor, R, is applied to compensate for the greater filter size resulting from this method. Step 2: Calculate sand filter area 2-1. Enter thickness of sand filter (min. 24" or 2’), l l =2 ft 2-2. Enter storage depth (6’ max.) above the filter, d d =6 ft 2-3. Enter routing adjustment factor, R R =0.7 2-4. Calculate average depth of water above the filter, h = d/2 h =3 ft 2-5. Enter hydraulic conductivity (1"/hr), Ki Ki =1 in/hr 2-6. Calculate hydraulic conductivity (ft/day), Kday = 2Ki Kday =2 ft/day 2-7. Calculate hydraulic gradient, i = (h+l)/l i =2.5 ft/ft 2-8. Enter drawdown time, t t =2 day 2-9. Calculate sand filter area, Asf = (VwqRl)/(Kdayt(h+l)) Asf =1,799 ft2 Step 3: Determine Filter Dimensions Step 3: Determine filter dimensions 3-1. Sand filter area, Asf Asf =1,799 ft2 B-32 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix B: BMP Sizing Worksheets B-33 Step 3: Determine filter dimensions 3-2. Enter geometric configuration, LR:W ratio (2:1 min.), LR LR =2 3-3. Calculate the width of the sand filter, W W =30.0 ft 3-4. Calculate the length of the sand filter, L L =60.0 ft 3-5. Calculate rate of filtration, rwq = Kdayi rwq =5.0 ft/d/ft2 Step 4: Calculate Storage Volume The side slopes are will be designed as 3H:1V, so Z = 3. Step 4: Calculate storage volume 4-1. Enter interior side slopes, 3H:1V(max), Z Z =3 4-2. Calculate top length, Lt = L + 2Zd Lt =96.0 ft 4-3. Calculate top width, Wt = W + 2Zd Wt =66.0 ft 4-4. Calculate filter storage volume, Vs = 1/3•d(Asf+At+(AsfAt)0.5), where At = Lt•Wt Vs =23,018 ft3 Step 5: Calculate Filter Longitudinal Underdrain Collection Pipe All underdrain pipes must be 6 inches or greater to facilitate cleaning. Step 5: Calculate filter longitudinal underdrain collection pipe 5-1. Calculated filtered flow rate, Qf = rwqAsf Qf =0.10 cfs 5-2. Enter minimum slope for energy gradient, Se Se =0.005 5-3. Enter Hazen-Williams coefficient for plastic, C C =140 5-4. Enter pipe diameter, D D =6 in 5-5. Calculate pipe hydraulic radius, Rh =D/48 Rh =0.13 5-6. Calculate velocity at the outlet of the pipe, Vp= 1.318CRh0.63Se0.54 Vp =2.8 ft/s 5-7. Calculate pipe capacity, Qcap =0.25Π(D/12)^2Vp Qcap =0.6 cfs Step 6: Provide Conveyance Capacity for Filter Clogging The sand filters should be placed off-line, but an emergency overflow must still be provided in the event the filter becomes clogged and verify that all parameters meet design requirements to complete sizing. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples APPENDIX C POND OUTLET SIZING EXAMPLES Perforated Risers Outlet Sizing Methodology (Figure 2-2) The following factors are inputs to the perforated riser outlet sizing calculations: • Shape of the pond (e.g. trapezoidal) • Depth and volume of the pond • Elevation / depth of first row of holes • Elevation / depth of last row of holes • Size of perforations • Number of rows or perforations and number of perforations per row • Desired draw down time (e.g. 16 hour and 32 hour draw down for top half and bottom half respectively, 48 hour total draw down time) The governing the rate of discharge from a perforated riser structure can be calculated using Equation C-1 below: 2323 2 HgH ACQ s p p= (Equation C-1) Where: Q = riser flow discharge (cfs) Cp = discharge coefficient for perforations (use 0.61) Ap = cross-sectional area of all the holes (ft2) s = center to center vertical spacing between perforations (ft) Hs = distance from s/2 below the lowest row of holes to s/2 above the top row of holes (McEnroe 1988). H H = distance from s/2 below the lowest row of holes to the water surface elevation under consideration. For the iterative computations needed to size the perforations in the riser and determine the riser height a simplified version of Equation C-1 may be used, as shown below in Equation C-2: 23kHQ= (Equation C-2) Where: gH ACk s p p 23 2= (Equation C-3) C-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples Uniformly perforated riser designs are defined by the depth or elevation of the first row of perforations, the length of the perforated section of pipe, and the size or diameter of each perforation. The steps needed to size a perforated riser outlet are outlined below. Step 1: Determine riser elevation or depth in the pond Set the riser elevation at 6” above the pond bottom to provide for sediment storage. Select a riser height such that the last row of perforations is inline with the top of the SUSMP pool elevation. Step 2: Determine pond and riser attributes and constants for computations Parameters examined at this step include pond geometry such as pond shape, pond bottom length and width, and pond side slopes. Organize the attributes obtained in this step in a table such as Table C-1. Step 3: Determine constant k Determine the value of the constant k (Equations C-2 and C-3) that provides the desired draw down time. a. Set up a computation table such as Table C-3. Note that the table must have at least 19 height slices or the bottom 5% of the pond should be combined in the computations. The formulas for each column of the computation table are provided in Table C-2. b. Using the pond depth, partition the pond into equal height horizontal slices to be stored as entries in Table C-3. At each elevation En (or table entry), complete the following: i. Determine the change in elevation Hn (ft) [Hn =( Eo – En+1)] ii. Calculate the average discharge Qn (cfs) [Qn =k(Hn)3/2 ] Eqn 3 iii. Calculate the pond surface area An (ft2) [An = L x W for rectangular ponds] iv. Compute the available storage Vn (ft3) [Vn = An x Hn] v. Determine the average drain time Tn (hrs) [Tn = (Vn / Qn ) x 3600] c. Sum up the drain times at each height slice to determine the total drain time for the pond. If the value obtained is smaller or greater than the desired value, increase or decrease the k value and repeat the computations in step b until the desired drain time is achieved. Step 4: Determine the size and number of rows of perforations Determine the size and number of rows of perforations that yield a k value equal to the k value used in the previous step. Follow the steps below to obtain riser attributes: C-2 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples a. Select an initial number of rows, number or holes per row and an initial hole diameter. b. Obtain flow area per row values from Table C-4 or compute flow area. c. Select a value for Hs and Cp and compute k. d. Repeat the above steps varying the number of rows, hole diameter, number of holes per row and Hs until the desired value of k is obtained or it is determined that k is too small to be matched by any realistic combination of inputs. Hole diameter should not be less than 1/4" to minimize the potential for clogging. Step 5: Verify the design The design is completed by verifying that the drain time for the both the top half and the bottom half are acceptable and the total drain time is equivalent to the desired value. Note that the drain time for the top half can be obtained by summing the drain times for the top half of the entries in the computation Table C-3. The drain time for the bottom half can similarly be obtained by summing values for the drain times for the bottom half of the entries in the computation Table C-3. Table C-1: Constants Used in Example Computations Constant Values Units Orifice coefficient (Cp) 0.6 - Perforation diameter (d) 0.0468 ft Combined area of holes (Ap) 0.0399 ft2 Acceleration due to gravity (g) 32.2 ft/s2 Pond bottom length (L) 40 ft Pond bottom width (W) 20 ft Side slopes (z) 3 - Pond bottom surface area (A) 800 ft2 k 0.02791 ft3/2/s Table C-2: Pond Draw Down Time Calculation Line No. Elev. (ft) Change in Elevation (ft) Average Discharge (cfs) **Pond Surface Area (ft2) Storage Volume (ft3) Average Drain Time (hrs) 1 Eo Ho =( Eo – E1) Q0 =k(Ho)3/2 A0 = L x W Vo = Ao x Ho T0 = V0 / Q0 2 E1 H1 =( E1 – E2) Q1 =k(Ho)3/2 A1 = L x W V1 = A1 x H1 T1 = V1 / Q1 3 E2 H2 =( E2 – E1) Q2 =k(Ho)3/2 A2 = L x W V2 = A2 x H2 T2 = V2 / Q2 … … … … … … … * qadd is the additional flow from any additional orifices below the current elevation ** Pond surface area can be calculated or measured. Non rectangular cross sections must use the appropriate formulas for calculating cross-sectional areas. C-3 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples Table C-3: Sample Spread Sheet for Perforated Riser Outlet Sizing Calculations Line No. Elevation Change in height Average Flow at Elev. (top orifice only) Pond Surfac e Area Storage Volume Time to Drain Unit at Current Flow [En] [E1 - E2] [See Eqn 3] An [An x dH] [Vnv / Qn] (ft) Hn (ft) Qn (cfs) (ft2) Vn (ft3) T (hrs) 1 6 0.3 0.4102 4256 1419 1.0 2 5.7 0.3 0.3765 3996 1332 1.0 3 5.3 0.3 0.3438 3744 1248 1.0 4 5.0 0.3 0.3120 3500 1167 1.0 5 4.7 0.3 0.2814 3264 1088 1.1 6 4.3 0.3 0.2518 3036 1012 1.1 7 4.0 0.3 0.2233 2816 939 1.2 8 3.7 0.3 0.1960 2604 868 1.2 9 3.3 0.3 0.1699 2400 800 1.3 10 3.0 0.3 0.1450 2204 735 1.4 11 2.7 0.3 0.1215 2016 672 1.5 12 2.3 0.3 0.0995 1836 612 1.7 13 2.0 0.3 0.0789 1664 555 2.0 14 1.7 0.3 0.0601 1500 500 2.3 15 1.3 0.3 0.0430 1344 448 2.9 16 1.0 0.3 0.0279 1196 399 4.0 17 0.7 0.3 0.0152 1056 352 6.4 18 0.3 0.3 0.0054 924 308 15.9 19 0.0 0.0 0.0000 800 0 0.0 Total Draw Down Time 48 C-4 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples Table C-4: Circular Perforation Sizing for Perforated Riser. Source: UDFCD, 1999 C-5 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples Multiple Orifice Outlet Sizing Methodology The following attributes influence multiple orifice outlet sizing calculations: • Shape of the pond (e.g. trapezoidal) • Depth and volume of the pond • Elevation of each orifice • Desired draw-down time (e.g., 16 hour and 32 hour draw down times for top half and bottom half respectively, 48 hour draw down time for whole pond ) The rate of discharge from a single orifice can be calculated using Equation C-4 below: (Equation C-4) 5.0)2(gHCAQ= Where: Q = orifice flow discharge C = discharge coefficient A = cross-sectional area of orifice or pipe (ft2) g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s2) H = effective head on the orifice (measured from center of orifice to water surface) Multiple orifice designs are defined by the depth (or elevation) and the size (or diameter) of each orifice (Figure 2-1). The steps needed to size a dual orifice outlet are outlined below; multiple orifices may be provided and sized using a similar approach. Step 1: Determine orifice elevations a. For the bottom orifice, set the orifice elevation (Hb) at a maximum of 6” above the pond bottom. If the bottom orifice is below the invert of the outlet pipe, then use the outlet pipe invert elevation for orifice calculations. b. For the top orifice, set the orifice elevation (Ht) at half way to the top of the SUSMP pool. Step 2: Determine pond and orifice attributes and constants for computations Parameters examined at this step include pond geometry such as pond shape, pond bottom length and bottom width and pond side slopes. Organize the attributes obtained in this step in a table such as Table C-5. Step 3: Determine the required size of the bottom orifice a. Set up a computation table such as Table C-6. The formulas for each column of the computation table are provided in Table C-7. b. Using the pond depth, partition the pond into equal height horizontal slices to be stored as entries in Table C-6. At each elevation En (or table entry), complete the following: C-6 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples i. Determine the change in elevation Hn (ft) [Hn =( Eo – En+1)] ii. Calculate the average discharge Qn (cfs) [Qn =CA(2gHn)0.5 ] Eqn 1 iii. Calculate the pond surface area An (ft2) [An = L x W for rectangular ponds] iv. Compute the available storage Vn (ft3). [Vn = An x Hn] v. Determine the average drain time Tn (hrs) [Tn = (Vn / Qn)x 3600] c. Sum up the drain times at each height slice to determine the total drain time for the bottom half of the pond. If the value obtained is smaller or greater than the desired value, increase or decrease the orifice diameter and repeat the computations in step b above until the desired drain time is achieved Step 4: Determine the required size of the top orifice a. Set up a Table such as Table C-8. The formulas for each column of the computation tables are provided in Table C-7. b. At each elevation En complete the following: i. Determine the change in elevation Hn (ft) [Hn =( En – En+1)] ii. Calculate the average discharge Qn (cfs) [qn =CA(2gHn)0.5 ] Eqn 1 iii. Calculate the combine average discharge Q0 [Qn = qn + qadd] iv. Calculate the pond surface area An (ft2) [An = L x W for rectangular ponds] v. Compute the available storage Vn (ft3) [Vn = An x Hn] vi. Determine the average drain time Tn (hrs) [Tn = Vn / Qn] vii. Note that qadd is the maximum discharge from the bottom orifice. c. Sum up the drain times at each height slice to determine the total drain time for the top half of the pond. If the value obtained is smaller than the desired value, increase or decrease the orifice diameter and repeat the computations in step 4b until the desired drain time is achieved. Step 5: Verify the design The design is completed by verifying that the sum of the detention times for the top half of the pond and the bottom half of the pond add up to the total desired detention time (36 to 48 hours). C-7 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples Table C-5: Constants Used in Example Computations Constant Lower Orifice Values Upper Orifice Values Units Orifice coefficient (Cp) 0.6 0.6 - Orifice diameter (d) 0.0633 0.0675 ft Orifice cross-sectional area (a) 0.003 0.004 ft2 Acceleration due to gravity (g) 32.2 32.2 ft/s2 Pond bottom length (L) 40 40 ft Pond bottom width (W) 20 20 ft Side slopes (z) 3 3 - Pond bottom surface area (A) 800 800 ft2 Table C-6: Sample Spreadsheet for Dual Orifice Pond Outlet Sizing Calculations: Bottom Half of Pond Line Number Elevation [E] Change in height Average Flow at Elev. (top orifice only) Pond Surface Area Storage Volume Time to Drain Unit at Current Flow Rate [E1-E2] [See Eqn 1] Aelev [Aelev x dH] [Velev / Qelev] (ft) H (ft) qtop (cfs) (ft2) Velev (ft3) T (hrs) 1 3.0 3.0 0.0567 2204 735 3.6 2 2.7 2.7 0.0534 2016 672 3.5 3 2.3 2.3 0.0500 1836 612 3.4 4 2.0 2.0 0.0463 1664 555 3.3 5 1.7 1.7 0.0422 1500 500 3.3 6 1.3 1.3 0.0378 1344 448 3.3 7 1.0 1.0 0.0327 1196 399 3.4 8 0.7 0.7 0.0267 1056 352 3.7 9 0.3 0.3 0.0189 924 308 4.5 10 0.0 0.0 0.0000 800 0 0.0 Subtotal Draw Down Time 32.0 Table C-7: Pond Draw Down Time Calculation Line No. Elev. (ft) Change in Elevation (ft) Average Discharge (cfs) *Combined Average Discharge (cfs) **Pond Surface Area (ft2) Storage Volume (ft3) Average Drain Time (hrs) 1 Eo Ho =( Eo – E1) q0 =CA(2gHo)0.5 Q1 = q1 + qadd A0 = L x W Vo = Ao x Ho T0 = V0 / Q0 2 E1 H1 =( E1 – E2) q1 =CA(2gHo)0.5 Q2 = q2 + qadd A1 = L x W V1 = A1 x H1 T1 = V1 / Q1 3 E2 H2 =( E2 – E1) q2 =CA(2gHo)0.5 Q3 = q3 + qadd A2 = L x W V2 = A2 x H2 T2 = V2 / Q2 … … … … … … … … * qadd is the additional flow from any additional orifices below the current elevation ** Pond surface area can be calculated or measured. Non-rectangular cross sections must use the appropriate formulas for calculating cross-sectional areas. C-8 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix C: Pond Outlet Sizing Examples C-9 Table C-8: Sample Spreadsheet for Dual Orifice Pond Outlet Sizing Calculations: Top Half of Pond Line Number Elevation Change in height Average Flow at Elev. (top orifice only) Combined Average Discharge Pond Surface Area Storage Volume Time to Drain Unit at Current Flow [E] [E1 - E2] [See Eqn 1] [qtop + qbot] Aelev [Aelev x dH] [Velev / Qelev] (ft) H (ft) qtop (cfs) Qelev (cfs) (ft2) Velev (ft3) T (hrs) 1 6.0 3.0 0.1615 0.2181 4256 1419 1.8 2 5.7 2.7 0.1522 0.2089 3996 1332 1.8 3 5.3 2.3 0.1424 0.1990 3744 1248 1.7 4 5.0 2.0 0.1318 0.1885 3500 1167 1.7 5 4.7 1.7 0.1203 0.1770 3264 1088 1.7 6 4.3 1.3 0.1076 0.1643 3036 1012 1.7 7 4.0 1.0 0.0932 0.1499 2816 939 1.7 8 3.7 0.7 0.0761 0.1328 2604 868 1.8 9 3.3 0.3 0.0538 0.1105 2400 800 2.0 10 3.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0567 2204 0 0.0 Subtotal Draw Down Time 16.0 Total Draw Down Time 48.0 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix D: Flow Splitters APPENDIX D FLOW SPLITTER DESIGN SPECIFICATION Flow splitters must be provided for off-line facilities to divert the SUSMP flow to the BMP and bypass higher flows. In most cases, it is a designer's choice whether stormwater treatment BMPs described in this manual are designed as on-line or off-line; an exception are filter strips and planter boxes which are always designed on-line. A crucial factor in designing flow splitters is to ensure that low flows are delivered to the treatment facility up to the SUSMP flow rate. Above this rate, additional flows remain in the storm drain or are diverted to a bypass drain with minimal increase in head at the flow splitter structure to avoid surcharging the SUSMP facility under high flow conditions. Flow splitters are typically manholes or vaults with weirs. In place of weirs, the splitter mechanism may be a half tee section with a solid top and an orifice in the bottom of the tee section. A full tee option may also be used (see "Design Criteria" below). Two possible design options for flow splitters are shown in Figures D1 and D2. Other equivalent designs that achieve the result of splitting low flows, up to the SUSMP design flow, into the treatment facility and divert higher flows around the facility are also acceptable. Flow splitters may be modeled using standard level pool routing techniques, as described in the Handbook of Applied Hydrology (Chow, Ven Te, 1964) and elsewhere. The stage/discharge relationship of the outflow pipes should be determined using backwater analysis techniques. Orifices, if used, may be designed using the approach outlined in “Outlet Structure and Drawdown Time” in Chapter 2, Extended Detention Basins. Weirs should be analyzed as sharp- crested weirs. Design Criteria 1. A flow splitter shall be designed to deliver the required SUSMP flow rate to the stormwater treatment facility. 2. The top of the weir shall be located at the water surface corresponding to the design flow. Higher flows enter the bypass line. 3. Capital storm flows to the treatment facility shall not increase the design SUSMP flow by more than 10%. 4. Example designs are shown in Figure D1 and Figure D2. Equivalent designs are also acceptable. 5. Special applications, such as roads, may require the use of a modified flow splitter. The weir wall may be fitted with a notch and adjustable weir plate to proportion runoff volumes other than high flows. 6. For ponding facilities, backwater effects must be included in designing the height of the standpipe in the manhole/vault (Option B). D-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix D: Flow Splitters 7. Ladder or step and handhold access shall be provided. If the weir wall is higher than 36 inches, two ladders, on the either side of the wall, are required. Material Requirements 1. The splitter baffle shall be installed in a standard manhole or vault. The baffle wall shall be made of material resistant to corrosion (minimum 4-inch thick reinforced concrete, Type 302 or Type 316 stainless steel plate, or equivalent). 2. The minimum clearance between the top of the weir wall and the bottom of the manhole or vault cover shall be 4 feet; otherwise, dual access points shall be provided. 3. All metal parts shall be corrosion resistant. Examples of preferred materials include aluminum, stainless steel, and plastic. Copper, zinc and galvanized materials are not permitted because of aquatic toxicity. Painting metal parts shall not be allowed because of poor longevity. D-2 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection APPENDIX E FACILITY INSPECTION Introduction To ensure high-quality, long-term performance, BMPs need to be inspected on a regular basis. These inspections help the stormwater manager monitor the safety, longevity, and effectiveness of these practices over time. BMP maintenance inspections are intended to do the following: • Ensure the facilities are generally safe • Maintain the proper stormwater management capacity and cost-effectiveness • Comply with reporting to regulatory agencies • Provide BMP tracking data • Follow standard engineering practices Inspection Types and Frequency Inspection types range in detail from a low level (e.g., drive by) to a high level (e.g., rigorous professional inspection). Inspection frequency depends on many factors including the type of facility, accessibility to the public, likelihood of vandalism, and major storm events. Regular inspections include observations on general appearance, damage by water or vandalism, erosion, plant loss, trash and debris accumulation, standing water (where there shouldn’t be), obvious (visual) loss of functionality, and vegetation condition. Such inspections should occur at: • regular intervals for aesthetics, vegetation maintenance and checking for vandal damage, • after large storms and at the end of the rainfall season for possible flow damage, and • before winter storms to ensure the facility is properly prepared to handle the coming runoff events. Annual or semi-annual inspections would include these and other more rigorous evaluations. The instructions for operations and maintenance in this Manual include suggested inspection frequencies for each BMP type. Procedures Pre-Inspection Preparation Prior to BMP inspection, the inspector(s) will have to gather a number of materials and equipment that fall under three categories: Public Communications Materials General educational materials as well as jurisdiction program and contact information may be used to help address questions or comments raised by inquisitive residential or commercial property owners encountered during the inspection. E-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection BMP Background Information Historical information on each BMP to be inspected will ease the inspection process and help to ensure that past maintenance or structural problems have been addressed. As-builts drawings are particularly helpful if available. Inspection Checklists Standard inspection checklists are used to record the condition of all facilities, and particularly those that need frequent maintenance. It will also be easier to track maintenance electronically, using either a database or spreadsheet, rather than relying on paper files. Well-designed checklists can be integrated with these systems to prioritize maintenance, track performance over time, and relate design characteristics to particular problems. To effectively achieve these goals, the checklist should: • Be quantitative, so that maintenance can be easily prioritized. • Be very specific about possible problems to reduce subjectivity. • Limit the use of text, particularly if integrated with a database. • Link problems to specific actions. • Where possible, track the function of the facility over time for future research and design. Inspection checklists should also be grouped in the order the inspector would inspect the practice. For example, ponds should typically be inspected from downstream to upstream, so the investigation begins with the outfall channel. Checklists are presented in Appendix F. Inspection Equipment A range of equipment is necessary to perform a comprehensive, safe inspection of a facility. A list of the materials and equipment that could potentially accompany any inspector is presented in Table E-1 below. Actual equipment needed for inspection is determined by the type of facility being inspected and the level of detail of the inspection. Table E-1: Inspection Equipment BMP Inspection Equipment/Materials Quantity Required for Public communications materials Jurisdiction permission letter (for 3rd party inspectors) multiple All BMPs Jurisdiction contact list multiple All BMPs BMP-Specific Information Blank inspection checklists multiple All BMPs Site plans/as-built drawings per facility All BMPs Facility type and outfall pipe size per facility All BMPs Facility location per facility All BMPs Previous inspection results (reports, redlines and photos) per facility All BMPs Confined space entry permit (as needed) per facility Underground Confined Space Entry (CSE) E-2 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection Inspection Equipment Clipboard w/forms, pencil and compass 1 All BMPs Area map 1 All BMPs Mobile telephone 1 All BMPs Two-way radio w/charged batteries 2 All BMPs 100' measuring tape 1 All BMPs 25' retractable scale 1 All BMPs Bolt cutters 1 All BMPs Cans of orange spray paint 2 All BMPs Crow bar 1 All BMPs Digital camera 1 All BMPs First aid kit 1 All BMPs Flashlight w/charged batteries 1 All BMPs Goggles or safety glasses 2 All BMPs Hardhats 2 All BMPs Leather gloves 2 All BMPs Manhole cover tool / puller 1 All BMPs Pair of hard sole boots (wear) 2 All BMPs Pair of rubber boots (as-needed) 2 All BMPs Roll of orange tie-off tape 1 All BMPs Std. size bolt locks and keys (for gates) 2 All BMPs Waterproof carrying bag 1 All BMPs Machete or pruning sheers 1 Above ground Monkey wrench 1 Above ground Standard shovel 1 Above ground Observation well cap wrenches 1/Size Infiltration facilities only Small size bolt lock and key (for well caps) 1 Infiltration facilities only 100' rope 1 Underground CSE Air monitor/meter w/charged batteries 1 Underground CSE Orange pylons/traffic cones 4 Underground CSE Spot light 1 Underground CSE 5 minute air supply 1 Underground CSE Full face respirator 1 Underground CSE Recalibration kit 1 Underground CSE Ventilation/forced air blower 1 Underground CSE Pre-Inspection Notification Inspection and maintenance of BMPs is often the responsibility of two separate entities. Since the local government is accountable for ensuring the region's stormwater management system is operating within State and Federal regulations, inspections are typically conducted by either government personnel or a private contractor under government authority. However, the duty of maintaining the site frequently falls to the hands of a private homeowner, homeowner association or commercial property owner. Communication between the local government and the BMP manager/owner is key to ensuring long-term and effective BMP operation. All correspondence should provide detailed information about what the BMP manager/owner can expect. This will allow the BMP manager/owner to better understand and be prepared for the role he/she or the community plays during the entire process. Effective communication can eliminate unnecessary concerns and confusion on the part of the BMP owner and provide a E-3 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection base for legal action for the enforcing agency. The greater the clarity, the smoother the process will be for all involved. Prior to inspection, a Notification of Inspection Letter should be sent to the BMP manager/owner. An example of this letter is included in Appendix G. This letter serves several purposes: 1. Informs the manager that he/she should expect someone to be on their property. 2. Encourages routine maintenance to be performed. 3. Notifies the manager of any special pre-inspection actions that must be completed. 4. Secures the name of the person who oversees the maintenance of the BMP. A Notification of Inspection Letter should include the basic information listed above, along with all of the following information: Date of Future Inspection This could either be a specific day or a period, such as a week, that the BMP manager/owner would expect a local government inspector to be on the property. Request for current maintenance manager contact information Finding this information ahead of time will save time later when trying to ensure the repairs are completed. Special Instructions For example, the BMP manager/owner may be responsible for pumping out and pressure washing underground facilities prior to inspection. Outline of Inspection Process Provide as much detail as possible, such as, "The inspection will be sometime in the morning during the second week in August by Inspector. Within 14 days of inspection, you will be notified of any repairs that are required. You will then have 30 days to fix any deficiencies..." In summary, all correspondence should include the following basic information: 1. Facility address and BMP owner's address are both essential because it possible that the owner is in charge of multiple sites. 2. Facility identification number provides an internal reference for the inspecting unit and for BMP owners that may have more than one BMP at the same address. 3. BMP owner name and title. Since homeowners, homeowner associations, and property managers can change without notice it is critical to include both the name and title, such as "John Doe or Current Property Manager/Owner," to ensure the letter reaches the appropriate person. 4. Description of Authority tells the manager by which regulation/code the local government gains authority to inspect the site and require repairs. E-4 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection 5. Deadline by which a response or repair should be made. 6. Consequences if response or repairs are not made. 7. Contact information for the person to whom the manager/owner can speak for assistance. Health and Safety Safety is a critical element of any operations and maintenance plan. Potential hazards associated with operating and maintaining BMP facilities include physical hazards that may develop as a result of automobile traffic, inclement weather conditions, high flow conditions, and steep or difficult terrain; electrical/mechanical hazards from motorized-valves and controls, atmospheric hazards resulting from poor ventilation in confined spaces, and chemical hazards from materials that may be present in urban runoff or in products used to clean/maintain various equipment. A Health and Safety Plan approved by the County’s Health and Safety Coordinator should be reviewed by the all field personnel before inspections begin. All persons involved in inspections should be made aware of the hazards associated with inspection and should freely voice any concerns if potential hazards become apparent. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides regulations and guidance on occupational safety, many of which are directly applicable to the types of activities involved in inspection. It is the direct responsibility of each person involved in the inspection program to read the Health and Safety Plan and adhere to its requirements. Operation and maintenance personnel are responsible for assessing the individual site conditions to identify possible hazards, selecting safety equipment, and implementing appropriate safety precautions. Under no circumstances should inspection and/or maintenance activities be conducted if there is a significant safety concern that cannot be adequately addressed. The following list provides a few basic health and safety procedures that can help to create a safer sampling environment: • Do not enter a confined space (e.g., StormFilter™ vault) without proper training, equipment, and surface support. • Never remove or replace manhole covers with your bare hands or feet. • Never leave an open manhole unattended. • Do not start staging or sampling until traffic control has been established. • Follow manufacturer's instructions when operating mechanical equipment. • Standard precautions should be taken when operating electrical equipment due to the moist conditions that will prevail at many of the installations (e.g., outdoor equipment panels). E-5 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection Maintenance operations will normally be conducted under dry conditions when the facility is more accessible and the potential for many physical hazards is low. However, inspection activities may be conducted during storm events to evaluate how the system is operating. When working near open water it is important to be aware of and avoid drowning hazards. High stormwater flows often carry branches and other debris that can entangle a person or pin them beneath submerged obstacles. Creek banks can be unstable or slippery during wet weather and caution should be observed when walking on wet unstable surfaces. Problem Identification Inspectors should clearly identify the extent and location of problems identified during inspection. In addition to clearly describing problem areas on the checklists, inspectors should help repair crews locate repairs both at the site and on design plans. Immediate Concerns While all maintenance and inspection items are important, some maintenance concerns actually pose an immediate safety concern. Many of these are caused by missing or damaged elements that would prevent access by the public. Examples include missing manhole covers or trash racks, missing or damaged fencing when that fence prevents access to a pond with steep side slopes, or a missing or damaged grate at a large inflow or outfall pipe. Another set of immediate pond and wetland repairs involve dam safety or flooding hazards. If a practice shows signs of embankment failure, or if an inspector is unsure, an appropriately qualified person or engineer should be called in to investigate the situation immediately. Similarly, cracks in a concrete riser that drains a large area may pose a dam safety threat As-built Drawings The inspector should bring a copy of the as-built plan of the facility to mark potential corrections and problem areas on this plan. The marked up as-built plan should be stored either digitally or in a paper file system so that it can be brought out to confirm that maintenance was performed correctly on the follow-up inspection. Photographs Inspectors should take a core set of documentation photographs of practices being inspected. In addition, specific problem areas should be photo documented. A recommended set of core photographs include: • Vehicle access points. • Overview of the facility. • Overview of principal intake structure. • Inlet to facility and downstream outfall from facility. • Emergency spillway (if applicable). E-6 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection In addition, because of the large number of photographs that will likely be generated, a digital camera should be used to allow photographs to be stored electronically. (In advanced database programs, these photographs can be retrieved digitally). Finally, photographs should be named using a standard convention. The photograph name should indicate the practice identification number, feature (or problem) being photographed, and date of photograph. Field Marking Inspectors can highlight key areas of concern with spray paint or other marker. This is particularly useful for problems that may otherwise be difficult to find by others. Marking should be used as discretely as possible. For example, only dots sprayed at the base of trees should be used to mark limits of clearing for vegetation removal. Post Inspection Follow Up and Maintenance Request Procedure Once the BMP has been inspected, the BMP manager/owner should be informed of the BMP status and any repairs that need to be made through a Maintenance Notification Letter if privately owned, or through a Maintenance Request Order if the facility is maintained by the County. An example of the Maintenance Notification Letter is included in Appendix G. This letter should include the basic inspection information with the additional information below. List of Repairs This list should be detailed enough so it cannot be misinterpreted. For example, avoid ambiguous phrases such as "clear the bank." Instead, the list should specify "clear the bank of dead vegetation." Outline of the Repair Process This can expedite the repairs, particularly if the BMP manager/owner does not have previous experience with BMPs. In most cases it is worthwhile to suggest the use of a contractor to dissuade unqualified persons from performing the repairs. For example, "You will have 30 days to complete the repairs. The first step is to get bids from contractors. Next, your contractor should contact our inspector to discuss repairs. . ." A facility inspection report should be attached for the BMP manager's/owner's records. Educational material Educational materials should also be attached to reinforce why properly maintaining BMPs is important not only for environmental reasons but also how good stormwater management serves their best interests. Notification of Violation In situations when a BMP manager/owner fails to comply with a Maintenance Notification Letter and/or other requests for compliance, a letter using strong language should be sent. These E-7 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix E: Facility Inspection E-8 notices are typically more formal than Maintenance Notification Letters and have a strong emphasis on the consequences if the manger/owner does not remedy the situation. Notices of Violation should include the basic information, plus: 1. Reference(s) to previous correspondence, which can provide a paper trail in cases when disagreement of roles arises. 2. List of repairs that should be detailed enough so it cannot be misinterpreted 3. List of violations the BMP manager/owner has accrued, including actions such as failing to comply with previous notices. Copies of this letter may be sent to other agencies affected, e.g., such as those responsible for dam safety, etc. An example of this letter is included in Appendix G. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist APPENDIX F FACILITY INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST Included in this appendix are a series of checklists that can be used by both inspectors and maintenance personnel to ensure that observed deficiencies in BMPs are maintained appropriately. The checklists are ordered as follows: 1. Detention Basin Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 2. Vegetated Swale Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 3. Filter Strip Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 4. Bioretention Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 5. Planter Box Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 6. Infiltration Trench Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 7. Hydrodynamic Separation Device Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 8. Catch Basin Insert Inspection/Maintenance Checklist 9. Cartridge Media Filter Inspection/Maintenance Checklist F-1 Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Extended Detention Basin Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1 or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue General Appearance Untidy, un-mown (if applicable) Vegetation Access problems or hazards; dead or dying trees Poisonous or nuisance vegetation or noxious weeds Insects Insects such as wasps and hornets interfere with maintenance activities. Rodent Holes Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is acting as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water piping through dam or berm via rodent holes Trash and Debris Trash and debris > 5 cf/1,000 sf (one standard size garbage can). Pollutants Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants Inlet/Outlet Pipe Inlet/Outlet pipe clogged with sediment and/or debris. Basin not draining. Erosion Erosion of the basin’s side slopes and/or scouring of the basin bottom that exceeds 2-inches, or where continued erosion is prevalent. Piping Evidence of or visible water flow through basin berm. Settlement of Basin Dike/Berm Any part of these components that has settled 4-inches or lower than the design elevation, or inspector determines dike/berm is unsound. Overflow Spillway Rock is missing and/or soil is exposed at top of spillway or outside slope. Sediment Accumulation in Basin Bottom Sediment accumulations in basin bottom that exceeds the depth of sediment zone plus 6-inches. Tree or shrub growth Trees > 4 ft in height with potential blockage of inlet, outlet or spillway; or potential future bank stability problems Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) Trash and Debris Trash or debris that is plugging more than 20% of the openings in the barrier. †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1 or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Damaged/ Missing Bars Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% deterioration to any part of barrier. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Debris barrier missing or not attached to pipe. Fencing Missing or broken parts Any defect in the fence that permits easy entry to a facility. Erosion Erosion more than 4 inches high and 12-18 inches wide, creating an opening under the fence. Damaged Parts Damage to gate/fence, posts out of plumb, or rails bent more than 6 inches. Deteriorating Paint or Protective Coating Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling condition that has affected structural adequacy. Gates Damaged or missing member Missing gate or locking devices, broken or missing hinges, out of plum more than 6 inches and more than 1 foot out of design alignment, or missing stretcher bar, stretcher bands, and ties. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Vegetated Swale Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1, or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Appearance Untidy Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash and debris accumulated in the swale. Vegetation When the grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 10-inches); when nuisance weeds and other vegetation start to take over. Excessive Shading Vegetation growth is poor because sunlight does not reach swale. Evaluate vegetation suitability. Poor Vegetation Coverage When vegetation is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur in more than 10% of the swale bottom. Evaluate vegetation suitability. Sediment Accumulation Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches or covers more than 10% of design area. Standing Water When water stands in the swale between storms and does not drain freely. Flow spreader or Check Dams Flow spreader or check dams uneven or clogged so that flows are not uniformly distributed through entire swale width. Constant Baseflow When small quantities of water continually flow through the swale, even when it has been dry for weeks and an eroded, muddy channel has formed in the swale bottom. Inlet/Outlet Inlet/outlet areas clogged with sediment and/or debris. Erosion/ Scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to flow channelization, or higher flows. Eroded or rilled side slopes. Eroded or undercut inlet/outlet structures †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Filter Strip Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1 or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Appearance Untidy Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash and debris accumulated on the filter strip. Vegetation When the grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 10-inches); when nuisance weeds and other vegetation starts to take over. Excessive Shading Grass growth is poor because sunlight does not reach swale. Evaluate grass species suitability. Poor Vegetation Coverage When grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur in more than 10% of the swale bottom. Evaluate grass species suitability. Erosion/Scouring Eroded or scoured areas due to flow channelization, or higher flows. Sediment Accumulation on Grass Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches. Flow spreader Flow spreader uneven or clogged so that flows are not uniformly distributed through entire filter width. †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Bioretention Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1, or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Appearance Untidy Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash, plant litter and dead leaves accumulated on surface. Vegetation Unhealthy plants and appearance. Irrigation Functioning incorrectly (if applicable). Inlet Inlet pipe blocked or impeded. Splash Blocks Blocks or pads correctly positioned to prevent erosion. Overflow Overflow pipe blocked or broken. Filter media Infiltration design rate is met (e.g., drains 36-48 hours after moderate - large storm event). †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Planter Box Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1, or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Appearance Untidy Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash, plant litter and dead leaves accumulated on surface. Vegetation Unhealthy plants and appearance. Vegetation interfering with planter operations. Irrigation Functioning incorrectly (if applicable). Plant box Structural defects, holes and gaps. Inlet Inlet pipe blocked or impeded. Splash Blocks Blocks or pads correctly positioned to prevent erosion. Overflow Overflow pipe blocked or broken. Filter media Infiltration design rate is met (e.g., drains 3-4 hours after moderate - large storm event). †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Infiltration Trench Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0,1, or 2) † Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Appearance, vegetative health Mowing and trimming vegetation is needed to prevent establishment of woody vegetation, and for aesthetic and vector reasons. Vegetation Poisonous or nuisance vegetation or noxious weeds. Excessive loss of turf or ground cover (if applicable). Trash & Debris Trash and debris > 5 cf/1,000 sf (one standard size garbage can). Contaminants and Pollution Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants. Erosion Undercut or eroded areas at inlet or outlet structures. Sediment and Debris Accumulation of sediment, debris, and oil/grease on surface, inflow, outlet or overflow structures. Sediment and Debris Accumulation of sediment and debris, in sediment forebay and pretreatment devices. Water drainage rate Standing water, or by visual inspection of wells (if available), indicates design drain times are not being achieved (i.e., within 72 hours). Media clogging surface layer Lift surface layer (and filter fabric if installed) and check for media clogging with sediment (function may be able to be restored by replacing surface aggregate/filter cloth). Media clogging Lift surface layer (and filter fabric if installed) and check for media clogging with sediment (partial or complete clogging which may require full replacement). †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Hydrodynamic Device Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0, 1 or 2) † Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Refer to the manufacturer’s instructions for maintenance/inspection requirements, below are generic guidelines to supplement manufacturer’s recommendations. General Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash or debris is blocking inletting capacity of the facility by more than 10%. Trash and Debris Sediment Accumulation Trash, debris and sediment have reached the unit’s capacity Unit Cover Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Locking Mechanism Not Working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult to Remove One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying normal lifting pressure. (Intent is to keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Catchbasin Insert Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Date: Work Order # Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0,1, or 2)† Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) Taken to Resolve Issue Refer to the manufacturer’s instructions for maintenance/inspection requirements, below are generic guidelines to supplement manufacturer’s recommendations. Sediment Accumulation When sediment forms a cap over the insert media of the insert and/or unit. Trash and Debris Accumulation Trash and debris accumulates on insert unit creating a blockage or restriction. Media Insert Use Beyond Normal Product Life Media has been used beyond the typical average life of media insert product. Hydrocarbon removal type Media Insert Not Removing Oil Effluent water from media insert has a visible sheen. Media Insert Water Saturated Catch basin insert is saturated with water and no longer has the capacity to absorb. Media Insert-Oil Saturated Media oil saturated due to petroleum spill that drains into catch basin. †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Filter Cartridge Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date: Work Order # Type of Inspection: □ post-storm □ annual □ routine □ post-wet season □ pre-wet season Facility: Inspector(s): Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0,1, or 2) † Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) taken to resolve issue Refer to the manufacturer’s instructions for maintenance/inspection requirements, below are generic guidelines to supplement manufacturer’s recommendations. Underground Vault Sediment Accumulation on Media Sediment depth exceeds 0.25-inches. Sediment Accumulation in Vault Sediment depth exceeds 6-inches in first chamber. Trash/Debris Accumulation Trash and debris accumulated on compost filter bed. Sediment in Drain Pipes or Cleanouts When drain pipes, clean-outs, become full with sediment and/or debris. Damaged Pipes Any part of the pipes that are crushed or damaged due to corrosion and/or settlement. Access Cover Damaged/Not Working Cover cannot be opened; one person cannot open the cover using normal lifting pressure, corrosion/deformation of cover. †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix F: Facility Inspection and Maintenance Checklist †Maintenance: Enter 0 if satisfactory, 1 if maintenance is needed and include WO#. Enter 2 if maintenance was performed same day. Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Inspection Result (0,1, or 2) † Date Maintenance Performed Comments or Action(s) taken to resolve issue Vault Structure Includes Cracks in Wall, Bottom, Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Cracks wider than 1/2-inch or evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenance/inspection personnel determine that the vault is not structurally sound. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or evidence of soil particles entering through the cracks. Baffles Baffles corroding, cracking warping, and/or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance/inspection person. Access Ladder Damaged Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning properly, not securely attached to structure wall, missing rungs, cracks, or misaligned. Below Ground Cartridge Type Filter Media Drawdown of water through the media takes longer than 1 hour and/or overflow occurs frequently. Short Circuiting Flows do not properly enter filter cartridges. Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual Appendix G: Policy for New Percolation Basin Testing, Design, and Maintenance APPENDIX G POLICY FOR NEW PERCOLATION BASIN TESTING, DESIGN, AND MAINTENANCE G-1 October 10, 2007 Approved ~~ ¿~-' ¡JIJ Donald L. W e TO: FROM: Tom Hoagland Deputy Director .' ,\\ Dennis Hunter ~ iY Land Development Division \ MAPP GOAL NO.4-FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 POLICY FOR NEW PERCOLATION BASIN TESTING, DESIGN, AND MAINTENANCE Recommendation Approve the testing, design, and maintenance procedures as outlined in the following attachments for percolation basins that are constructed as part of private development projects. Backqround On October 28, 1980, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Interim Drainage Policy for Quartz Hill, which included mitigation for increased runoff from proposed developments (portions included in Appendix). One mitigation measure mentioned in this policy is percolation basins that would detain the increased runoff caused by a development that may adversely affect downstream areas. Due to increased development in Acton, Antelope Valley, and other areas that lack adequate drainage conveyances and outlets, developers are utilizing percolation basins as their method of mitigation. The Interim Drainage Policy for Quartz Hill also required these basins to be designed to the County Engineer's requirements. However, Public Works' lack of minimum requirements resulted in nonstandardized testing methodologies and design procedures that provided less than satisfactory results (Photos 1 and 2). This policy will identify minimum requirements and, therefore, allow development to occur that is free of flood hazard while not significantly exacerbating flooding conditions to adjacent properties. If the site soils are such that an onsite basin cannot be designed to ensure that it is empty within seven (7) days, Public Works will require an offsite storm drain to convey flows to a more suitable offsite basin location. The applicant will be required to obtain all easements prior to Tentative Map approval. Discussion A panel consisting of representatives from Land Development, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering, Flood Maintenance, and Road Maintenance Divisions was assembled to develop standardized testing, design, and maintenance procedures. The current procedures were revisited and it was determined that traditional percolation Tom Hoagland October 10, 2007 Page 2 testing fails to account for the long-term saturation of the basins. It was also determined that the maintenance procedures recommended by the various private consultants resulted in the need for various filter fabrics and mechanical devices to remove accumulated sediments. In addition to establishing testing, design, and maintenance standards the panel also formalized the roles and areas of responsibility for the various divisions involved. A presentation and draft version of the policy was distributed at the August 14, 2007, Land Development Advisory Committee meeting. A few questions were asked and answered, but no comments were received that warranted any revision to the policy. RGD:la P:\ldpubIADMIN\DENNIS\GOALS\2006-07\MAPP GOAL NO 4 (BASIN TESTING, DESIGN, & MAINT.).doc Attach. cc: Geotechnical and Materials Engineering (Kelley, Montgomery) Flood Maintenance (Lee, Hildebrand) Road Maintenance (Lehman, Caddick) ATTACHMENT 1 PERCOLATION BASIN TESTING PROCEDURE Pretestinq Preparation: · Drill at least one boring to a minimum depth of 30 feet below the planned bottom of each proposed percolation basin. Additional borings must be performed in the area to establish continuity of subsurface materials. Each exploratory boring must be logged by a certified Engineering Geologist or Soils Engineer by either downhole logging or via samples obtained through the use of a continuous sampler. · Create an excavation bottoming at the invert of the proposed basin. The consultant shall test a limited area through the use of an open-ended standpipe. The standpipe must be a minimum of 5 feet in diameter. The outer edge of the standpipe must be sealed in order to eliminate water loss from around the base. · Presaturate the excavation, via the standpipe, for at least one week prior to performing testing. Maintain a constant head of at least 18 inches of water in the standpipe at all times during the presoak period. Testinq: · Perform percolation testing using sediment-laden water. A minimum sediment load of 1000 Nepthelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) is required. Sediment loading must be carried out by directly adding sediment to the standpipe based upon water usage and the amount of load required to produce the required NTU. This must be accomplished on a daily basis. The sediment shall be collected from a nearby source area and shall be screened to reflect the anticipated sediment load grain size distribution. Maintain a constant 18 inches of head in the standpipe and record usage utilizing a continuous data logger. · Once the usage stabilizes, continue testing for a minimum of two weeks. Stabilization is defined as when the slope of the mean trend line of the readings is less than 2 percent, when graphing the time (days) vs. percolation rate (in/hr). Retestinq: · Allow sediment water to percolate completely and perform the recommended annual maintenance procedures recommended by the Soils Engineer and in accordance with Attachment 3 on the test area. · Perform a retest utilizing the same methodology as described in the testing above, once maintenance has been performed. Page 1 of 2 Post-Testinq: . Based on the results of testing, the consultant must recommend a long-term percolation rate (in inches per day) to be utilized in the design of the percolation basin. The recommendation shall not exceed the result of the retest utilizing maintenance. . Prepare and submit a report, which discusses the testing procedures, includes conclusions, and provides recommendations for maintenance. Additional Notes: . Land Development Division must be notified at least three (3) working days prior to initiation of testing. . Basins will not be approved in areas that will receive fill during grading operations. . Land Development Division will be responsible for requesting testing of proposed percolation basins and acceptance of the recommended percolation rate. . Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division will be responsible for the review of the testing procedures and design parameters. . Flood Maintenance Division will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the basin upon transfer to the Flood Control District. . Percolation basins must percolate completely within seven days. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2 PERCOLATION BASIN DESIGN PARAMETERS . The basin will be required to be completely in native materiaL. The basin may not be constructed in compacted fill. . The sides of the basin must be at 3: 1 gradient or flatter. . The basin shall not be planted. . The basin shall be designed to have pretreatment facilities, such as a filter strip or grass swale, to aid in the removal of suspended particulate pollutants . Concrete access road to the bottom of the basin is required. The section of this access road is 12-feet-wide, 6-inch Portland Cement Concrete on 4-inch Crushed Miscellaneous Base, and not steeper than 12 percent grade. . Monumentation for cleanouts will be required. This can be pipe-markers at all four corners of the basin. . Discharge of nuisance flow from the development into the basin must be minimized. This should be done by designing the project so that nuisance flows minimally occur (i.e., smart irrigation, etc). . The basin must be designed in a manner that will not accept any natural drainage, only the differential runoff from the proposed development. . The basin must be designed with a drain valve to release the water in emergency situations. . The location of the basin will be per the Soils Engineer's recommendation. · A Drainage Benefit Assessment Area (DBAA), or similar, will be required to be setup by the developer to finance the maintenance of these basins. . The Geotechnical Engineer shall address the potential for hydroconsolidation and slope instability associated with the impoundment of water within the basin. ATTACHMENT 3 PERCOLATION BASIN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE . Maintenance should consist of either periodic physical removal of accumulated silt or periodic spading of the soil on an annual basis before each storm season or sooner if recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Spading of soil should be done annually, in order to limit growth of vegetation in the basin. . With either method, care should be taken to avoid smearing of the absorption layer. . If physical removal is utilized, the absorption layer should be scarified after removal of silt. . If spading is utilized, a device such as the Tortella Spader should be utilized in lieu of conventional rototilling or disking, which tend to smear at the blade-soil interface. . Organic material should be spaded into the soil to improve soil structure. . The maintenance interval will be determined by the consultant's recommendation utilizing both volume of flow as well as water quality in the basin (spading should be done annually, prior to the start of the rainy season). P:\ldpubIADMIN\DENNIS\GOALS\2006-07\MAPP GOAL NO 4 (ATTACHMENTS).doc PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTO 1 – Existing Percolation Basin in Antelope Valley PHOTO 2–Existing Percolation Basin in Antelope Valley PHOTO 3–Test Basin Excavation PHOTO 4–Five Foot Diameter Stand Pipe APPENDIX I. : ': ('...:DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M E MaR AND U M :.' TO:Carl L. Blum Assistant Deputy Director October 24, 1986' FRDM: Rod Kubomoto ~~jO Drainage & Grading Section ANTELOPE VALLEY INTERIM DRAINAGE POLICY Recoimendation ~.:'~ i.'" Approve the attached interim drainage policies and design criteria and standards for implementation in the Antelope Valley. . . . . Discussion Interim drainage policies for the Antelope Valley are a practical approach to flood hazard mitigatiqn until regional drainage improvements are installed. In lieu of a moratorium on new construction, the Board of Supervisors adopted aninterim drainage policy ()n October 28,1980 for the Quart'! Hil1 area (see attached copy). This wa~ necessary due to an increase in development pr6posals in this' area which lacks drainage conveyances and adequate outlets. The desert topography, coupled with the lack of well defined drainage courses and existing improvements affecting flaw patterns, compounded the problem. Regional drainage improvements win ultimately alleviate the unmet drainage needs. However, in the interim, the main concern was and is today to allow development to occur that is free of flood hazard whi le not significantly worsening flooding con"dttions to' adjac::nt properties. The Quartz Hill policy essentially provided this goal by collecting and percolating the increased run-off due to developmentand requiring elevated building pads above the anticipated flood level. Development continues to increase throughout the Antelope Val1ey and similar drainage problems are new being experienc::d. The Quartz Hill drainage policy is a reasonable compromise for the entire valley floor until regional facilities are installed. . Attached are guidelines relative to re'lie'iiing and imposing requirements at tentative map processing and design criteria and stand~rds for proposed County maintained drainage facilities. Approval of the recommendation will assist staff in regulating reasonable flood plain management for this area and improve section plan review consistency. .'':''-. ". " j -'.i ': \~/ELOPE VALLEY MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN FEES In order to provide a source of funding for regional drainage improvements, the Department has adopted drainage fee requirements for all new land divisions. The requ i remen ts are as fo 11 ows : $ 2.000 per lot for single family residential $10,000 per acre for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial $1,000 per multi-dwelling unit (condo and apartments) $10,000 per acre for mobile home parks (condi tioned at time of CUP review) These fees are currently waived for condit)onal certificates o~ compliance and building permits. Lots within a proposed land division with existing dwellings or other permitted main use are also exempt from the fees. The developers must enter into' an agreement wi th the County and provide adequate .Jrety for the fees wh,er(,(a) they apply for occupancy, or (b) the County has"' indentified projects for construction which will use this money,' Based on, current cónstruction scheduling of regional facilities, the fees shall be collected prior to land division recordation. The submission of appropriate security shall be in accordance with Government Code Section 6ı~99 and approved by.the County, Two signed originals of the agreement are required and the surety shall be in the form of cashiers check. letter of credit, or letter of assignment. Due to the lengthy process to exonerate bonds, the Division does not prefer this form of surety for fees. It is intended that the Antelope Valley Master Plan of Drainage Facilities be built as soon as funds become' available. However. if the funds are not used for construction within 7 years~ the funds. if collected, will be returned to the applicant. '- :.t...~ r " .t, .~ OR~ rNAGE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AREAS (DBM) ..'.'- Proposed County-maintained facilities outside of the Flood Control District boundaries require maintenance provisions in the form of drainage benefit; assessment area administered by the County and funded by lot owner assessme~ts. The formation of the assessment area is coordinated through the Planning Division. Due to the relatively long process to legally form the assessment .area, the developer may elect to enter into an agreement with the County. This would a110w him to record the land division prior to assessment formation provided that no lots change ownership (see attached copy). The following data must be submitted to the' County to begin processing the assessment: 1. $3,000 processing fee 2. Land division map .. ,\~,~" \ 3. Copy of the privatè drain plans., , ~ ¡ 4. Benefited are indentiried 5. Anticipated annual maintenance cost 6. 0 & M manual for multi-use flood recreational type facilities 7. Agreeme!1t DETAILED PROCEDUR~S ARE OUTLINE0 PER SEPARATE MEMORANDUM (SEE ATTAC~ED DRAFi COpy) . TE~TATIVE MAP REQUIREMENTS Tentative map reviews are to be e~aluated per current guidelines and procedures consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. However, the added conditions are: . "'. . .... Assessment of required master drainage plan fees. c 2. Formation of a benefit assessment district to fund the maintenance o~' drainage improvements (P.O.) if the site ,is located north of Avenue liS", Township 5 North (Outside Flood Control District boundaries). 3. Execution of the necessary agreements for master plan fees and DBAA formation and deposits prior to land division recordation. . 4. Dedication of right of ways indentified on the Antelope Valley master .drainage plan. Market value of the right of way can be used to offset the drainage fees. Construction in "planned flow pathsn will be restricted but right of way will not be dedicated to County.~~'"'" '\.\,i¡i ,- ..'...... ....."',.. DRAINAGE CONCEPTS Review of drainage concepts are to be consistent with current requirements and guidelines. However, four key issues should be acknowledged by the consy1ting engineer to avoid future complications and possible significant expenditures. 1.A max imum of seven retention basins. revi ew. day soil percolation rate for delta-volume and/or full A soils report should be submitted for soil section 2. Drainage solutions that not only mitigate the flood hazard to lots but are compatible with street safety drainage requirements (refer to Road Sewer and Water Section). 3.location and approximate sizing of the percolation bas in. "' " ',.., 4.Need for drainage ~cceptance letters from affected adj acen t property i¡ ~ iowners. DESIGN CRITERIA l The interim drainage provisions for the valley floor require subdivisions to limit drainage outfloiy to the before developed condition quantities. This would include not only the change in peak Q but also the volume due to the incremental de:~ease in permeability associated with development. Faciliti~s therefore must detain the change in peak Q and percolate the change in volume to satisfy the interim policy. Percolation basins are the preferred design concept. However, due to site topography, public opposition, and field design parameters, several design options may be considered acceptable. ...... 1 ~~ \:' l' :; ." . '; 1. Allow contributory drainage to flow essentially through the development and detain the peak Delta Q and percolate the Delta volume. Return discharge of flows to the predevelopment condition or obtain dr,inage release letters from all affected properties. 2. Allow contributory drainage to be collected into the basin with the developmental increase and regulate outflow to the before-development Q while still percolating the Delta volume. Return discharge of flows to the before-developed condition or obtain drainage release letters. 3. Allow only detention of the peak Delta Q provided there is a reasonable adequate outlet and drainage release letters obtained from all affected propert i es. ~,,~ '- '...., 4. Provide full retentJ~n and percolation of flows. Each site must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and drainage release letters may be mandatory due to the particular circumstances. Existing public roads maintained by the County may be considered as acce?table drainage oultes provided Departmental approval is obtained. Interior street patterns should be designed to ac:ommodate existing drainage patterns and street sump conditions should be avoided. Local streets can be utilized to convey storm flows provided it complies with street safety drainage requirements (refer to Road Sewer & Water Section). I',, .,"-. , , ", r.'" . ('~ P~RCOLATION BASINS A. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA Basins are to be sized on a 25-year rainfall frequency, 4th day only, storm event plus one foot of freeboard. The volume analysis is deemed acceptable due to physical conditions that indicate that the area experiences high- intensity, short-duration (thundershower) storm events. Updated methodology and hydrologic criteria are being evaluated by Hydraulic and Water Conservation Division. Analysis procedures and updated data will be incorporated upon Department pol icy and 'im~l ementation approval., . B. GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS Provide adequate energy dissipation for inflows to prevent scour and erosion '~" of the basin invert 'and' side slopes. . ., .., Provide, standard protection barriers and trash racks for inlets and outlets. Provide a secondary overflow path (i.e., acess road) to a paved public street as an auxiliary spillway. Outflow lines (except true detention type basins) are to be elevated a minimum of one foot above the basin invert. The basin floor is to be graded to drain away from the outflow line (i~ ',. typical). This is to be minimize basin maintenance by isolating and concentrating summer low flaws. ".. ... . . . ~ : .." No seepage pi ts in the basi n floor to mitigate nuisance flows wil 1 be allowed due to their high maintenance and lack of reliability.,': ;; c.STRUCTURAL CRITERIA Soils report should be submitted that addresses slope stability, effects of rapid drawdown, infiHration, potential seepage. and possiblc effects such as land settlement or increased lateral infiltration and groundwater recharges. Provi~e maximum 3:1 side slopes unless the soils report can verify stability at steeper slopes. . ' I ' I\'- Basins utilizing walls as a means of retaining water must be reinforced" " concrete and strùcturally designed for hydrostatic pressures.¡,¡ ; " D. ACCESS AND FENCING Provide security fencing and a double drive gate per Standard Drawing No. 2-D 178 or provide Department approved blockwalls (Min. height of 5 feet). Provide a 12-foot wide minimum concrete access ramp to the bottom of the basin. Maximum grade into the basin shall be 12 percent. Provide a 5-foot setback from the fence line or wall to the top of the basin slope along the basin perimeter adjacent public streets. ..'" '. ~ .. . .." ,. ',',.. Prnvide an 8-foot setback from the fence line or wall to the top of the basin I ~ .ùpe along the basin perimeter adjacent private lots. Lesser setbacKs must be approved by the Department1s Soil Unit and Operation and Maintenance Division. RIGHTS OF WAY The rights of way sha:l be shown and properly labeled on the plans. Basin facilities located outside the Flood Control District boundaries shall have easements dedicated to the County of Los Angeles for Flood Control purposes. Basins within the District boundaries are to be dedicated to Los Angeles County Flood Control District for flood control purposes. Rights of way in fee simple is required for facilities within future right of way needs per the Antelope Valley Master Drainage Plan. Planned flow paths are to be considered flood . . . . . hazard areas. \ '.," \~,.¡. t ~ i '.-.'", ... ... ..; . i -,.i ('. ,~'.f., 3/81 \ I:-TERHt STANDARDS FOR PERCOLA TI ON BASINS 1.The basin capacity shall be the difference in volumeof runoff between the undev~lcped subdi vis ion and the developed conditions for th~ fourth storm day usingthe modified rational method. ~. ~J,ri ,.1"fIll c: Ø'~~ot '7 ~~J,~ .2.The basin's side slopes shall not exceed one . vertical to four feet horizanal wi th a depth. ponding no greater than 2,5 feet. 3.The development shall be designed to direct nuisance water to the basin.,,. 4. Basins'must be designed to totally ~~rcolate drainage ,within a seven day time interval after storms. 'Percolation test~ will have to be provided arid approved by County Engineer. A controlled discharge outlet will 'have to be designed if soil conditions do not allow adeq~a te percolation, S. The basln de sign should be such tha tit doe s not advers ely ,", affeci:,"the aesthetics of the area and all efforts should be made t,o :preserve significant natural'plants and trees. tt ~p.p. ._ '0. The subdh'ider shall establish a houseO\.¡ners as~ociationfor the ~a in tenance for al 1 dra inage facil i ties 0 ther then those accepted for maintenance by the County. " .~ ,. "' . : ~ \.~__..o,_.. .__.._._._( .. , . ~""~'''. . \ ." :':... .. ,\.:; '- .. . ,. .- - (:: J.UNTY ENGINE¡:R.FACIUTiES ~IT¡J '. R:c~ - 5pa-;c/ a: MOilON B '' SUPERVISOR BAXTER WARD October 28, 1980 ..,. n~Q? .-: .. ... I'.. ~ .. t'f~, . ......: . , , "-'.'- ", , , , f Supervisor Ward for Interim Drainage s suggested by North County Citizens ". r~'.?~"~..--/.,."" 0.. ;0" .~- '~: ':r"_..,~r'.. ..:;.. 'pi'.,', ,,--' ,,. ,;.;1. .,.:. =:::... ..1..-- .~:...~.. .'~",.,.Irrr," , ~ " . '. .. " ADOPTED . 'BOARD Of SUPEiNISORS COuitrr OF LOS AtlûëlES 4 0 CT 2 8 1980 JJ ¿~~1/'... I JAMtS S. M1~txtcuriv£ arnC" ", .t , .".... ~,Ii__ "'~. ." ~'. ,¿It ~.--,~. ':.,'f . :'\'. MOTION BY SOPER VISOR BAXTER WARD ,\"'....October 28, 1980 .. . . The Quartz Hill area. of Antelope Valley is locat~d on a relatively !lat gently sloping plain which can be identified with the large alluvial plains lound at the bases of most mountain ranges. . Typically, storm runoff over th~se areas take the form of sheet flow with few defined drainage courses. In rcc~nt years, however, the area has begun to develop into ~ residential community at an "incrcas- ingpace with a corresponding increase in the total runoff. This runoff has been confined to 'unimproved shallow drainage paths or' ". concentrated and chånnelize.d in thé streets. These streets, :,: partic:ularly in the northsouth direction, have insufficient capacity to _ _ ~ ,~' . .' ,; contain t his runoff and adjacent properties have been subject to . _ '. ,'. "'. , '!looding. The area also has many unimproved dirt streets that Dot _ _' only erode in storm !low, but could become a probl~m vw'ith a constant flow of nuisance water crossing from new developments upstream. ,~ '-, The area 1ìà.s' limited topographic data and the ,extent of the flood hazard area is :difficult to deterrnine as the terrain gradually flattens toward the valley. The area. needs a comprehensive study oùtiÙiing the problem areas and suggesting sålutions. An inferim policy must be established to allow development to continue until a d etail,ed master plan for drainage is completed.. ., The proposed int~riI: policy incorporates many of the recommendations by the North Cou."1f:i- Citizens Planning Council as presented in its lettér dated September 18, 1980, to Our Honorable Board. THEREFORE, I MOVE TEAT TilS BOARD: 1. Establish thë attac::ed interim policy for drainage of new dc\'elopment in the QuartzHill a.rea. . ,. 2. Instruct the Cowity Engi.neer to determine the extcnt of the flood hazard and. prepare pe rmanent policy a.nd maste r plan for drainage in the Q~artz Hill a.rea. ' . ,;..-. , ¡ ~d ¡ Ii ! i: ~ ; .1 , ' j I ,l, ' L ~i t'-- ,- ~., rt. "'.~ .~ I i I ii I I -".. ...-_'"... ok......~.. . ' !" . :'t. ,. , .'t -. .if'-. , INTERIM DRAINAGE POLICY FOR QUARTZ HILL AREA , I?eve lopme nt will be pc rmitted outside the' flood plain. Developments ''\vithin 'the flood plain may be allowed if the street design and development layout do not alter the natural drainage pat- " terns or adversely affect adjacent property. Floodways or flood ,. .' protection areas must be provided for the passage of storm waters. i,. .-- .''. " .:'~'...' . _Fully improved roads r.ay be used for routing storm water runoff. When the design sto rm exceeds the carrying capacity of the. .,." ,,-,' street, in ncw,dèveloi;ments, £1oo¿\vays, or flood protection district . . ;ì. ,shall be established. Vrhen it is determined by the County Engineer that the development will have a signific,:nt i~c:-ease in runoff and that this inc.:ease will 'adversely affect downstream developed areas, pe ::colation basins may be required to detain the in~:.cased ru.:off caused by the developrrent. Requirements for these basins shall be ,- established by the County Engineer. ........ . ... "oJ" .~. 'f! '-. PROCEDURES FOR DBAA MAINTENANCE AND TRANSFER During the past few years, the Land Development Division has been requiring measures be taken to provide for drainage in the Antelope Valley by o~~site detention or retention of increased storm water developed by the new sub- divisions. The method used has been minimal storm_ßrain systems which outlet into' a basin. These basins are designated to accept that portion of runofr attributed to increased development. This policy was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 28. 1980, as an interim policy for the Quartz Hill area .of the North County. Since all of the Antelope Valley has similar drainage con~ cerns in areas other than Quartz Hill. the policy has been expanded to include subdivisions throughout most of the. Valley.' . There have been several subdivisions with requirements to install percol ation basins to provide for drainage. The developers have also been required to form a drainage district to maintain these systems since those formed are not within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District boundary. These districts are composed of the properties within a subdivision and are formed under a benefit assessmènt area with money to be collected with the individual tax bills. .. Maintenance is the developer's obligation until these facilities have been accepted by the County. Additionally, ÐBAAs are being formed for subsurface drainage systems to collect water in geolo~ical problem areas. These systems, called hydraugers, are located near Valencia. , l . ,, , ~ .. " Procedures are as fol16~s:\~ " " II " . The Land Development .Division, as part of the subdivision require- ments, shall process the plans, collect bands, help establish the BAA and 'determine when the work is complete. When the work is complete, the Land Development Division shall recommend acceptance of the work and provide Planning Division ~ith the information necessary to set up a procedure so that maintenance may commence. Among ne~essary procedures are the following: Set up fiscal collections from the Auditor-Controller. Recommend yearly adjustments of collections to the Board ofSupervisors. ' Develop standards and specifications of maintenance or modify those submi tted. 1- 2. 3. 4. S. ,. 6. 7. '" '," Monitor facilities. Develop maintenance schedule. Develop a disbursal program in conjunction wi th Business and Finance Division. Development of work contracting. ..., " " . ~"~ ": l' I"f" °rocedures i'age 3 Business and Finance Division 1. Establish recordkeepîng procedure for c011ections and disbursal of funds .:. , :.. , ," . Flood Maintenance Division , . 1.Receive work assignment from Planning Division including: - a., Copy of BAA Ordinance . 'b. OBAA document c. Subdivision map'-.' d. Construction pl ans '. , '. e. Operation and maintenance manual or specif5cations (as , ,required),Create work order. ', . ~. ',; .. -. ~ ...;;.. ... : Recordkeeping, fundi on, time and cost. . :Servicecontract development. August budget estimate to Planning Division (each year). . : :~" - " . 2. 3. .-' 4. 5. '-, "~. ," ", . , Construction Division.,'-...' ".. . . \, 1. Provide ongòing inspection during construction. 2. Provide final i~~pection prior to acceptance of consttuction., " The Dràinage Benefit Assessment Area listing is attached. KC:-: acm (8.1/3) ,. " -., . f' ,,' . .: i~ , .....~'I ~'_ . ~.. ',. . I . t Procedures "'Page 2 \ :'-/ '1- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ." 7. 8. 9. . 1 O. land Develocment Di vi sion Identify drainage ne2ds on tentative.ma~.conditions. Review canstruction plans. Send construction plans to Flood Maintenance Division for review and maintenance estimate. Collect deposit for OBAA formation. Send material for D6AA for~ation to Planning Division. Approve construction plans~ . . ". Construction inspection by Construction Division. Notify Planning Division of completion of construction when Boardof Supervisors' letter is prepared. ' . Recommend acceptance of compl eted construct ion by 1 etter to Board of Supervisors after maintenance tax is collected. " Transfer maintenance apackage" to Planning Division. . . ",":"';,::;:, .,,~::.'?'.;;":'.::.::': ~:-- -,..., , ,'-~ . - '~ ::.:',,~ ''':.','':::,-.." - " . ~ :'~:.::: PL anni ng Di vi s i on - ":.: :':~' . :',. ", '. , . ...... ,.'-. '.... .:..... ...... ':." - .... ." ~~ '. 'j. .:, .' . "." .''- - ,... . " " ,. . -....._...__... -~-.._.. _..' .1.'Accept OBAA formåtion material a. Jab number access (53,000.00+).. b. Subdivision map ,- c. Ca~y'of private drain plans d. Benefi ted area boundary e. Maintenance cost estimate f. Operation and maintenance manual (as required) Prepare report, EIR, Resolution Instituting Proceedings, and Notice of Hearing and Filing. File necessary documents with Board of Supervisors. Post Notice of Hearing and Filing. . Submit notification affidavits. Prepare resolution determining assessments and submittal to voters. File resolution determining assessment with Board. Notify Land Development Division when DBAA is formed. Accept transfer package from Land Development Divis~on including: a. Copy of BAA Ordinanc; b. DBAA document c. Subdivision map and assessment roll d. Construction plans e. Operation and maint~nanc= manuals or specifications (as requ; red) Records for each area. Notices to Business and Finance Division. Assign work and disbursements to Flood Maintenance Division. Budgets each August for Board of Supervisors' approval. . , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. -. ...'. . .. " pro. ,.' !., *' . ::DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM~ , TO:Mi ke Nagao Planning Division Septembe~- 5, 1986 FROM: Carl L. Blum Land Development Divisioñ' ",:.. -, ' . . File No. 2~i5.40 -~. .': Transfer of Storm Drain Systems ,,:, Drainage Benefit Assessment Area No. .. Private Drain No. For your information, the above~referenced Retention/Detention Basin and Storm Drain System has been transferr~d to the District for operation and maintenance...-:;.;.. 1,. ~..-.. .: ,. ," 'f :-. Date of 'Board ,of Superv~sor~,~ ,åPP,roval: , ,. ...~e.. ..... .~¡~. ~ .:..:;.~-: ,.' u, _" :0. :, :- .' Date of Board Letter:' .,:"", ~ ~.,' , ".~' . _ (copy attached) .."., -., .. . ,. . . . , . Supervisorial District: 5 _. .._... .' - " '.Desi gned by: Basin Capacity: ~ '''.. ~. . , . - a.cr~ feet. Main Lipe Storm Drain Length: Area: feet more or less Thomas Guide: page Quad Sheet: Operati on and Maintenance Area: Hansen Yard Rod H. Kubomoto Head, Drainage and Gradi ng Section RHK : amc Attachment ',- . bc: Contract Administration Division, Operation and Maintenance (2), (Hanseo. Yard), Property Management (Permits), Land Development (O&G), Secretary of Nomenclature Committee, General Files. '. , "..L...,e.. .1' . ". .i" .. .j. , ' , .......\.-:... " '. . 6 7 ~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,. DRAINAGE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AREA No. Name Location 1 Tract 38994. P.O. 1706 Avenue L-8 Street West.I... . .'.. ...' . "... -. .... . ~ -,. .. 2 , Big Rock Mesa': -, Mal ibu" .. ',' .." .. . ~'. .. ,. .~:.. .'.. ...... .... "... . .. 3 Tract 36496 . '~, ','Canyon Country.. '.' ..... ,':. ~. ,'.: ..,:,;: '.":" ..... .., 4 'Tract 30114 .',' .:' El i zabeth Lake . ~':',_P :~'_ ~~48 -,'.::::.~:,',,::.~:;.r'.::.' ::'" '.,\ ,:._ . _ ':.";' 5 '. Tract 36395 . ~~: '::: Avenue M-8 and p .D. 1853,,:,'_~j;,",. 60th Street West . ":." ,'... ..' ',.. ~ - ~ -~..)' ',,:.é .' .. ".:' .J . ... ", ... ,.- .. ~.... .... .... ,,'' ':. . . .. . Canyon Country (5 i erra Hi ghway) . ' ',Tract 43528 .. .,: P.M. 13213 Avenue M andP.O. 1809 ,,, "';, 10th Street West.. Tract 43545 i' Avenue K and 45thP.O. 1937 'Street (W.) ìract 44330 Quartz Hill Tracts 36875 Avenue R-12 and & 43087/P.b. 1990 47 Street E. Tract 44370 Division Street and P .0. 1980 Avenue R-8 Calle Del Barca Malibu Tracts 43708, 40th Street W. and 44440, 44441~ and Avenue L-8 44442 Type of Maintenance Con~tructed Sump/Landscape 20~ Constructed Formed .. ... . Hydraugers No Cons truct i on Not Formed". .'. ..... Hydraugers 'Construct i on . , compl eted-Formed Storm Drain No ConstruCtion Farmed,- .. . . . . ,Sump .. ~~~~~~'~:~;-s .', . , . Construction _' comp1 eted-Formed Formed . ' Dry S.D.85% Constructed Voted Sump No Construction Not Formed Sump Formed Sump Abandoned Detention Basin Not Formed Hydraugers Voted Sump Not Formed '..-. , , ,. ',,~~. i ,¡OM..S A, TIDEMANSON. DlrrC10r CECIL E. B UGH, Chi,r D,puiy Dlr"lor MAS NAGAMI, Aulll.nl DlrrC10r TO: FROM: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT A VENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 918003-1331 Trlrphonc: (818) 458-5100 j October 25, 1989 Land Development AdvisoryCommittee Memb~ Donald L. Wolf~ ~if Assistant Deputy Directo Land Development Divisi n INTERIM DRAINAGE POLICY ADDRESS ALL CORRESPO:-OENCE TO:p,o, BOX I~O ' ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA '9U01,J460 IN REPlY PLESE REFER TO FilE: Attached is a draft interim drainage policy and guidelines for land development proj ects in the Acton area. comments are requested by December' i, 1989. JEE:mg(M-2)IDP L-Q Your " I DRAFT J ACTON INTERIM DRAINAGE POLICY AND GUIDELINES The Interim Po l'i cy ; Containment of the incremental increase of runoff and nuisance flows from landdeve 1 opment proposa 1 s with in the wa't~.t;S,J)édfO r dQwñt'Ø:w.ı; AbtÓh.;r Tentative Map Requirem~nts ' ~ . . :....., .. Tentative map reviews are to' be evaluated per current guidel ines and procedures consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. Drainage concepts will continue to be required and tentative subdivision maps held until the concepts are approved. The concept review will include an intensive evaluation of the lot layout and street patterns, as it affects draïnage patterns and public safety. The reduction of proposed lots and/or redesign of street patterns may be necessary to mitigate the drainage concerns (and. thereby avoid certain structural improvemen ts). Drainage Concepts A drainage concept will be required for any division of land in Acton involving areas of known flood hazard and/or five acres or greater in total area. Delta Q basins shall be 'utilized to contain and percolate the incremental increase in run~ff due to the development, similar to that used in the Antelope Valley. Review of drainage concepts are to be consistent with current requirements and guidelines. However, several key issues should be acknowledged by thedeveloper's engineer to avoid future complications and possible significant expend Hures.' 1. A maximum of seven-day soil percolation rate for delta-volume arid/or full retention basins. A soils report should be submitted for soil section review. 2. Drainage solutions that not only mitigate the flood hazard to lots but are compatible with street safety drainage requirements. 3. Location and approximate sizing of the Delta Q basin. .4. Need for 'drainage a"cèptance letters from affected adjacent property owners. 5. The existance of multiple watercourses in the developed area necessitating multiple Delta Q basins. 6. Preliminary hydrology studies to evaluate before and after runoff conditions for the on-site areas as well the contributary off-site a rea s. " .I ~. 1 " -2- Drainage Concepts (Cont'd) The drainage concepts will be coordinated and concurrently approved by both the Drainage and Grading and Road/Sewer and Water Sections. Des i9n Criteria .I The interim drain-age provisions require subdivisions to limit drainage outflow to the before developed condition quantities. This would include not only the change in peak Q but also the volume due to the incremental decrease inperneabil ityassociated with development. Facil ities, therefore, must detain the change in peak Q and percolate the cha'nge in,volume to satisfy this policy. No credit shall be permitted (in determining basin volume) for percolationd u r i n gin flow. ' Percolation basins are the preferred design concept. However, due to site topography, public input, and field design parameters, several design options may be considered acceptable including: 1. Allow contributory drainage (with debris) to flow essentially through the development and deta in the peak Delta Q from the deve loped area andpercolate the Delta volume. Return discharge of flows to the predevelopment condition or obtain drainage release letters from all affected properties. '2. Allow contributory, desilted drainage to be collected into the basin along with the developmental increase and regulate outflow to the before-development Q while still percolating the Delta volume. Return discharge of flows to the before-develop~d condition or obtain drainage re 1 ease 1 etters. 3. Allow only detention of the peak Delta Q provided there is a reasonable adequate outl et and drai nage rel ease letters obtai ned from all affected properties. Percolation of nuisance flows is still required. 4. Provide full retention and percolation of flows. 5. For subdivisions of five acres or less, provide drainage release letters in. lieu of a Delta Q basin. .Each site must be evaluated on a case-bY-case basis and drainage release letters may be mandatory due .to the particular circumstances. Existing public roads'maintained by the County may be considered as acceptable drainage outlets provided Departmental approval is obtained. Interior street patterns should be designed to accorrodate existing drainage patterns and street sump conditions should be avoided. Local streets can be utilized to convey storm flows provided it complies with street safety drainage requi rements. Basins are to be located at the downstream end of the developed area to maximize interception of nuisance flows and peak flow reduction. :"3-I DRA.FT 1 Road Drainage Criteria The attached charts depict the criteria for mai.ntaining road drainage in the interim policy for,Acton when storm drain solutions are not feasible. This policy permits flooding under certain conditions of all roadways up to a 25-yeardesign frequency rainstorm. . Rights-Of-Way , ' The rights":of.-way shall. be shown and properly labeled on the plans. Retention and Delta Q basin easements are to be dedicated as flood control purposes to Los Angel es County Flood Control Di stri ct. Design Standards for Delta Q Basins A. Hydrologic Criteria: ~~~~~~~:~t~~-~nre~~~f//~ãr~âei~~~fr=C~~~~~~f~~~~i r:~:J~)'-", ( hydrology before and after on the developed area without consideration ~~~\ debris. .___"_-_.".-'......._.,___ø._...__ n _..-__M ___--.."'____...~_ B. General Des~gn Standards: Provide adequate energy dissipation for inflows to prevent scour and erosion of the basin invert and side slopes. Provide standard protection barriers and trash raCKS for inlets and outl ets. Provide a secondary overflow path (i.e., access road) to a paved public street as an auxil iary spillway. Outflow lines (except true detention type basins) are to be elevated a minimum of one foot above the basin invert. The basi n floor is to be graded to drain away from the outfl ow 1 i ne (3% typical). This is to be minimize basin maintenance by isolating and concentrating summer low flows. C. Structural Cri teri a: Soils report should be submitted that addresses slope stability, effects of rapid drawdown, infiltration, potential seepage, and possible effects such as land settlement or increased lateral infiltration .and groundwaterrecharges. , Provide maximum 3:1 side slopes unless the soils report can verify stability at steeper slopes. Basins utilizing walls as a means of retaining water must be reinforced concrete and structurally designed for hydrostatic pressures. ('. ', '. ' -4-IDR/\F1l D. Access and Fencing: Provi de s,ecurity fencing and a double dri ve gate per APWA Standard Draw~ n9 No. 600-0 or provide Department approved blockwalls (Min. height of 5 feet). iProvide a 12-foot wide minimum concrete access ramp to the bottom of the basin. Maximum grade into the basin shall be 12 percent. Provide a 5-foot setback from the fence lin~ or wall to the top of the basin slope along the j:åsfnperim~ter aajacent ,publJc streets. .. ~ :...~. . . Provide an 8-foot setback from the fence line or wall to the top of the basin slope along basin perimeter adjacent private lots. Lesser setbacksmust be approved by the Department in advance. Drywell Alternatives In smaller residential subdivisions (particularly with large rural lots) the use of a Del ta Q basin and associated interceptor systems may be impractical. The Department will consider the use ofa Maxwell Type iv drywell (or approved equal) on a case by case basis under the following conditions: 1. The subdivision is ten acres or less with minimum lot size of two acres and cannot be resubdivided into smaller lots. 2. Runoff and sumner nui sance flows are properly intercepted and drjwell s are designed to handle potential debris laden flows. 3. Soils analysis supports the viability of operation," including in areas of proposed fi 11. 4. The drywells are located within pUblic easements wHh paved vehicular access provided for maintenance and' repair functions. 5. The use of the5e faci 1 i ties have been adequately addressed in the environmental document for the tentative subdivision. 6. The approved hydrology study indicates a minimal increase in runoff due to development. , 'In certainsituabons, it may also be impraCtical to desi1t all tributory flows and still pick. up clear, developmental runoff for a Delta Q basin. The Department will consider, on site specific basis, the use of drywells to achieve percolation while allowing dilluted debris flows from the developed area to enter a Delta Q basin. It is the responsiblity of the engineering consultant to develop a basin facility that can operate in the dual capacity function. Drywells will be considered in controlling summer nuisance flows wherein topographic features and other Department policies and standards do not allow the practicality of draining the flows into the Delta Q basin. 1I~ I tl~lll K\.U UVI! ,'..~ "'"" L- " I "' ""AC"' - "J--'.--CCIG' ffITfIAlimo FLOJOIN:; CJOITlÜ'OJ'!'IEN"FUL RQQ IMfOYB'EWithin GutterAreart TERMT 1 VESQ25QlOo X VHi glwayS tree tPíESWr1. Wi tliout soonn drainXLess than 6t fre laneR/ to R/WOUTfIAffs t be o¡:ror be 1001 n eacheither s i ædirectionof R/WX*One free* .lane must"æ o~n in.each direc-'.. ,tion2. Iii th sronn drainXless than 6l free 1 aneg;QThere arr~generalll no~isting accetablerrs t be cpr1 teri aoutlets or coc.n ra flo,,in each ,çovemsdirection'.:X*Or free lane I1st be' "..", ... .opn in eadi d) rectionpi..hR'Y/5' 8 '- (, 4' I' '"1c ~ leri aÇJvems'51126&1, R/,.~- sa', 6i;~~~rx Pree 101,£(12): .t/QoJ Q"\lh ' " n..J Qii .RidI i,Ii1 iI: .11" ",I III i.,\_..~ - _,. .. .510("' cI,.";,,--- -ì ,.-.. ,/.,;; " ;-ICHW4'!,.. i... .... -":'",~":.: r S r0011 drA:". -..'.0-~..U""p!...::-,""!r-j ffCFSEO, lON11'RIH ROAD ffINA-E WEE PQlcy"C£SIG" CRITEIARO FLOODING CODITIONOJ1'IENrSFLll R(W I¡.O\IWithin Gutter"N'eaI\ld it i aiia 1PL TEMTI VE025QioD X VHi rjwayStreet ..mosCOSRcqui rElf0i tsffCPSEOr' Stann drain is notXA. Ne, roadAllow iiit-R/W to R/WRoads are1. Flooding1. orainafOOITEHIAeasib1e. Al1u. 'irrrov8lB1 ts¡m f1oo' ingfullyRI to R/Wfaçil Hie tof1 ood i ng RlÌ ta R/W.J to R/Wimprovediil: i ng roadehiiinilte nui-D X Vwt dm r t,ifTilSSab 1 eS1\ce f Jo,s fran' 'rrst be lessdi vert fl (Mc1uri n9 des i gghi Çh1tly$.than 6.or increasestanns,the deptll or'.tile amun t.~','of flooding.2. lnvease:cos t or roa,d8. Wideningiæintenance.ex;stin~irrroV8IEn sD X Y3, ycxditionsrrst be esswiJ rrt~than exi s ti ngiiioroved un t iconditionsJeqionàito a maimLIra 1 nççllof 9.'facili iesare avae"4. PossibleaclitionççlliabilHies."P.i.vIi,. ~I d,.d, Qis ', RI.,J 'i80 ,ripc-+iIRiw'. I '¡ liod Q", RlvItf - 5'6:&¡/~¡0::b-11~Hi G N '' A. 'IS1RGG1. ..t .:":: : :'1!it!'ffcrSED . i:NINTRIM R() mAiNAGE SAET PQICY. "C£ I G" OUTE IARQ FLOODI!\ ffDITION~IENS"FUL R04 IffffVEJOOWithin Gutl:rAreaHi qjMayfidi timal' fJ Tft' TI YES025QlOD X VStree tmasinsRequireretsffCPSED~. Stann drain is notXA, New roadAllow hit-Not ()PP lyRoads are1. Flcoding1. Ora i nòÇ3mITfIAfeasible.ExceeirrroveeentswÆí fl co i ngfullyRJ to RfWf ()c i 1 i t 1 e s to 1 J 1m i -fl cod 1 ng R¡W to R¡W,R to R/Wirrrovedflaking roadnate nui sance lowD X Vrut don i tirrpassablefron higM'Bys.nust be 1 essdivert flÛÛ1dur; ng desi ggi ". ' ,-than 6.or increases tonn .the depth or,"ıTun t of2.' Inlrease ': 2. Pipe or , Cox cùl-flooding.cos t ' or roadvert or Ar 1 zma i *B, WiæningnB i 0 ten ance.typ cross i og wi thexisting roadlÛÛ1 fluvi pi pes. foriirproysæntsroùd crossing.o X V3, yCOditions'3: Dedication ofnust b€ lesswil not beopen spòce lots forth~ existingProy; deiimroved vntidrainage facilitiesCCn i tion toditch ori))e?ional:outside R/W (privatea rmimLl ofdrain¡¡l-(ra n¡¡?frr i ntenance arrange-9.facil i iesfadli ~rrent)outs i de R/Ware~ . li;.'to carry".fl Ci ex-'-"ceeing sur-4. Possiblel."face capac-aQdi tiçn¡¡l"ity.liabil.i ties."...~:---~ r'" .... . . .. ...._._. _"0 .:. ". .,:1Only if ùll othcr norml drainage solutions are not feasible, the Arizona typ crossing with low flow pi~s may be pennissible on higlNays inflat natural drainage courses.RlvJ,Rj. 1: _,60' ., 10_' -- :: 01"" I ' i .. OPt" I: Si"'i :' . i 51,.c(. ¡: 'J \fl.,.dQu ' ,i i.~ L " vO"". - - - - --£==\:: --.i,,). . " D.n ii.,,~v,,;~ P.do;0pi-~~, 'Hlt.UWAr December 2011 D-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/App_D.doc Appendix D MODEL DEVELOPMENT MAPS D-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/App_D.doc This page left blank intentionally. Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates Los AngelesCounty(Unicorperated)Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure D.1XPSWMM SubbasinsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles XPSWMM Subbasin by Watershed 237th St. SubareaDominguez Channel SubareaHarbor Lakes SubareaWalteria Lake SubareaNot CalculatedP8 Subarea Boundaries Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates Los AngelesCounty(Unicorperated)Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure D.2Subbasins of PLOAD ModelStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles PLOAD Model Subbasinsby Watershed 237th St. SubbasinDominguez Channel SubbasinsHarbor Lakes SubbasinsWalteria Lake SubbasinsNot CalculatedPLOAD Subbasin Boundaries Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates Los AngelesCounty(Unicorperated)Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure D.3Subareas of P8 ModelStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles P8 Model Subareas 237th St. SubbasinDominguez Channel SubbasinsHarbor Lakes SubbasinsWalteria Lake SubbasinsNot CalculatedPLOAD Subbasin Boundaries Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AnglesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado LakeHawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redond o Be a c h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.4Satellite Image Stormwater Quality Master Plan City of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LegendCity BoundaryBodies of Water TORRANCE Satellite Imagery from WorldView for July 10, 2010 Figure D.5Imperviousness Derived from High Resolution ImageryStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance Imperviousness (%)High : 100 Low : 0 Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.6Water Quality CalibrationCity Model TSS LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <42004200 - 8300 8300 - 14000 14000 - 24000 >24000 FreewayMajor RoadsLos Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary TSS Load Predictedby City Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a c h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.7Water Quality CalibrationCity Model TP LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <12 12-25 25-40 40-60>60 FreewayMajor Roads Los Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TP Loadby City Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.8Water Quality CalibrationCity Model TN LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <7575-145145-220220-350>350 FreewayMajor RoadsLos Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TKN Load by City Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.9Water Quality CalibrationLos Angeles County Model TSS LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <5000 5000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 20000 - 45000 >45000 FreewayMajor RoadsLos Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TSS Load by County Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.10Water Quality CalibrationLos Angeles County Model TP LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <100100 - 300300 - 600600- 900>900 Freeway Major Roads Los Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TP Load by County Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.11Water Quality CalibrationLos Angeles County Model TN LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <115115 - 220 220 - 400400 - 800 >800 Freeway Major Roads Los Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TN Load by County Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates Los AngelesCounty(Unicorperated)Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure D.1XPSWMM SubbasinsStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles XPSWMM Subbasin by Watershed 237th St. SubareaDominguez Channel SubareaHarbor Lakes SubareaWalteria Lake SubareaNot CalculatedP8 Subarea Boundaries Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates Los AngelesCounty(Unicorperated)Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure D.2Subbasins of PLOAD ModelStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles PLOAD Model Subbasinsby Watershed 237th St. SubbasinDominguez Channel SubbasinsHarbor Lakes SubbasinsWalteria Lake SubbasinsNot CalculatedPLOAD Subbasin Boundaries Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Estates Los AngelesCounty(Unicorperated)Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a ch Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdDC-S2 DC-S1 HL-S4 WL-S3 WL-S2 HL-S1 DC-S3 DC-S5 DC-S6 WL-S1 HL-S3 HL-S5 DC-S4 PI-S1 HL-S2 Figure D.3Subareas of P8 ModelStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles P8 Model Subareas 237th St. SubbasinDominguez Channel SubbasinsHarbor Lakes SubbasinsWalteria Lake SubbasinsNot CalculatedPLOAD Subbasin Boundaries Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles RedondoBeach Rolling HillsEstates Los AnglesCounty(Unincorperated) Machado LakeHawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blv d Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redond o Be a c h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.4Satellite Image Stormwater Quality Master Plan City of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles LegendCity BoundaryBodies of Water TORRANCE Satellite Imagery from WorldView for July 10, 2010 Figure D.5Imperviousness Derived from High Resolution ImageryStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance Imperviousness (%)High : 100 Low : 0 Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.6Water Quality CalibrationCity Model TSS LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <42004200 - 8300 8300 - 14000 14000 - 24000 >24000 FreewayMajor RoadsLos Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary TSS Load Predictedby City Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B e a c h Blv d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.7Water Quality CalibrationCity Model TP LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <12 12-25 25-40 40-60>60 FreewayMajor Roads Los Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TP Loadby City Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.8Water Quality CalibrationCity Model TN LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <7575-145145-220220-350>350 FreewayMajor RoadsLos Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TKN Load by City Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.9Water Quality CalibrationLos Angeles County Model TSS LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <5000 5000 - 10000 10000 - 20000 20000 - 45000 >45000 FreewayMajor RoadsLos Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TSS Load by County Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo B eac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.10Water Quality CalibrationLos Angeles County Model TP LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <100100 - 300300 - 600600- 900>900 Freeway Major Roads Los Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TP Load by County Model (lb/yr) Gardena Redondo Beach LomitaPalos Verdes Estates City ofLos Angeles Hawthorne BlvdArtesia BlvdN Sepulveda BlvdS Western AveTorrance BlvdPlaza Del A m o Sepulve d a B l v d W 182nd St Hawthorne BlvdCrenshaw Blvd Cll De Arboles Pacific Coast Hwy Del Amo Blvd Lomita B l v d S C a m R e a l E 182nd St W 190th St W Redondo Be ac h Bl v d Artesia BlvdHawthorne BlvdFigure D.11Water Quality CalibrationLos Angeles County Model TN LoadStormwater Quality Master PlanCity of Torrance 0 0.5 10.25 Miles <115115 - 220 220 - 400400 - 800 >800 Freeway Major Roads Los Angeles County Model Subbasin Boundary Predicted TN Load by County Model (lb/yr) December 2011 E-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/App E.doc Appendix E MODEL DEVELOPMENT MAPS E-2 December 2011 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Torrance/8419A00/Deliverables/Report/App E.doc This page left blank intentionally. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Background Information on LACFCD G-1 | Page 2015 Appendix G Background Information on the LACFCD DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Background Information on LACFCD G-2 | Page 2015 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 for 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 17.) 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 18). 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. 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: DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Background Information on LACFCD G-3 | Page 2015 • Maintaining a countywide hotline (888-CLEAN-LA) and website (www.888cleanla.com) for public reporting and general stormwater management information at an estimated annual cost of $250,000. Each Permittee can utilize this hotline and website for public reporting within its jurisdiction. • Broadcasting public service announcements and conducting regional advertising campaigns at an estimated annual cost of $750,000. • Facilitating the dissemination of public education and activity specific stormwater pollution prevention materials at an estimated annual cost of $100,000. • Maintaining a stormwater website at an estimated annual cost of $10,000. The LACFCD will implement these elements on behalf of all Permittees starting July 2015 and through the 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 implement certain regional elements of the monitoring program. Specifically, the LACFCD will continue to conduct monitoring at the seven existing mass emissions stations required under the previous Permit. The LACFCD will also participate in the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition’s Regional Bioassessment Program on behalf of all Permittees. By taking on these additional responsibilities, the LACFCD wishes to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Background Information on LACFCD G-4 | Page 2015 LACFCD Territory DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances H-1 | Page 2015 Appendix H Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances H-2 | Page 2015 APPROACH TO ADDRESSING RECEIVING WATER EXCEEDANCES Sections VI.C.2 and VI.C.3 of the Permit describe how compliance with receiving water limits is attained for the various water body-pollutant combinations identified in a permittee’s EWMP. Different actions are required for different types of receiving water limits. Specifically, the following classifications are addressed by the Permit: • Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Addressed by a TMDL. • 303(d)-listed Water Body-Pollutant Combinations: Pollutants in the same class as those identified in a TMDL and for which the water body is 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.i), and pollutants not in the same class as those identified in a TMDL, but for which the water body is 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.ii). • Non 303(d)-listed Water Body-Pollutant Combinations: Pollutants for which there are exceedances of receiving water limitations, but for which the water body is not 303(d)-listed (Section VI.C.2.a.iii). Figure H-1 illustrates this process. Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Addressed by a TMDL For water body-pollutant combinations addressed by a TMDL, adherence to all requirements and compliance dates as set forth in the approved EWMP will constitute compliance with applicable interim TMDL-based water quality based effluent limits and interim receiving water limits. 303(d)-listed Water Body-Pollutant Combinations 303(d)-listed water body-pollutant combinations are equivalent to the identified Category 2 combinations. Category 2 pollutants that will be addressed by the EWMP are limited to indicator bacteria in Dominguez Channel.1 However, with the understanding that water body-pollutant combinations may be added to the Category 2 list based on future monitoring data, an approach to address both types of 303(d)-listed water body-pollutant combinations is provided below. Pollutants in the same class as those identified in a TMDL If in the future a water body within the Beach Cities EWMP Area is added to the State’s 303(d) list and a direct linkage to MS4 discharges is shown, the requirements of Permit Section VI.C.2.a.i will apply to this water body-pollutant combination, and the following actions will be completed as part of the EWMP: • Demonstrate that the BMPs selected to achieve the applicable TMDL provisions will also adequately address MS4 contributions of the pollutant(s) within the same class. Assumptions and requirements of the corresponding TMDL provisions must be applied to the additional pollutant(s), including interim and final requirements and deadlines for 1 As detailed in this document, pollutants which have not been definitively tied to MS4 discharges are not included in the EWMP at this time, but will be evaluated as part of future monitoring under the CIMP. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances H-3 | Page 2015 their achievement, such that the MS4 discharges of the pollutant(s) will not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations. • Perform a RAA for this water body-pollutant combination. • Identify milestones and dates for their achievement consistent with those in the applicable TMDL. If outfall and receiving water monitoring under the CIMP indicate that such a listing is not linked to MS4 discharges, the Category 2 designation will be removed and further action for this water-body pollutant combination under the EWMP will cease. Pollutants not in the same class as those identified in a TMDL If in the future a water body within the Beach Cities EWMP Area is added to the State’s 303(d) list and a direct linkage to MS4 discharges is shown, the requirements of Permit Section VI.C.2.a.ii will apply to this water body-pollutant combination. Currently, indicator bacteria in Dominguez Channel is the only 303(d)-listed pollutant that is not in the same class as any existing TMDL within the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Although the 303(d) source assessment only lists “point sources” and “nonpoint sources,” and a definitive linkage to the Beach Cities has not been demonstrated, the MS4 system may cause or contribute to the bacteria impairment. Therefore, the following actions will be completed as part of the EWMP for indicator bacteria in Dominguez Channel, as well as in the future for any future applicable 303(d) listings: • This water body-pollutant combination will be included in the RAA. • If necessary, BMPs will be identified to address contributions of indicator bacteria from MS4 discharges to the receiving water, such that the MS4 discharges of bacteria will not cause or contribute to the exceedance of the receiving water limits. • Enforceable milestones and dates for their achievement will be identified to control MS4 discharges such that they do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations within a timeframe that is as short as practicable, taking into account the technological, operational, and economic factors that affect the design, development, and implementation of the BMPs that are necessary. The time between dates will not exceed one year. Milestones will relate to a specific water quality endpoint (e.g., percent load reduction) and dates will relate either to taking a specific action or meeting a numeric water quality endpoint. If the identified dates are beyond the term of the Order, then Permit Section VI.C.2.a.ii(5) will apply. If outfall and receiving water monitoring under the CIMP indicate that indicator bacteria is not an MS4-related pollutant, the Category 2 designation will be removed and further action for this water-body pollutant combination under the EWMP will cease. Non 303(d)-listed Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Permit Section C.2.a.iii discusses the requirements for pollutants for which there are exceedances of receiving water limitations, but for which the water body is not 303(d)-listed. As summarized previously, existing data indicate that cyanide, pH, selenium, mercury, and cadmium are all considered Category 3 pollutants for Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral). However, at this time, due to an overall lack of data, these pollutants have not been definitively linked to MS4 discharges. As a result, these combinations (along with any potential future WBPCs) will DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances H-4 | Page 2015 ultimately be identified based on data collected pursuant to the approved CIMP. If and when sufficient CIMP monitoring data suggest that MS4 discharges may2 have caused or contributed, or have reasonable potential to cause or contribute, to the exceedance of receiving water limitations, then the EWMP will be modified as follows: • BMPs will be identified to address contributions of the pollutant(s) from MS4 discharges to the receiving water(s), such that the MS4 discharges of the pollutant(s) will not cause or contribute to the exceedance of the receiving water limits. • A RAA will be conducted for the water body-pollutant combination(s). In some instances this will require modeling of the identified pollutant. • Enforceable milestones and dates for their achievement will be identified to control MS4 discharges such that they do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations within a timeframe(s) that is as short as practicable, taking into account the technological, operational, and economic factors that affect the design, development, and implementation of the BMPs that are necessary. The time between dates will not exceed one year. Milestones will relate to a specific water quality endpoint (e.g., percent load reduction) and dates will relate either to taking a specific action or meeting a milestone. If the identified dates are beyond the term of the Order, then Permit Section VI.C.2.a.iii(2)(d) will apply. To evaluate if MS4 discharges may have caused or contributed to the exceedance of receiving water limitations, all of the following criteria will be applied: • Receiving water samples exceed the applicable receiving water limitations at such frequency that they meet the listing criteria in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in California’s Water Control Policy (State Water Board, 2004); • MS4 outfall samples (taken per the CIMP) exceed the applicable WQBELs or receiving water limits; and • Data do not exist to demonstrate that the outfall exceedances were a result of other permitted discharges to the MS4 (e.g., permitted dewatering or groundwater treatment projects). 2 Where CIMP monitoring data demonstrate that MS4 discharges may have caused or contributed to the exceedance of receiving water limitations, it should be noted that this does not constitute any admission of known contributions, but reflects uncertainty in linking datasets. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Approach to Addressing Receiving Water Exceedances H-5 | Page 2015 Figure H-1. Compliance with Receiving Water Limitations Not Otherwise Addressed by a TMDL DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix I | Land Use-Based Wet Weather Event Mean Concentrations I-1 | Page 2015 Appendix I Land Use-Based Wet Weather Event Mean Concentrations DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix I | Land Use-Based Wet Weather Event Mean Concentrations I-2 | Page 2015 Table I-1. Proposed SBPAT EMCs for Beach Cities WMG Watersheds – Arithmetic Estimates of the Lognormal Summary Statistics (means with standard deviations in parentheses)a Land Use TSS mg/L TP mg/L DP mg/L NH3 mg/L NO3 mg/L TKN mg/L Diss Cu ug/L Tot Cu ug/L Tot Pb ug/L Diss Zn ug/L Tot Zn ug/L Fecal Col. #/100mL Single Family Residential 124.2 (184.9) 0.40 (0.30) 0.32 (0.21) 0.49 (0.64) 0.78 (1.77) 2.96 (2.74) 9.4 (9.0) 18.7 (13.4) 11.3 (16.6) 27.5 (56.2) 71.9 (62.4) 31,100b (94,200) Commercial 67.0 (47.1) 0.40 (0.33) 0.29 (0.25) 1.21 (4.18) 0.55 (0.55) 3.44 (4.78) 12.3 (10.2) 31.4 (25.7) 12.4 (34.2) 153.4 (96.1) 237.1 (150.3) 51,600 (173,000)c Industrial 219.2 (206.9) 0.39 (0.41) 0.26 (0.25) 0.6 (0.95) 0.87 (0.96) 2.87 (2.33) 15.2 (14.8) 34.5 (36.7) 16.4 (47.1) 422.1 (534.0) 537.4 (487.8) 3,760 (4,860) Education (Municipal) 99.6 (122.7) 0.30 (0.17) 0.26 (0.2) 0.4 (0.99) 0.61 (0.67) 1.71 (1.13) 12.2 (11.0) 19.9 (13.6) 3.6 (4.9) 75.4 (52.3) 117.6 (83.1) 11,800c (23,700) Transportation 77.8 (83.8) 0.68 (0.94) 0.56 (0.82) 0.37 (0.68) 0.74 (1.05) 1.84 (1.44) 32.40 (25.5) 52.2 (37.5) 9.2 (14.5) 222.0 (201.7) 292.9 (215.8) 1,680 (456) Multi-Family Residential 39.9 (51.3) 0.23 (0.21) 0.20 (0.19) 0.50 (0.74) 1.51 (3.06) 1.80 (1.24) 7.40 (5.70) 12.1 (5.60) 4.5 (7.80) 77.5 (84.1) 125.1 (101.1) 11,800d (23,700) Agriculture (row crop) 999.2 (648.2) 3.34 (1.53) 1.41 (1.04) 1.65 (1.67) 34.40 (116.30) 7.32 (3.44) 22.50 (17.50) 100.1 (74.8) 30.2 (34.3) 40.1 (49.1) 274.8 (147.3) 60,300 (153,000) Vacant / Open Space 216.6 (1482.8) 0.12 (0.31) 0.09 (0.27) 0.11 (0.25) 1.17 (0.79) 0.96 (0.9) 0.60 (1.90) 10.6 (24.4) 3.0 (13.1) 28.1 (12.9) 26.3 (69.5) 484e (806) a EMC statistics are calculated based on 1996-2000 data for Los Angeles County land use sites (Los Angeles County, 2000), except for agriculture which are based on Ventura County MS4 EMCs (Ventura County, 2003) and fecal coliform which are based on 2000-2005 SCCWRP Los Angeles region land use data (SCCWRP, 2007b). These EMC datasets are summarized in the SBPAT User’s Guide (Geosyntec, 2012). b The fecal coliform EMC for the single-family residential land use is based on SCCWRP dataset for “low-density residential.” c The default log distribution best fit summary statistics for this land use-pollutant combination produced an unreasonably high deviation, therefore the arithmetic estimate of the log mean was held constant while the log summary statistics were recomputed based on the log CoV for SFR (SCCWRP’s low-density residential EMC). c Multi Family Residential EMC used since educational land use site not available in the SCCWRP fecal coliform dataset. d The fecal coliform EMC for the multi-family residential land use is based on SCCWRP dataset for “high-density residential.” e Open space fecal coliform EMC statistics based on E. coli data (divided by 0.85 to adjust to fecal coliform) for Arroyo Sequit reference watershed, or 11 samples collected between December 2004 and April 2006. Data used by Regional Board for Santa Clara River Bacteria TMDL and taken from (SCCWRP, 2005) and (SCCWRP 2007a). DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-1 | Page 2015 Appendix J BMP Effluent Concentrations DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-2 | Page 2015 Table J-1 summarizes the number of effluent data points (individual storm events) and percent non-detects for the pollutants and BMP types of interest for which sufficient data were available. A large percentage of non-detects can bias the effluent statistics derived from the dataset (e.g., total lead for bioretention shows a 60% non-detect ratio). Table J-2 summarizes arithmetic averages and Table J-3 summarizes the arithmetic standard deviations of the BMP effluent concentrations that will be used in the RAA. Consistent with IBD documentation (WWE and Geosyntec, 2007), BMP effluent concentrations are assumed to be limited by an “irreducible effluent concentration,” or a minimum achievable concentration (Schuler, 1996). Lower limits are currently set at the 10th percentile effluent concentration of BMP data in the IBD for each modeled BMP type for which the BMP data show statistically significant reductions between influent and effluent means. If the differences are not statistically significant or there is a statistically significant increase, the 90th percentile is used as the minimum achievable effluent concentration, which essentially assumes no treatment except when influent to the BMP is very high. Table J-4 summarizes the irreducible effluent concentration estimates that are used in SBPAT to prevent treatment from occurring when influent concentrations are equal to or below these values. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-3 | Page 2015 Table J-1. Summary of Number of Data Points and Percent Non-Detects for BMP Effluent Concentration Data from the International BMP Database BMP TSS TP DP NH3 NO3 TKN DCu TCu TPb DZn TZn FC Bioretention Count 193 249 164 184 259 201 NA 39 48 15 48 29 %ND 10% 5% 4% 18% 3% 2% NA 18% 60% 0% 35% 0% Vegetated Swales (Bioswales) Count 354 364 249 225 372 324 82 309 308 72 373 92 %ND 1% 1% 0% 17% 1% 0% 4% 3% 39% 6% 23% 0% Hydrodynamic Separators (not updated - original SBPAT analysis, 2008) Count 199 170 58 69 59 77 89 99 95 99 174 31 %ND 7% 3% 33% 28% 3% 5% 17% 0% 8% 18% 7% 3.2% Media Filters Count 409 403 244 215 391 374 186 361 341 221 433 185 %ND 7% 6% 14% 24% 2% 6% 7% 12% 21% 19% 13% 0% Detention Basins Count 299 275 116 94 213 185 170 198 209 163 189 190 %ND 1% 3% 16% 6% 7% 4% 32% 31% 50% 17% 15% 0% Retention Ponds Count 723 654 618 423 626 496 213 536 646 212 593 137 %ND 4% 3% 6% 8% 6% 3% 26% 21% 30% 15% 7% 0% Wetland Basins/Retention Ponds (combined) Count 1028 932 862 681 872 680 228 684 767 227 770 158 %ND 4% 3% 6% 7% 7% 2% 25% 20% 28% 14% 8% 0% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-4 | Page 2015 Table J-2 International BMP Database Arithmetic Mean Estimates of BMP Effluent Concentrations BMP TSS TP DP NH3 NO3 TKN DCu TCu TPb DZn TZn FC mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L #/100 mL Constructed Wetland / Retention Pond (with Extended Detention)1 38.3 0.19 0.11 0.18 0.42 1.20 5.3 6.7 7.2 22.1 35.3 1.01E+04 Constructed Wetland / Retention Pond (without Extended Detention)2 32.9 0.17 0.09 0.17 0.38 1.20 5.3 6.2 12.0 22.6 38.0 9.89E+03 Dry Extended Detention Basin3 42.3 0.37 0.26 0.16 0.61 2.40 6.5 11.4 14.4 33.7 78.4 1.41E+04 Hydrodynamic Separator4 98.1 0.50 0.06 0.30 0.67 2.07 13.1 16.7 12.7 78.4 107.4 2.68E+04 Media Filter5 22.3 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.74 0.98 8.3 11.0 4.6 34.7 37.6 5.89E+03 Sub-surface Flow Wetland6 18.1 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.27 0.87 4.6 4.6 0.7 20.9 25.8 PR=90% Treatment Plant7 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.01 1.0 1.0 4.4 5.0 5.0 2.00E+00 Vegetated Swale (Bioswale)8 27.1 0.28 0.17 0.09 0.43 0.87 9.6 10.1 6.4 33.3 33.3 8.00E+04 Bioretention9 18.1 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.37 0.98 8.3 8.8 4.2 34.7 37.6 5.89E+03 Bioretention w/o underdrain Volume reductions only Cistern Volume reductions only Green Roof Volume reductions only Porous Pavement Volume reductions only Infiltration Basin Volume reductions only 1 Based on retention pond IBD category (basis per Geosyntec 2008) 2 Based on combined wetland basin and retention pond IBD categories (basis per Geosyntec 2008) 3 Strictly detention basin category from the IBD 4 From Geosyntec, 2008 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-5 | Page 2015 5 Includes non-bio media filters (e.g., sand filters) 6 Subsurface flow wetlands have not been extensively studied for stormwater treatment effectiveness and, though applied research exists, the International BMP database currently does not contain data with regard to their performance. As a result, the lowest effluent concentration of all IBD categories is used; except for Fecal Coliform, where 90% removal is used. The 90% removal is based on USEPA, 1993, which states that SSF wetlands are generally capable of a 1 to 2 log reduction in fecal coliforms. 7 Secondary Drinking Water Standards or Minimum of all BMP types, whichever is less 8 Strictly from vegetated swale category from the IBD 9 Effluent quality assigned to treated underdrain discharge is based on the better performing characteristics of the “media filter” and “bioretention” categories for each pollutant. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-6 | Page 2015 Table J-3. International BMP Database Arithmetic Standard Deviations of BMP Effluent Concentrations BMP TSS TP DP NH3 NO3 TKN DCu TCu TPb DZn TZn FC mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L #/100 mL Constructed Wetland / Wetpond (with Extended Detention) 76.80 0.253 0.357 0.234 0.787 0.688 4.288 9.710 12.96 42.46 61.96 3.23E+04 Constructed Wetland / Wetpond (without Extended Detention) 71.14 0.228 0.313 0.375 0.750 0.848 4.196 8.849 123.0 41.88 85.57 3.08E+04 Dry Extended Detention Basin 87.36 0.673 0.439 0.183 1.173 5.029 6.656 19.96 56.01 64.68 137.9 4.15E+04 Hydrodynamic Separator 236.5 1.237 0.093 0.880 1.198 3.737 11.98 11.98 25.70 137.4 137.4 2.16E+05 Media Filter 40.73 0.168 0.099 0.382 0.852 1.213 13.75 17.20 10.02 142.2 100.3 1.27E+04 Sub-surface Flow Wetland 30.66 0.145 0.088 0.145 0.552 0.594 3.504 3.504 1.845 12.84 17.16 5.37E+02 Treatment Plant 2.00 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.552 0.030 3.000 3.000 10.97 15.00 15.00 1.00E+00 Vegetated Swale (Bioswale) 35.12 0.311 0.239 0.145 0.905 0.872 7.749 9.429 15.36 28.49 34.86 1.19E+06 Bioretention 30.66 0.168 0.099 0.382 0.552 1.213 13.75 11.12 4.84 100.3 100.3 1.27E+04 Bioretention w/o underdrain Volume reductions only Cistern Volume reductions only Green Roof Volume reductions only Porous Pavement Volume reductions only Infiltration Basin Volume reductions only DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix J | BMP Effluent Concentrations J-7 | Page 2015 Table J-4. International BMP Database Arithmetic Irreducible of BMP Effluent Concentrations BMP TSS TP DP NH3 NO3 TKN DCu TCu TPb DZn TZn FC mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L #/100 mL Constructed Wetland / Wetpond (with Extended Detention) 1.358 0.034 0.010 0.019 0.011 0.499 1.387 1.387 0.429 1.000 2.933 4 Constructed Wetland / Wetpond (without Extended Detention) 1.300 0.030 0.009 0.012 0.010 0.520 1.267 1.267 0.400 1.075 3.000 5.4 Dry Extended Detention Basin 5.460 0.089 0.523 0.336 0.026 3.650 1.153 1.274 0.435 8.396 8.396 19.6 Hydrodynamic Separator 5.543 0.023 0.172 0.014 1.299 3.576 3.340 3.340 1.351 17.793 17.793 3295 Media Filter 1.487 0.026 0.010 0.013 0.064 0.210 0.995 1.298 0.372 1.000 2.000 13.1 Sub-surface Flow Wetland 1.268 0.025 0.006 0.009 0.008 0.141 1.000 1.000 0.089 1.000 2.933 4 Treatment Plant 0.500 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.100 0.100 0.255 0.500 0.500 1 Vegetated Swale (Bioswale) 2.000 0.079 0.040 0.009 0.056 0.141 2.708 2.708 0.434 5.720 5.720 9.53E+04 Bioretention 1.605 0.026 0.010 0.013 0.050 0.210 0.995 1.524 0.836 1.000 2.000 13.1 Bioretention w/o underdrain Volume reductions only Cistern Volume reductions only Green Roof Volume reductions only Porous Pavement Volume reductions only Infiltration Basin Volume reductions only DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix K | Sample TLR Calculations K-1 | Page 2015 Appendix K Sample TLR Calculations DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix K | Sample TLR Calculations K-2 | Page 2015 Santa Monica Bay Watershed Bacteria To better illustrate the TLR calculation process, the following example scenario was developed for CML 5-02 for TMDL year 1995. Steps 1-4: Calculate the exceedance frequency and allowable discharge days The monitoring data in the receiving water of the analysis region draining to CML 5-02 was evaluated for exceedances of the TMDL FIB limits over all samples and only samples taken during days with precipitation greater than 0.1 inches. To determine the allowable discharge days for SMB-5-02, the 17 TMDL allowable exceedance days was divided by the exceedance frequency of samples taken during days with precipitation greater than 0.1 inches. The results of this analysis are shown in the table below. Historical Exceedance Frequency (All events) Historical Exceedance Frequency (Daily Rainfall > 0.10") Allowable Discharge Days (Based on exceedance frequency with daily rainfall > 0.10") 50% 68% 25 Steps 5 - 6: Model the analysis region in SBPAT and size a retention BMP to only bypass during the allowable discharge days The analysis region was modeled in SBPAT and resulted in 46 discharge days (i.e., midnight – midnight 24-hour periods where discharge occurred). To reduce the baseline 46 discharge days to the allowable 25 discharge days, the diversion flowrate to a hypothetical retention BMP was iteratively sized until these two numbers were equal. This process resulted in a retention BMP with a diversion flowrate of 54 cubic feet per second (cfs). Steps 7: Model the hypothetical retention BMP and the baseline condition in SBPAT and compare the FC loads to determine the TLR The baseline condition for the SMB-5-02 analysis region and the hypothetical retention BMP with a diversion flowrate of 54 cfs were modeled in SBPAT for the TMDL year 1995. The table below shows the results of this modeling. Average MS4 Baseline FC Load (10^12 MPN) Average FC Load assuming hypothetical retention BMP (10^12 MPN) MS4 Baseline FC Load Reduced (10^12 MPN) % MS4 Baseline FC Load Reduced 535 287 248 46% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix K | Sample TLR Calculations K-3 | Page 2015 Dominguez Channel Watershed Bacteria To better illustrate the bacteria TLR calculation process, the following provides a more detailed example of the calculations used for the Dominguez portion of for Beach Cities EWMP area in TMDL year 1995. Steps 1-4: Calculate the exceedance frequency and allowable discharge days A wet weather day is defined as a calendar day with precipitation greater than 0.1 inches, and the three days following such day. A high flow suspension (HFS) day is a day with greater than 0.5 inches of rain and the day following such a day. Because the allowable number of exceedance days is 10% of wet days, but high flow suspension days do not count as exceedances, the allowable number of exceedance days is calculated by multiplying the number of non-HFS wet weather days by 10%. The results of this analysis are shown in the table below. Number of wet weather days in TMDL year 1995 Number of HFS days in TMDL year 1995 Number of non-HFS wet weather days in TMDL year 1995 Allowable Exceedance Days (Based on wet weather exceedance frequency of 10%) 73 19 54 5 Steps 5-6: Model the analysis region in SBPAT and size a retention BMP to only bypass during the allowable discharge days The analysis region was modeled in SBPAT and resulted in 20 non-HFS discharge days (i.e., midnight – midnight 24-hour periods when discharge occurred), and the bacteria concentration in each one exceeded 4000 MPN/100mL. To reduce the baseline 20 non-HFS discharge days to the allowable 5 discharge days, the diversion flowrate to a hypothetical retention BMP was iteratively sized until 5 non-HFS discharge days occurred in the model. Note that discharges still occurred on HFS days, but these are not exceedances. This process resulted in a retention BMP with a diversion flow rate of 470 cubic feet per second (cfs). Steps 7: Model the hypothetical retention BMP and the baseline condition in SBPAT and compare the FC loads to determine the TLR The baseline condition analysis region and the hypothetical retention BMP with a diversion flow rate of 470 cfs were modeled in SBPAT for TMDL year 1995. The table below shows the results of this modeling. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix K | Sample TLR Calculations K-4 | Page 2015 Average baseline FC load (10^12 MPN) Average FC load assuming hypothetical retention BMP (10^12 MPN) Target Load Reduction (10^12 MPN) Target Load Reduction (%) 1,523 721 802 53% Metals - Copper To better illustrate the metal TLR calculation process, the following example scenario was developed for the copper. The analysis was similar for all three metals. Steps 1-2: Model the analysis region in SBPAT to estimate the baseline load The analysis region was modeled in SBPAT from 11/1/2002 to 10/31/2012 to obtain daily flow, and loads for each wet day. Since SBPAT only includes wet weather flows, the days that SBPAT had any non-zero flow on were considered a wet day. Steps 3: Find the 90th percentile load day and calculate allowable load The 90th percentile load day was in that 10-year period was found and the load and volume on that day were recorded. The 90th percentile load day for copper was 11/30/2007. The allowable load was calculated by multiplying the WQBEL for copper (9.7 ug/L) by the runoff volume on that day. The runoff volume on 11/30/2007 was 301 acre feet. Step 4: Compare the allowable load to the baseline load and compute TLR The TLR is computed as the baseline load on the 90th percentile load day minus the allowable load. The table below shows the computation results: Baseline Load (lb) Allowable Load (lb) Target Load Reduction (lb) Target Load Reduction (%) 21.1 8.0 13.2 62% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-1 | Page 2015 Appendix L MCM Customization Summary DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-2 | Page 2015 Table L-1. Enhancements to MCMs 2012 Permit Requirement 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.2 Progressive Enforcement (Applies D.6, D.7, D.8, and D.10) Develop and maintain a Progressive Enforcement Policy Torrance Muni Code and City Charter Division 1 - Administration >> Chapter 1 - General provisions >> Article 2 - Penal Provisions and Division 1 - Administration >> Chapter 2 - Administration >> Article 3 - Environmental Quality Enforcement Conduct follow-up inspection within 4 weeks of date of initial inspection Yes Take progressive enforcement Any reported illicit discharges within the City will receive an incident number and the responsible party will receive a warning letter along with proper BMPs for the first offense. Second offense may receive a notice of violation and/or fines. Retain records Yes Refer violations to LARWQCB Yes Investigate complaints from LARWQCB Yes Assist LARWQCB with Enforcement Actions Yes D.5 Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) Participate in a Countywide PIPP, WMP PIPP, or individual PIPP that measurably increases knowledge and changes behavior, and involves a diversity of socio economic and ethnic communities Attends quarterly Public Outreach Strategy meetings at LADPW or via webcast Maintain reporting hotline A resident or staff member can contact the City’s Fire Prevention/NPDES Division who can provide general information, expedite the request by referring them to the appropriate department (i.e.: Fire if potentially hazardous illicit discharge, Public Works if a sewer overflow or to assist with clean-up of non-hazardous spill, or refer the caller to the countywide hotline, 888-CLEANLA). Publish hotline info on web, telephone book ID staff/department that serve as the contact (publish this info) DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-3 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Organize events (e.g., clean ups) The Public Works Department coordinates and staffs an environmental booth at the 2013 two-day Hometown Fair and at the City's annual Earth Day festival. The community hosts the annual Coastal Cleanup Day event site at the Manhattan Beach Pier. The Roundhouse Aquarium co-sponsored the event, and coordinated approximately 300 volunteers. Hosts annual Household Hazardous Waste Roundup, and annual compost giveaway events. The Public Works Department coordinates and staffs an environmental booth at the Public Safety Fair. Hosts annual Household Hazardous Waste Roundup, and annual compost giveaway events. The City also hosts an annual Coastal Cleanup Day cleanup at Hermosa Pier. Hosts Annual Environmental Fair, Hazardous Waste Roundups, Plastic Bag Exchange and Coastal Cleanup Day at Torrance Beach. Residential Outreach (Individually or with group): The Beach Cities promote and often host local Ocean Friendly Landscaping Workshops in cooperation with the South Bay Environmental Services Center (a non-profit center established by the South Bay Council of Governments), West Basin Municipal Water District and Surfrider Foundation. The City has installed and maintains twenty-four (24) pet waste collection stations equipped with disposable bags for collecting and disposing of pet waste (Mutt Mitts®). These pet waste stations are located in municipal parks, along the Strand, and the linear greenbelt with a high frequency of use by residents with dogs. Three of the City's parks include off-leash dog runs equipped with pet waste stations. The City Newsletter is distributed quarterly to all residents in the City and is also available online--the newsletter provides environmental resource information and program updates to the community. All City parks and the Esplanade are equipped with pet waste collection stations. The City Newsletter is distributed quarterly to residents in the City and is also available online--the newsletter provides various environmental resource information and program updates to the community. All City parks and the linear greenbelt are equipped with pet waste collection stations and as well as along The Strand. City Parks are equipped with pet waste collections stations. City participates in Ocean and Drought Friendly Landscaping Workshops. The City website provides environmental resource information and program updates to residents. Public Service Announcements Plastic bag ban effective in 2012. Ban on take-out/restaurant polystyrene food service ware became effective October 2013. Existing smoking ban was expanded/revised August 2014. City has “Prohibition of smoking in beaches and recreational areas” Ordinance. Ban on take-out/restaurant polystyrene food service ware became effective March 2013. Smoking Ban effective March 2012. Smoking Ban effective 2012 (Develop) Public education materials on: vehicle fluids; household waste; construction waste; pesticides, fertilizers, and integrated pest management (IPM); green wastes; and animal wastes Single and multi-family residents can participate in HHW collection as part of their base refuse rate (per household or unit), and receive unlimited scheduled pick-ups throughout the year at no additional charge. A free pharmaceutical drop off box is located in the Police/Fire lobby available for all residents to dispose controlled and uncontrolled pharmaceuticals. Battery recycling collection containers are located at 4 city facilities to provide residents with a convenient means for proper disposal of used batteries. Project Pollution Prevention brochures on disposing of paint, oil, swimming pool chemicals and the like have been developed. BMP brochures include automotive maintenance and car care, landscaping, roadwork and paving, general construction and brochures for proper disposal of paint & electrical items, cigarette waste, dog waste, oil, and pool chemicals have been developed and are made available at City outreach and environmental events and public counters. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-4 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Distribute public education materials at points of purchase Clean Bay Restaurant Program brochure distributed through participating restaurants to encourage public support for certified restaurants. Project Pollution Prevention brochures are provided to residents and contractors at the public counter when they purchase permits. Project Pollution Prevention brochures are provided to residents and contractors at the public counter when they purchase permits. Clean Bay Restaurant Program brochure distributed through participating restaurants to encourage public support for certified restaurants. Pollution prevention brochures are made available at public counter for residents and contractors. Maintain stormwater website Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6 as part of SMBBB TMDL Implementation established www.southbaystormwaterprogram.com The City maintains an integrated environmental program “Going Green” web page that is accessible from the home page of the City’s website. There, residents can stay abreast of local environmental initiatives and workshops (http://www.citymb.info/city-services/going-green). To specifically target measures to prevent runoff from residential properties, the City provides resources on Ocean-Friendly Gardens on its website: http://www.citymb.info/city-services/going-green/ocean-friendly-garden-sustainable-landscape, and continues to promote Sustainable Landscaping principles in its Green Code planning requirements for new projects or significant remodels. The Public Works Department frequently updates its webpage with environmental program information http://www.citymb.info/city-officials/public-works/environmental-programs and current issues of interest. City has a Go Green Sustainability page on its website: http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=332 Beach and Ocean Resources are featured on: http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=477 City provides link to Jurisdictional 5 & 6 website, in addition to updates of environmental programs information and ocean/drought friendly landscaping workshops. Provide schools with materials to educate children (K-12); can use state produced materials Grades of Green program at Manhattan Beach elementary schools: http://www.gradesofgreen.org. 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. Grades of Green program at Hermosa Beach schools: http://www.gradesofgreen.org The Stormwater Education Coordinator (Community Development), Waste Management Coordinator (Public Works) visit local schools to educate students at every age level regarding stormwater pollution prevention, recycling and conduct interactive, hands-on presentations and workshops. The students are also provided information and made aware of opportunities to volunteer or receive community service by attending a City sponsored cleanup event. D.6 Industrial/ Commercial DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-5 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Track Critical Sources - maintain inventory (watershed based or lat/long recorded) Yes Educate - notify critical sources of BMP requirements Yes Implement a Business Assistance Program for select sectors or small businesses - technical assistance, and distribute materials to specific sectors Clean Bay Restaurant Program in partnership with Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission The City of Manhattan Beach and its franchise solid waste hauler successfully launched the Green Business Program to recognize businesses that incorporate sustainability into their daily business practices with the objective of reducing waste. The City’s franchise solid waste hauler offers businesses free commercial waste audits to assess areas of improvement for the reduction of waste. Outreach to businesses continues via canvasing, program materials, flyers, FAQ, website updates, decals and press releases and green business audits. 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. Businesses that participate in the City’s program incorporate practices to reduce waste, save water, or reduce energy consumption. In 2014, eight (8) new businesses were added to the program. Torrance distributes flyers, “Environmental Resources for Businesses and “Get Green” brochures to the local businesses. The Torrance Chamber of Commerce distributes the Clean Bay Certification program brochure to local restaurants and maintains a supply at their public counter, and features articles on ocean pollution prevention in their quarterly magazine. Clean Bay Restaurant Program in partnership with the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. Inspect Commercial Sources Restaurants inspected annually instead of twice during 5-year permit. The food service establishments are inspected against a comprehensive 34-point storm water inspection checklist that requires 100% compliance in order for the facility to be awarded a Clean Bay Restaurant Certificate by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. Commercial facilities including Nurseries, Automotive are inspected every other year instead of twice during 5-year permit. Food service establishments are inspected annually against a 26 point storm water inspection checklist that requires 100% compliance in order for the facility to be awarded a Clean Bay Restaurant Certificate by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. Inspect Industrial Sources - Initial mandatory inspection N/A -- No industrial facilities in Manhattan Beach N/A -- No industrial facilities in Hermosa Beach Industrial are inspected every other year instead of twice during 5-year permit. Secondary mandatory inspection Yes DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-6 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 No Exposure - evaluate and conduct 2nd inspection at 25% of facilities As needed, conduct Progressive Enforcement follow-up inspections (see Part VI.D.2) Yes D.7 Planning and Land Development Update ordinance/design standards to conform with new requirements (LID and Hydromod) Hermosa LID ordinance requires all new development projects to implement LID, no minimum size threshold whereas MCM in permit has size threshold. LID ordinance requires all new development projects to implement LID and Green Street Policy. Optional: Establish alternative compliance for technical infeasibility, e.g., allow onsite biofiltration or offsite infiltration or gw replenishment or retrofit Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Develop a prioritized list of offsite mitigation projects Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Develop a schedule for completion of offsite projects (must be with 4 yrs of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first project that contributed funds) Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Notice offsite projects to RB website Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: List of mitigation projects descriptions and estimated pollutant and flow reductions Optional if allowing offsite mitigation: Provide aggregated comparison of alternative compliance to results that would have been expected with on site retention of the SWQDv Optional: Submit documentation that a previously adopted LID ordinance provides equivalent pollutant loading and flow reduction Plan Review process - check LID and BMP sizing, etc., Any development in the Coastal Zone that requires a Coastal Development Permit is required to meet the LID standards. Since 2010, the City has been requiring LID BMPs for residential projects through the plan review process. City requires LID BMPs for development projects through the plan review process. Establish internal agreements with structure for communication and authority for departments overseeing plan approval and project construction Require O&M plan for LID, treatment and hydromod BMPs Implement tracking and enforcement program for LID, treatment and hydromod BMPs Inspect all development sites upon completion and prior to occupancy certificates Verify O&M of BMPs operated by Permittee through inspection Develop maintenance inspection checklist DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-7 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Require private parties that operate BMPs to submit verification of O&M; enforce as needed As needed, conduct Progressive Enforcement follow-up inspections (see Part VI.D.2) D.8 Development Construction Program Update erosion and sediment control ordinance/procedures to conform with new requirements These requirements have been in place for years prior to adoption of the 2012 MS4 Permit: An Owner’s Certification listing Minimum BMPs for All Construction Sites with signatures by Architect/Engineer of Record and Landowner are required for all building permits. Contractors are required to submit plans with appropriate construction BMPs identified. Standard notes incorporated into plans include provisions regarding Water Quality Requirements. Contractors are required to review the City’s Storm Water Ordinance, guidelines for minimum construction BMPs and sign a statement acknowledging this and agreeing to comply with these rules and regulations. Projects disturbing one acre or more of soil must submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain coverage under the statewide General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. Projects disturbing one acre or more of soil must submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain coverage under the statewide General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. 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. Establish priority inspection process Inspection for compliance with construction BMPs are made in the course of every site visit during the construction. Building Inspectors thoroughly go through the site’s BMP checklist at every inspection and spot checks are done before, during, and after storm events to ensure correct placement of erosion control measures where required. Site < 1 acre; Require sites with soil disturbing activities to implement minimum BMPs DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-8 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Require construction sites to prepare erosion sediment control plan(ESCP); review and approve (≥ 1 acre) Verify construction sites coverage under the CGP and 401 cert Develop/implement ESCP review checklist Require construction sites to adhere to standards and make standards readily available Conduct inspections at public and private sites (at least 1x/2 weeks for high threat sites (more frequently when rain is predicted or occurs; at least monthly for lower threat; also must inspect during all phases of construction - at least 3 times) Develop/implement SOPs/inspection checklist Track number of inspections for inventoried sites and verify minimum inspections are completed As needed, conduct Progressive Enforcement follow-up inspections (see Part VI.D.2) Train plan review staff and inspectors City inspectors received CGP QSD/P training by a certified Trainer of Record, not simply "equivalent" training. City Inspectors have or are required to get QSD/P training by a certified trainer. Staff must be knowledgeable in QSD/P key objectives, local BMPs standards D.9 Public Agency Activities Require public construction sites to implement Planning and Land Development requirements, implement Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs, and obtain Construction General Permit coverage The Building (Grading) and Development Review Divisions use a boilerplate during Plan Check and Construction design phase to make all developments aware of the BMP requirements Maintain inventory of Permittee owned facilities (including parks and recreation faclities,) Yes Update inventory Yes Develop retrofit opportunity inventory; evaluate and rank The City has retrofit 130,000 square feet of porous concrete paving on seven (7) municipal parking lots. The Manhattan Village Soccer Park is surfaced in synthetic turf which eliminates the need for fertilizer, pesticides or irrigation thereby reducing pollutant loads and nuisance flows from recreational areas. These playing surfaces are maintained via dry methods (vacuuming). The Torrance Soccer Park is surfaced in synthetic turf which eliminates the need for fertilizer, pesticides or irrigation thereby reducing pollutant loads and nuisance flows from recreational areas. These playing surfaces are maintained via dry methods. The City is in the process of retrofitting all catch basins with automatic retractable grates which prevent trash from entering the stormwater system. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-9 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Cooperate with private land owners to encourage site specific retrofitting; includes pilot projects and outreach N/A Obtain IGP coverage for public facilities where appropriate N/A Develop procedures to assess impact of flood mgt projects on water quality of receiving waters; evaluate to determine if retrofitting is feasible N/A Evaluate existing structural flood control facilities to determine if retrofitting facility to provide additional pollutant removal is feasible N/A Implement source control BMPs at Permittee owned facilities/activities Yes Require city-hired contractors to implement source control BMPs Yes Prevent vehicle/equipment washing discharges to the MS4, including fire fighting and emergency response vehicles Departments receive targeted training in applying BMPs to prevent spills or runoff when washing vehicles and cleaning equipment. Fire Stations and City Facilities are equipped with clarifiers. The City Yard is equipped with an automated car washing system that is covered and contained. Ensure new/redeveloped/replaced wash facilities are plumbed to the sanitary sewer or self contained. Yes Implement IPM program Hermosa Beach has designated a pesticide free zone along the Valley Drive/Ardmore greenbelt and thus uses no pesticides in maintaining this swath of public recreational area which runs the length of the City. Yes Ordinances, policies, and procedures reflect IPM techniques and include commitments and schedules to reduce the use of pesticides that cause impairments Non-pesticide remedies are considered and used prior to pesticide/fertilizer application. Annually update in inventory of pesticides used by agency; quantify pesticides used by staff and contractors; demonstrate IPM alternatives to reduce pesticide use Park Services maintains an inventory of pesticides, fertilizers, and chemicals used and is currently implementing greener, safer alternatives. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-10 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Use SOPs for pesticide application Public Works/Streetscape & Community Services/Parks Services protocol or “SOP” calls for impacted landscape maintenance personnel to: 1) Apply minimum amounts of each significant material 2) Avoid application during storm events or impending storm events 3) Use of pesticides and/or fertilizers allowed after inspection of area and/or plants. Ensure no application of pesticides or fertilizers when two or more days with a 50% chance of rain is predicted by NOAA; within 48 hrs of 1/2 inch of rain; or when water is flowing off the site Yes Ensure staff applying pesticides are certified or working under supervision of a certified applicator in the appropriate category Yes Update catch basin map add GPS locations and update priority Yes Inspect/Clean catch basin in areas not subject to Trash TMDL- Priority A: 3x during wet season, 1x during dry 1x; Priority B: 1x during wet 1x and 1x during dry; Priority C: 1x per yr. Maintain records. Only applies to Dominguez Channel areas and other areas prior to retrofit with trash excluders. Required trash management at public events The City of Hermosa Beach has instituted a matrix of requirements for special events in the City. The requirements are phased in over three years and are tiered based on the size of the event. The requirements include measures to: 1) Reduce waste and single-use items, 2) Limit and reduce the size of handouts and flyers, 3) Control litter, contain wastes and prohibit hosing of surfaces 4) Increase recycling and solid waste diversion rates, and 5) Provide educational outreach to the public. Provides both trash and recycling containers at City sponsored events, and provides educational outreach to the public to maximize recycling. Place and maintain trash receptacles/capture devices at newly identified high trash generating areas The City of Manhattan Beach maintains more than 450 trash receptacles in municipal parks and the public right-of-way. The City also maintains more than 125 additional receptacles for recyclable glass, plastic and aluminum beverage containers. Redondo Beach maintains trash receptacles in public access areas throughout the City. In addition to placement of refuse containers at transit stops and in parks, 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. In addition to placement of refuse containers at transit stops and in the parks, the City has placed recycling bins at bus stops and parks. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-11 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Label storm drains Inspects the legibility of the catch basin stencil or labels. Illegible stencils recorded and re-stenciled or re-labeled within 180 days of inspection Inspect labels prior to each wet season Record and relabel illegible labels within 180 days of inspection Yes Post signs at access points to water bodies (open channels, creeks; lakes) Yes In areas not subject to the Trash TMDL, install trash excluders on catch basins or outfalls in areas defined as Priority A, or implement substantially equivalent BMPs Ten (10) CDS® gross pollutant hydrodynamic separators have been installed on major storm drains within the City and has also installed approximately sixty (60) debris screens on catch basin openings that have historically required frequent cleaning (Priority A). Redondo Beach has five CDS units in operation throughout the City removing trash and debris from entering the waterways. Debris excluders are installed on 35 high priority catch basins owned by LACFCD within the City. The City has installed certified trash full capture exclusion devices on 14 City-owned catch basins in the City’s commercial district along Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue--this was done years in advance of the Santa Monica Bay debris TMDL requirements. Debris excluders are installed on high priority catch basins owned by LACFCD within the City--this was done years in advance of the Santa Monica Bay debris TMDL requirements. Inspect and Remove trash and debris from open channels and other drainage structures 1x/yr before rainy season. Yes Eliminate discharge of contaminants during MS4 maintenance Yes Implement controls to limit infiltration of seepage from sanitary sewers to the storm drains Yes Implement routine preventative maintenance for both systems, survey sanitary sewer and MS4. May use SSO General WDR to fulfill this requirement. Yes Implement inspection and maintenance program for Permittee owned BMPs Yes Manage residual water in treatment control BMPs removed during maintenance Yes 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--this exceeds the frequency even of Priority A areas in the permit for all areas in the City. Streets are swept weekly and posted with no parking signs on street sweeping days. Implement road construction maintenance BMPs (e.g., restrict paving activity to exclude periods of rain) Yes DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-12 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Inspect and/or clean Permittee owned parking lots 2x/mo Sweeping of City-owned parking lots twice a month. Trash receptacles in most City controlled public parking lots and at City sponsored events. Train employees and contractors on stormwater requirements All NPDES Municipal General Information Training is conducted in-house by the NPDES Analyst. In addition, NPDES training in trade specific and program specific areas is continuously conducted Citywide. Information to Training Resources is provided at these meetings. The Torrance Fire Department also conducts in-house training for staff regarding NPDES inspections, enforcement procedures and review of BMP’s. Train employees and contractors on pesticide use Yes D.10 Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Continue IC/ID program Manhattan Beach adopted a strict water conservation ordinance that became effective July 2, 2009. The City of Manhattan Beach has also adopted the California Water Efficient Landscape ordinance applicable to new landscapes as well as CalGreen Code provisions for landscaping and irrigation. Redondo Beach has a Landscape Regulations included in the Municipal Code, including water conservation. Hermosa Beach adopted a Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan Ordinance and a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The City enforces the water conservation ordinance as part of the Illicit Connections Illicit Discharge program. The City is adopting a Water Conservation and Drought Management Program and has an ongoing Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharge Program. Written procedures for conducting investigations and eliminations Torrance Spill Procedure (Policy 10) and NPDES Ordinance posted on the City’s website, detailing the progressive enforcement process. Initiate investigation within 72 hours from becoming aware of the discharge Fire Department is the first responder to spills, run-off and illicit discharges, and upon initial contact, responds to site within 15 minutes. Follow-up investigations are conducted within 48 hours. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-13 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Implement solutions to eliminate discharge; conduct follow-up investigation to verify elimination; follow Progressive Enforcement Plan (see Part VI.D.2) Three low flow diversions are operational within the City to eliminate dry weather discharge and divert to the sanitary sewer. The Greenbelt Infiltration Trench project utilizes the linear greenbelt parkland which runs through the City of Manhattan Beach (City) to intercept and infiltrate dry weather and wet weather low flows from 55 acres of existing residential development. Trash enclosures for new commercial facilities are required to be covered, enclosed and plumbed to the sanitary sewer. A low flow diversion to a Filterra system with infiltration is operational at the Saphire stormdrain and a low flow and stormwater runoff diversion at the Alta Vista stormdrain is operational within the City, thereby eliminating polluted runoff from reaching our waterbodies. Hermosa Strand Infiltration Trench diverts dry weather flows year-round from the 76-acre drainage area of the Pier Avenue Storm drain in the City's downtown commercial area. Pier Avenue Improvement Project is a “green” multi-benefit streetscape improvement which retrofits the City’s main street to capture and treat stormwater/urban runoff in the downtown corridor (36-acre drainage area).The Public Works Department implements green street retrofits whenever the opportunity arises as part of capital improvement projects through installation of infiltration boxes within the public right-of-way along the curb-and-gutter. These infiltration boxes designed by the City’s engineering staff intercept, filter, and infiltrate low flows prior to entry into catch basins. The City has completed a Stormwater Basin Enhancement Project to maximize infiltration of dry weather and wet weather runoff and to reduce and biologically treat flows and pollutants to Santa Monica Bay. When discharge originates upstream of jurisdiction, notify the upstream jurisdiction and LARWQCB within 30 days Initiate investigation within 21 days for illicit connection Permit or document illicit connection that only discharge stormwater or allowed non-stormwater Eliminate illicit connection within 180 days of investigation Facilitate public reporting via hotline City of Torrance Community Development Department, 310-618-5990 City of Torrance Fire Prevention, 310- 618- 2973 during regular business hours, 24 hr contact Fire Dispatch for emergencies (911) (spills or discharges, complaints) at 310-781-7042. Complaints are entered into system and assigned case #. Signage adjacent to open channels provide info re: public reporting Document calls and actions associated with hotline Complaints are entered into system and assigned case # for staff follow up DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix L | MCM Customization Summary L-14 | Page 2015 2012 Permit Requirement 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 Implement procedures on responding to complaints; evaluate and update procedures Fire/Hazardous Materials Division- An incident number is assigned to every response. Staff can refer back to the incident number to track repeat illicit discharges.. The City’s GIS system creates maps to document illicit discharges and spill locations. CDD/PW- illicit discharge or connection the information is recorded and maintained in a database. Each incident or case is given as tracking number and as enforcement actions are taken or inspections occur, the activity is documented in the system. Implement a spill response plan PW and Fire both maintain a spill prevention protocol to address illicit discharge control: “Torrance Spill Policy & Procedure (Policy 10)”. The policy is posted on the City website. Train staff and contractors on ID/IC Annual training is provided to the respective departments and divisions that incorporates an ID/IC video and discussion. PW and Fire both maintain a spill prevention protocol to address illicit discharge control. Create a list of positions and contractors that require ID/IC training DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix M | LID Ordinances M-1 | Page 2015 Appendix M LID Ordinances City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING CONFLICTING OR REDUNDANT PROVISIONS OF THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 8.44 of Title 8 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: Chapter 8.44 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS Sections: 8.44.010 Title 8.44.020 Findings 8.44.030 Purpose and Intent 8.44.040 Definitions 8.44.050 Construction and Application 8.44.060 Prohibited Activities 8.44.070 Exempted Discharges and Conditionally Exempted Discharges 8.44.080 Good Housekeeping Provisions 8.44.090 Requirements for Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activities 8.44.095 Low Impact Development Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Projects 8.44.100 Inspection Authority 8.44.110 Violations of Storm Water and Dry Weather Runoff Pollution Control Regulations 8.44.120 No Taking 8.44.010 Title This Chapter shall be known as the "City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance". 8.44.020 Findings A. The Congress of the United States (hereinafter "Congress") has determined that pollutants contained in storm water and dry weather runoff are responsible for the environmental degradation of oceans, lakes, rivers, and other waters of the United States. B. Congress, in 1987, amended the Clean Water Act of 1972 to reduce pollutants discharged into the waters of the United States by extending National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (hereinafter "NPDES") requirements to regulate storm water and dry weather runoff discharge into municipal storm drain systems. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 2 C. Storm water and dry weather runoff flows from individual properties onto streets, then through storm drains to coastal waters along the City of Hermosa Beach. D. The City of Hermosa Beach is a co-permittee under the "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" (Order No. R4-2012-0175), NPDES Permit No. CAS004001, effective December 28, 2012, issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region, which also serves as a NPDES permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. As a co-permittee, the City is required to maintain adequate legal authority within its respective jurisdiction to control pollutant discharges and to require the use of control measures to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants into the MS4 to achieve water quality standards. E. In order to control, in a cost-effective manner, the quantity and quality of storm water and dry weather runoff to the maximum extent practicable, the adoption of reasonable regulations, as set forth herein, is essential. F. It is the intent of this ordinance to simplify and streamline the Hermosa Beach municipal code with respect to stormwater low impact development provisions for new development and redevelopment projects by incorporating the substantive elements of the storm water provisions of Chapter 15.48 Green Building Standards of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code into this Chapter. G. The City of Hermosa Beach is small in geographic area, comprising 1.4 square miles. Accordingly, it is reasonable to simplify the determination of the storm water quality design volume for new development and redevelopment projects by adopting a single design storm depth applicable to all project sites within the city while meeting the intent of the Municipal NPDES Permit. The stormwater quality design volume is defined by the Municipal NPDES Permit as the greater of either the runoff from the 0.75 inch, 24-hour rain event or the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map. According to the referenced map, the largest 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event within the City of Hermosa Beach is approximately 0.77 inches. Thus to simplify regulatory requirements and streamline the project review process, the City of Hermosa Beach has determined to define the stormwater quality design volume as the runoff from the 0.8 inch, 24- hour rain event for all new development and redevelopment projects subject to low impact development requirements of Section 8.44.095 of this Chapter. 8.44.030 Purpose and Intent A. The purpose of this Chapter is to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Municipal NPDES Permit where the City has jurisdictional authority by: 1. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable; 2. Regulating illicit connections and illicit discharges and thereby reducing the level of contamination of storm water and dry weather runoff into the MS4; and 3. Regulating non-storm water discharges to the MS4. B. This chapter is also intended to provide the City with the legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the requirements contained in 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i)(A-F) and in the Municipal NPDES Permit to the extent they are applicable in the City, to control discharges to and from City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 3 those portions of the MS4 over which it has jurisdiction as required by the Municipal NPDES Permit, and to hold dischargers to the MS4 accountable for their contributions of pollutants and flows. C. This Chapter also sets forth requirements for the construction and operation of certain "commercial and industrial Facilities," "new development" and "redevelopment" projects, and other activities (as further defined herein), which are intended to ensure compliance with the storm water mitigation measures prescribed in the current version of the Municipal NPDES Permit, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of this City. This Chapter authorizes the Authorized Enforcement Officer to define and adopt applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other storm water pollution control measures, to grant emergency self-waivers from Municipal NPDES Permit requirements, as provided herein, to cite infractions, and to impose fines pursuant to this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, an Authorized Enforcement Officer shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this Chapter. 8.44. 040 Definitions Except as specifically provided herein, any term used in this Chapter shall be defined as that term is defined in the current Municipal NPDES Permit, or if it is not specifically defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit, then as such term is defined in the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, and/or the regulations promulgated thereunder. The following definitions apply to this Chapter only: “Authorized Enforcement Officer" means the City Manager, Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Fire Chief or Police Chief, or the designees of those individuals. "Automotive Service Facilities" means a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 5511, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. "Best Management Practices (BMPs)" means practices or physical devices or systems designed to prevent or reduce pollutant loading from storm water or non-storm water discharges to receiving waters, or designed to reduce the volume of storm water or non-storm water discharged to the receiving water. Examples of BMPs may include public education and outreach, proper planning of development projects, proper cleaning of catch basin inlets, and proper sludge or waste-handling and disposal, among others." "City" means the City of Hermosa Beach. "Commercial Development" means any development on private land that is not heavy industrial or residential. The category includes, but is not limited to: hospitals, laboratories and other medical facilities, government facilities, educational and religious institutions, recreational facilities, plant nurseries, multi-apartment buildings, car wash facilities, mini-malls and other business complexes, shopping malls, hotels, office buildings, public warehouses and other light industrial complexes. "Construction" means any construction or demolition activity, clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, or any other activity that results in land disturbance. Construction does not include routine maintenance activities required to maintain the integrity of structures by performing minor repair and restoration work, original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility; emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety (including fire prevention); clearing and grubbing of vegetation for landscape maintenance which is not associated with a larger construction project; interior remodeling with no outside exposure of construction material or construction waste to storm water; mechanical permit work; or sign permit work. See “Routine Maintenance” definition below. Where clearing, grading, or excavating of underlying soil takes place during a repaving operation, City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 4 Construction General Permit coverage is required if one acre or more is disturbed or the activities are part of a larger plan of construction. “Construction General Permit” means the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (NPDES No. CAS000002), adopted September 2, 2009, and any successor permit to that permit. "Control" means to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or prohibit by technological, legal, contractual or other means, the discharge of pollutants from an activity or activities. "Development" means any construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment or reconstruction of any public or private residential project (whether single-family, multi-unit or planned unit development); industrial, commercial, retail and other non-residential projects, including public agency projects; or mass grading for future construction. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety. "Directly Adjacent" means situated within 200 feet of the contiguous zone required for the continued maintenance, function, and structural stability of the environmentally sensitive area. "Discharge" means when used without qualification the "discharge of a pollutant." "Discharging Directly" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely or predominantly of flows from the subject property, development, subdivision, or industrial facility, and not commingled with the flows from adjacent lands. "Discharge of a Pollutant" means any addition of any "pollutant" or combination of pollutants to "waters of the United States" from any "point source" or, any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters of the "contiguous zone" or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as a means of transportation. The term discharge includes additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from: surface runoff which is collected or channeled by man; discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by a State, municipality, or other person which do not lead to a treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances, leading into privately owned treatment works. "Discretionary Project" is defined in the same manner as Section 15357 of the Guidelines For Implementation Of The California Environmental Quality Act contained in Title 14 of the California Code Of Regulations, as amended, and means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the City decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the City merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. "Disturbed Area" means an area that is altered as a result of clearing, grading, and/or excavation. "Dry Weather Runoff" means surface water flow produced by non-storm water resulting from residential, commercial, and industrial activities involving the use of potable and non-potable water. "Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)” means an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments (California Public Resources Code § 30107.5). Areas subject to storm water mitigation requirements are areas designated as Significant Ecological Areas by the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan; an area designated as a Significant Natural Area by the California Department of Fish and Game's Significant Natural Areas Program, provided that area has been field verified by the Department of Fish and Game; an area listed in the Water Quality Control Plan - Los Angeles Region - Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 5 Angeles and Ventura Counties as supporting the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) beneficial use; and an area identified by the City as environmentally sensitive. "Good Housekeeping Practices" means common practices related to the storage, use, or cleanup of materials, performed in a manner that minimizes the discharge of pollutants. Examples include, but are not limited to, purchasing only the quantity of materials to be used at a given time, use of alternative and less environmentally harmful products, cleaning up spills and leaks, and storing materials in a manner that will contain any leaks or spills. "Hillside" means property located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, where the development contemplates grading on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater and where grading contemplates cut or fill slopes. "Illicit Connection" means any human-made conveyance that is connected to the MS4 without a permit, excluding roof-drains and other similar type connections. Examples include channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the storm drain system. "Illicit Discharge" means any discharge into the MS4 or from the MS4 into a receiving water that is prohibited under local, state or federal statutes, ordinances, codes or regulations. The term illicit discharge includes all non-storm water discharge except authorized non-storm water discharges; conditionally exempt non-storm water discharges; and non-storm water discharges resulting from natural flows specifically identified in the Municipal NPDES Permit. "Infiltration" means the downward entry of water into the surface of the soil. "Inspection" means the entry and conducting of an on-site review of a facility and its operations, at reasonable times, to determine compliance with specific municipal or other legal requirements. The steps involved in performing an inspection, include, but are not limited to: 1) Pre-inspection documentation research; 2) Request for entry; 3) Interview of facility personnel; 4) Facility walk-through; 5) Visual observation of the condition of facility premises; 6) Examination and copying of records as required; 7) Sample collection (if necessary or required); 8) Exit conference (to discuss preliminary evaluation); and, 9) Report preparation, and if appropriate, recommendations for coming into compliance. “Low Impact Development (LID)” means building or landscape features designed to retain or filter storm water runoff. "Municipal NPDES Permit" means the "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" (Order No. R4-2012-0175), NPDES Permit No. CAS004001, effective December 28, 2012, issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region, and any successor permit to that permit. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 6 "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System" or "MS4" means a conveyance or system of conveyances (consisting of roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): 1) Owned or operated by a state, city, town borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act that discharges to waters of the United States; 2) Designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water; 3) Which is not a combined sewer; and 4) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations122.2. "New Development" means land disturbing activities; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or structure, demolition of existing development and construction of a new building or structure, creation of impervious surfaces; and land subdivision. "Non-Storm Water Discharge" means any discharge to an MS4 or from the MS4 into a receiving water that is not composed entirely of storm water. "NPDES permit" means any waste discharge requirements issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region or the State Water Resources Control Board as an NPDES permit pursuant to California Water Code Section 13370 (other than the Municipal NPDES Permit). "Parking Lot" means land area or a facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used for business, for industry, for commerce, for government, for nonprofit enterprises or for personal use, with a parking lot size of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more, or with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces. "Pollutant" means those "pollutants" defined in Section 502(6) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1362(6)), or incorporated into California Water Code Section 13373. Examples of pollutants include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Commercial and industrial waste (such as fuels, solvents, detergents, plastic pellets, hazardous or toxic substances, fertilizers, pesticides, slag, ash, and sludge); 2) Metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, silver, nickel, chromium; and non-metals such as phosphorus and arsenic; 3) Petroleum hydrocarbons (such as fuels, lubricants, surfactants, waste oils, solvents, coolants and grease); 4) Excessive eroded soils, sediment and particulate materials in amounts which may adversely affect the beneficial use of the receiving waters, flora or fauna of the State; 5) Animal wastes (such as discharge from confinement facilities, kennels, pens, recreational facilities,); City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 7 6) Substances having characteristics such as pH less than 6 or greater than 9, or unusual coloration or turbidity, or excessive levels of fecal coliform, or fecal streptococcus, or enterococcus; "Project" means all development, redevelopment, and land disturbing activities. "Redevelopment" means the creation, addition, or replacement of impervious surfaces on an already developed site. Redevelopment includes, but is not limited to, the following activities that meet the minimum standards set forth in this definition: (1) the expansion of a building footprint, an addition, or replacement of a structure; (2) development of a structure, including an increase in impervious area (3) replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and (4) land disturbing activities related to structural or impervious surfaces. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of facility or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health safety. "Regional Board" means the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Los Angeles Region. "Restaurant" means a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption. (SIC code 5812 Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on-premise or immediate consumption. Caterers and industrial and institutional food service establishments are also included in this industry.). "Retail Gasoline Outlet" means any facility engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. “Routine Maintenance” includes, but is not limited to, projects conducted to: 1) Maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility; 2) Perform as needed restoration work to preserve the original design grade, integrity and hydraulic capacity of flood control facilities; 3) Includes road shoulder work, regrading dirt or gravel roadways and shoulders and performing ditch cleanouts; 4) Update existing lines (including replacing existing lines with new materials or pipes) and facilities to comply with applicable codes, standards, and regulations regardless if such projects result in increased capacity; and 5) Repair leaks. Routine maintenance does not include construction of new lines or facilities resulting from compliance with applicable codes, standards and regulations. New lines are those that are not associated with existing facilities and are not part of a project to update or replace existing lines. "Runoff" means any runoff including storm water and dry weather flows from a drainage area that reaches a receiving water body or subsurface. During dry weather it is typically comprised of base flow either contaminated with pollutants or uncontaminated, and nuisance flows. “Significant Ecological Area” (SEA) means an area that is determined to possess an example of biotic resources that cumulatively represent biological diversity, for the purposes of protecting biotic diversity, as part of the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan. Areas are designated as SEAs, if they possess one or more of the following criteria: 1) The habitat of rare, endangered, and threatened plant and animal species; City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 8 2) Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either one of a kind, or are restricted in distribution on a regional basis; 3) Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either one of a kind or are restricted in distribution in Los Angeles County; 4) Habitat that at some point in the life cycle of a species or group of species, serves as a concentrated breeding, feeding, resting, migrating grounds and is limited in availability either regionally or within Los Angeles County; 5) Biotic resources that are of scientific interest because they are either an extreme in physical/ geographical limitations, or represent an unusual variation in a population or community; 6) Areas important as game species habitat or as fisheries; 7) Areas that would provide for the preservation of relatively undisturbed examples of natural biotic communities in Los Angeles County; and 8) Sensitive coastal resource areas defined in California Public Resources Code Section 30116 as: “[s]pecial marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan.” “Simple LID BMP” means a BMP constructed above ground on a single-family residential home that can be readily inspected by a homeowner or inspector. Simple LID BMPs do not require an operation and maintenance plan per the Municipal NPDES Permit. Examples of such BMPs include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales, rain barrels and above ground cisterns, rain gardens, and pervious pavement. "Site" means the land or water area where any "facility or activity" is physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility or activity. "Source Control BMP" means any schedule of activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures, managerial practices or operational practices that aim to prevent storm water pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. "Storm event" means a rainfall event that produces more than 0.1 inch of precipitation in 24 hours unless specifically stated otherwise. "Storm water" means storm water runoff and surface runoff and drainage related to precipitation events (pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.26(b)(13); 55 Federal Register 47990, 47996 (Nov. 16, 1990)). "Storm Water Runoff" means that part of precipitation (rainfall or snowmelt) which travels via flow across a surface to the MS4 or receiving waters from impervious, semi-pervious or pervious surfaces. When all other factors are equal, runoff increases as the perviousness of a surface decreases. "Structural BMP" means any structural facility designed and constructed to mitigate the adverse impacts of storm water and dry weather runoff pollution (e.g. canopy, structural enclosure). Structural BMPs may include both Treatment Control BMPs and Source Control BMPs. "Treatment" means the application of engineered systems that use physical, chemical, or biological processes to remove pollutants. Such processes include, but are not limited to, filtration, gravity settling, media adsorption, biodegradation, biological uptake, chemical oxidation and UV radiation. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 9 "Treatment Control BMP" means any engineered system designed to remove pollutants by simple gravity settling of particulate pollutants, filtration, biological uptake, media absorption or any other physical, biological, or chemical process. 8.44.050 Construction and Application This Chapter shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, applicable implementing regulations, and the Municipal NPDES Permit, and any amendment, revision or reissuance thereof. 8.44.060 Prohibited Activities A. Illicit Discharges and Connections. It is prohibited to establish, use, maintain, or continue illicit connections to the MS4, or to commence or continue any illicit discharges to the MS4. This prohibition against illicit connections is expressly retroactive and applies to connections made in the past but excludes permitted improvements to real property over which uncontaminated storm water runoff flows. B. Littering. It is prohibited to throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, keep, or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left, or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, walk street, driveway, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, business place, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant or be discharged to or through the MS4. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream, or other body of water within the City. This subsection shall not apply to refuse, rubbish, garbage or recyclables deposited in containers, bags, or other appropriate receptacles which are placed in designated locations for regular solid waste pick up and disposal. C. Disposal of Landscape Debris. It is prohibited to intentionally dispose of leaves, dirt, or other landscape debris into the MS4. D. Non-Storm Water Discharges. All non-storm water discharges into the MS4 are prohibited unless those flows are: in compliance with a separate NPDES permit; pursuant to a discharge exemption by the Regional Board, the Regional Board's Executive Officer, or the State Water Resources Control Board; associated with emergency firefighting activities (i.e., flows necessary for the protection of life or property); natural flows as defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit; conditionally exempt non-storm water discharges as defined in accordance with the Municipal NPDES Permit; or authorized as a temporary non-storm water discharge by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pursuant to Sections 104(a) or 104(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Prohibited discharges include, but are not limited to: 1. The discharge of wash waters to the MS4 when gas stations, auto repair garages, or other type of automotive service facilities (including those located at automotive dealerships) are cleaned; 2. The discharge of wastewater to the MS4 from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning, mobile carpet cleaning, and other such mobile commercial and industrial operations; 3. Discharges to the MS4 from areas where repair of machinery and equipment, including motor vehicles, which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 10 4. Discharges of runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other hazardous substances (e.g. motor vehicle parts), and uncovered receptacles containing hazardous materials; 5. The discharge of chlorinated/brominated swimming pool water and filter backwash or swimming pool water discharges that contain any detergents, wastes, or algaecides, or any other chemicals including salts from pools commonly referred to as “salt water pools” in excess of applicable water quality objectives; 6. Discharges of runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas to the MS4; 7. Discharges to the MS4 from washing impervious surfaces in industrial/commercial areas which results in a discharge of runoff to the MS4, unless specifically required by the State's, or the City's, or Los Angeles County's health and safety codes and conducted utilizing BMPs specified in the Municipal NPDES Permit, or permitted under a separate NPDES permit; 8. Discharges from the washing out of concrete trucks, pumps, tools, and equipment into the MS4; 9. Discharges to the MS4 of any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, banned by the USEPA or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; 10. The disposal of hazardous wastes into trash or recycling containers used for municipal solid waste disposal, or placed for removal by municipal solid waste disposal or permitted collector, where such disposal causes or threatens to cause a direct or indirect discharge to the MS4; 11. Discharge of any food or food processing wastes; and 12. Discharge of any fuel and chemical wastes, animal wastes, garbage, batteries, and other materials that have potential adverse impacts on water quality. E. Discharges in Violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit. Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit, either separately or in combination with other discharges, is prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such person(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from all losses, liabilities, claims, or causes of actions in any administrative or judicial action relating to such discharge. F. Industrial Activities. No person shall conduct any industrial activity in the City without obtaining all permits required by state or federal law, including a NPDES general industrial activity storm water permit when required. Persons conducting industrial activities within the City shall refer to the most recent edition of the Industrial/Commercial Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, produced and published by the California Stormwater Quality Association, for specific guidance on selecting BMPs for reducing pollutants in storm water discharges from industrial activities. 8.44.070 Exempted Discharges and Conditionally Exempted Discharges Discharges from those activities specifically identified in, or pursuant to the Municipal NPDES Permit as being Exempted Discharges or Conditionally Exempted Discharges shall not be considered a violation of this Chapter, provided that any applicable BMPs developed pursuant to the Municipal NPDES Permit are implemented to minimize any adverse impacts from such identified sources and that required conditions outlined in the Municipal NPDES Permit are met prior to discharge. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 11 8.44.080 Good Housekeeping Provisions Owners and occupants of property within the City shall implement Best Management Practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable. Treatment and structural BMPs shall be properly operated and maintained to prevent the breeding of vectors. Implementation includes, but is not limited to: A. Septic Waste. No person shall leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose or create the potential to expose any chemical or septic waste to precipitation. B. Use of Water. Runoff of water used for irrigation purposes shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff of water from the conditionally exempt washing down of paved areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable utilizing BMPs specified in the Municipal NPDES Permit including sweeping and collection of debris for trash disposal. Conditionally exempt non-storm water discharges of roadway/driveway wash water only include those discharges resulting from use of high pressure, low volume spray washing using only potable water with no cleaning agents. Conditionally exempt non-storm water discharges of roadway/driveway wash water do not include hosing of any driveway or roadway with a garden hose with a pressure nozzle. Water used for irrigation purposes is also subject to Chapter 8.56 of this Code. C. Storage of Materials, Machinery, and Equipment. Machinery or equipment that is to be repaired or maintained in areas susceptible to or exposed to storm water, shall be placed in a manner so that leaks, spills and other maintenance-related pollutants are not discharged to the MS4. D. Removal and Disposal of Oil, Chemicals, Debris, or Other Pollutionable Materials from Industrial/Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking Lots. Industrial/commercial motor vehicle parking lots with more than twenty-five (25) parking spaces that are located in areas potentially exposed to storm water shall be swept regularly (including use of absorbent material if necessary) or other equally effective measures shall be utilized, to remove oil, chemicals, debris, or other pollutionable materials from such parking lots. E. Food Wastes. Food wastes generated by non-residential food service and food distribution sources shall be properly disposed of and in a manner so such wastes are not discharged to the MS4. F. Best Management Practices. BMPs shall be used in areas exposed to storm water for the removal and lawful disposal of all fuels, chemicals, fuel and chemical wastes, animal wastes, landscape debris, garbage, batteries, and hazardous, toxic, or other materials which have potential adverse impacts on water quality. 8.44.090 Requirements for Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activities A. Each industrial discharger, discharger associated with construction activity, or other discharger described in any general storm water permit addressing such discharges, as may be issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Regional Board, shall comply with all requirements of such permit. Each discharger identified in an individual NPDES permit shall comply with and undertake all activities required by such permit. Proof of compliance with any such permit may be required in a form acceptable to the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or occupancy permits, or any other type of permit or license issued by the City. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 12 B. Storm water runoff containing sediment, construction materials, or other pollutants from the construction site and any adjacent staging, storage, or parking areas shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. The following shall apply to all construction projects within the City, regardless of project size, and shall be required from the time of land clearing, demolition, or commencement of construction until receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy: 1. Sediment, construction wastes, trash and other pollutants from construction activities shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Structural controls such as sediment barriers, plastic sheeting, detention ponds, filters, berms, and similar controls shall be utilized to the maximum extent practicable in order to minimize the escape of sediment and other pollutants from the site. 3. All excavated soil shall be located on the site in a manner that minimizes the amount of sediment running onto the street, drainage facilities, or adjacent properties. Soil piles not actively in use shall be bermed or covered with plastic or similar materials until the soil is either used or removed from the site. 4. No washing of construction or other vehicles is permitted adjacent to a construction site. No water from the washing of construction vehicles or equipment on the construction site is permitted to run off the construction site and enter the MS4. 5. Solid waste receptacles must be situated at convenient locations on construction sites and must be maintained in such a manner that trash and litter and construction waste does not accumulate on the site nor migrate off site. Receptacles must be securely covered at the end of each business day and during rain events. 6. Erosion from slopes and channels must be controlled through the effective combination of BMPs. C. The owner or authorized representative of the owner must certify in a form acceptable to the Director of Community Development, or designee, that BMPs to control runoff from construction activity at all construction sites as required under this Chapter will be implemented prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Building or Grading Permit. D. In addition to the provisions of Subsection B and C above, construction sites covering less than one acre must implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs from the Municipal NPDES Permit to prevent erosion and sediment loss, and the discharge of construction wastes, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, or designee. E. In addition to the provisions of Subsection B above, construction sites covering 1 (one) acre or more must adhere to the requirements set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit and the Construction General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) for construction sites one acre or more consistent with the Municipal NPDES Permit. Such plans must be submitted to the Director of Community Development, or designee, for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building or Grading Permits. The SWPPP must include all elements required by the Construction General Permit. SWPPPs must be prepared in accordance with their calculated risk level per the Construction General Permit. BMPs selected for erosion and sediment control shall be detailed in the SWPPP. BMPs shall be selected from the Municipal NPDES Permit, as applicable, and, at a minimum, shall include those BMPs specified in Attachments A, C, D, and/or E of the Construction General Permit (or any equivalent attachments in a later amended permit) based on the project type or risk level. Selected BMPs must be selected, designed, implemented, and maintained in accordance with the BMP technical standards presented in the latest version of the City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 13 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction; or Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook, Construction Site Best Management Practices Manual and addenda. F. Roadway paving and repair projects must implement at a minimum the BMPs listed in the Municipal NPDES Permit for such projects. Roadway paving or repair projects 1 (one) acre or more in size shall also abide by the Construction General Permit, and implement all necessary BMPs as required for coverage under the Construction General Permit. 8.44.095 Low Impact Development Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Projects A. Projects Required to Comply. All new development and the following types of redevelopment projects are required to comply with the New Development and Redevelopment Project Performance Criteria set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit: 1. All redevelopment projects, including single or multi-family residential projects, adding or replacing more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area; 2. Industrial parks or sites with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area; 3. Commercial malls or sites with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area; 4. Automotive Service facilities (SIC 5013, 5014, 5511, 5541, 7532-7534 and 7536-7539) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area; 5. Retail gasoline outlets with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area; 6. Restaurants (SIC 5812) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area; 7. Parking lots with five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of impervious surface area or with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces (cumulative on the project site); 8. Any redevelopment project located in or directly adjacent to or discharging directly into a Significant Ecological Area (as defined herein), where the development will: a. Discharge storm water and dry weather runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and b. Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface area. B. The following do not constitute new development or redevelopment and are not required to comply with the New Development and Redevelopment Project Performance Criteria set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit: 1. Routine maintenance activities conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety; 2. Discretionary permit projects or phased project applications which have been deemed complete by the effective date of this Chapter; and. 3. Discretionary permit projects with a valid vesting tentative map. C. Where redevelopment results in an alteration to more than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post- development storm water quality control requirements, the entire Project must comply with the New Development/Redevelopment Project Performance Criteria in the Municipal NPDES Permit. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 14 D. Where redevelopment results in an alteration to less than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post- development storm water quality control requirements, only the alteration must comply with the New Development/Redevelopment Project Performance Criteria in the Municipal NPDES Permit, and not the entire development. E. Street and road construction of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area shall follow USEPA guidance regarding Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure: Green Streets (December 2008 EPA-833-F-08-009) to the maximum extent practicable. Street and road construction applies to standalone streets, roads, alleys, and highways, and also applies to streets, roads and alleys within larger projects. F. Incorporation of Low Impact Development Program Requirements into Project Plans. 1. New development and redevelopment projects are required to control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area through effective site design and use of water permeable surfaces (e.g., permeable paving or landscaping) to the extent it is technically feasible on not less than fifty percent of exterior surface areas excluding building footprints, and controlling runoff through infiltration, bio-retention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. 2. An application for a new development or a redevelopment Project identified in paragraph A of this Section shall incorporate into the project plans a Storm Water Mitigation Plan ("SWMP"), which includes those BMPs necessary to control storm water pollution from the completed project. Structural or Treatment Control BMPs (including, as applicable, post-construction Treatment Control BMPs) set forth in project plans shall meet the design standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. 3. Hillside new development or redevelopment projects identified in paragraph A of this Section shall implement mitigation measures where applicable to: a. Conserve natural areas; b. Protect slopes and channels from erosion; c. Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage; d. Divert roof runoff to vegetated or other permeable areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability; and e. Direct surface flow to vegetated or other permeable areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability. 4. New Development/Redevelopment Project Performance Criteria: Post-construction Treatment Control BMPs are required for all new development and redevelopment projects identified in Paragraph A of this Section unless alternative measures are allowed as provided in the Municipal NPDES Permit. BMPs must be implemented to retain on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv), defined as runoff from the 0.80 inch, 24-hour rain event. 5. BMPs shall meet the design specifications and on-site retention potential described in the Municipal NPDES Permit. For projects unable to retain 100% of the SWQDv on-site due to technical infeasibility as defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit, the projects must implement alternative compliance measures in accordance with the Municipal NPDES Permit. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 15 6. The following categories of projects which otherwise do not require compliance with this Section 8.44.095, but which the Director of Community Development, or designee, has determined may potentially have adverse impacts on post-development storm water quality, shall be designed to include post-construction Treatment Control BMPs to mitigate the adverse impacts on post-development storm water quality to the maximum extent practicable and must implement a site-specific plan to mitigate post-development storm water. Projects where one or more of the following project characteristics exist are deemed to potentially have adverse impacts on post-development storm water quality: a. Vehicle or equipment fueling areas; b. Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, including washing and repair; c. Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage; d. Outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials; e. Outdoor manufacturing areas; f. Outdoor food handling or processing; g. Outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter; or h. Outdoor horticulture activities. G. Issuance of Discretionary Permits. No discretionary permit may be issued for any new development or redevelopment project identified in paragraph A of this Section or projects listed in Paragraph F.6 until the Director of Community Development, or designee, confirms that the project plans comply with the applicable storm water mitigation plans, BMP requirements and enumerated design criteria requirements set forth in this Chapter. H. Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. As a condition for issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for new development or redevelopment projects identified in paragraph A of this Section or projects listed in Paragraph F.6, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall require facility operators and/or owners to build all the storm water pollution control BMPs and Structural or Treatment Control BMPs that are shown on the approved project plans and to submit a signed Certification Statement stating that the site and all Structural or Treatment Control BMPs will be maintained in compliance with the Municipal NPDES Permit and other applicable regulatory requirements. Project owners shall provide an operation and maintenance plan, monitoring plan if required by the Director of Community Development, or designee, and verification of ongoing maintenance provisions for LID practices, Structural or Treatment Control BMPs, and Hydromodification Control BMPs including but not limited to: final map conditions, legal agreements, recorded covenants, conditions or restrictions, CEQA mitigation requirements, conditional use permits, and/ or other legally binding maintenance agreements to the satisfaction of the Director, or designee. These maintenance records must be kept on site for treatment BMPs implemented on single family residences. B. Transfer of Properties Subject to Requirement for Maintenance of Structural and Treatment Control BMPs. 1. The transfer or lease of a property subject to a requirement for maintenance of Structural and/or Treatment Control BMPs shall include conditions requiring the transferee and its successors and assigns to either (a) assume responsibility for maintenance of any existing Structural or Treatment Control BMP, or (b) to replace an existing Structural or Treatment Control BMP with new control measures or BMPs meeting the then-current standards of the City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 16 City and the Municipal NPDES Permit. Such requirement shall be included in any sale or lease agreement or deed for such property. The condition of transfer shall include a provision that the successor property owner or lessee conduct maintenance inspections of all Structural or Treatment Control BMPs at least once a year and retain proof of inspection by the City for a minimum of five (5) years. 2. For residential properties where the Structural or Treatment Control BMPs are located within a common area which will be maintained by a homeowner's association, language regarding the responsibility for maintenance shall be included in the project’s conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Printed educational materials will be required to accompany the first deed transfer to highlight the existence of the requirement and to provide information on what storm water management facilities are present, signs that maintenance is needed, and how the necessary maintenance can be performed. The transfer of this information shall also be required with any subsequent sale of the property. 3. If Structural or Treatment Control BMPs are located within an area proposed for dedication to a public agency, they will be the responsibility of the developer until the dedication is accepted. C. California Environmental Quality Act. Provisions of this Section shall be complimentary to, and shall not replace, any applicable requirements for storm water mitigation required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 8.44.100 Inspection Authority A. Authority to Enforce. The City's Authorized Enforcement Officers and designees thereof, are authorized and directed to enforce all provisions of this Chapter. B. Right of Entry. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this Chapter, or whenever an Authorized Enforcement Officer has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any condition which constitutes a violation of the provision of this Chapter, an Authorized Enforcement Officer may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or perform any duty imposed upon the officer by this Chapter; provided, that: (i) if such building or premises be occupied, he or she shall first present proper credentials and request entry; and (ii) if such building or premises be unoccupied, he or she shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry. Any such request for entry shall state that the property owner or occupant has the right to refuse entry and that in the event such entry is refused, inspection may be made only upon issuance of an inspection warrant. In the event the owner and/or occupant refuses entry after such request has been made, the Officer may seek assistance from any court of competent jurisdiction in obtaining such entry. C. Authority to Carry Out Inspections, Conduct Samplings, and Establishing Sampling Devices. An Authorized Enforcement Officer may carry out all inspections, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance and noncompliance with the Municipal NPDES Permit, including the prohibition of non-storm water discharges into the MS4 and receiving waters. With the consent of the owner or occupant or pursuant to an inspection warrant, any Authorized Enforcement Officer may establish on any property such devices as necessary to conduct sampling and monitoring activities necessary to determine the concentrations of pollutants in storm water and/or non-storm water runoff. The inspections provided for herein may include but are not limited to: City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 17 1. Inspecting efficiency or adequacy of construction or post construction BMPs; 2. Inspection, sampling, and testing any area runoff, soils in areas subject to runoff, and/or treatment system discharges; 3. Inspection of the integrity of all storm drain and sanitary sewer systems, including the use of smoke and dye tests and video survey of such pipes and conveyance systems; 4. Inspection of all records of the owner, contractor, developer or occupant of public or private property relating to BMP inspections conducted by the owner, contractor, developer or occupant and obtaining copies of such records as necessary; 5. Identifying points of storm water discharge from the premises whether surface or subsurface and locating any illicit connection or discharge. D. Requirement to Sample or Monitor. Any Authorized Enforcement Officer may order that any person engaged in any activity and/or owning or operating any facility which may cause or contribute to storm water pollution or contamination, illicit discharges, and/or discharge of non- storm water to the MS4, undertake such monitoring activities and/or analyses and furnish such reports as the officer may specify. All costs incurred for such activity shall be borne by the party ordered to do the sampling. In the event the owner or operator of a facility subject to a monitoring and/or analyses order fails to conduct required monitoring and/or analyses and furnish the required reports in the form required, an Authorized Enforcement Officer may cause such monitoring and/or analyses and the cost, therefore, including the reasonable additional administrative costs incurred by the City shall be borne by the owner of the property and the cost thereof shall be invoiced to the owner of the property. If the invoice is not paid within sixty (60) days of the issuance thereof, the costs shall be a lien upon and against the property and continue in existence until the same shall be paid. If the lien is not satisfied by the owner of the property within three (3) months after the completion by an Authorized Enforcement Officer of the required monitoring and/or analyses and reports, the property may be sold in satisfaction thereof in a like manner as other real property is sold under execution. E. Facility Inspections. The Director of Public Works, or designee, may periodically inspect every commercial and industrial facility as defined under the Municipal NPDES Permit at least twice during the term of the Municipal NPDES Permit and as often as necessary to insure compliance with this Chapter as the Director of Public Works, or designee, deems appropriate. 8.44.110 Violations of Storm Water and Dry Weather Runoff Pollution Control Regulations A. Violations. 1. Violations of the provisions of this Chapter are subject to the administrative penalty provisions of Chapter 1.10. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. 2. Concealment. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a violation of such provision B. Public Nuisance 1. In addition to being subject to the administrative penalty provisions: (a) Any action or inaction or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of: (i) Any of the provisions of this Chapter; or City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 18 (ii) Any requirement of either the Municipal NPDES Permit, the Construction General Permit, an approved Storm Water Mitigation Plan, an approved SWPPP with respect to a property, the Industrial General Permit; or (b) Any false certification or verification, or any failure to comply with a certification or verification provided by a project applicant or the applicant’s successor in interest; or (c) Any failure to properly operate and maintain any Structural or Treatment Control BMP on a property in accordance with an approved Storm Water Mitigation Plan or the Municipal NPDES Permit, is hereby determined to be a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, is declared and deemed a public nuisance, and may be abated or restored by the Authorized Enforcement Officer, and a civil or criminal action to abate, enjoin or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be brought by the City. Nuisance abatement is government by Chapter 8.28 of this Code. 2. The cost of public nuisance abatement and restoration shall be assessed against the property, as set forth in Chapter 8.28 of this Code. 3. If any violation of this Chapter constitutes a seasonal or recurring nuisance, either the Community Development Director or Public Works Director, or their designee, shall so declare and provide notice to the address of the property via certified mail. The failure of any person to take appropriate annual or seasonal precautions required by the notice shall constitute a public nuisance and a violation of this Chapter. C. Enforcement Procedure for Public Nuisance. 1. For the first failure to comply with any provision contained in this Chapter that will be prosecuted as a nuisance, rather than enforced pursuant to the City’s administrative penalty provisions, an Authorized Enforcement Officer shall issue to the violator a written notice which includes the following information: (i) a description of the violation being committed; (ii) a specified time within which the violation must be corrected or within which the violator may file a written response to the Officer disputing the existence of a violation; and (iii) a description of the penalties which may be imposed for continued noncompliance. 2. If the violator demonstrates that the violation does not exist, or has been corrected, no further action need be taken. If, however, the violation exists and is not corrected within the prescribed time, the Authorized Enforcement Officer may thereafter pursue any of the enforcement remedies described below in this Section. 3. Notice is only required under this Section in the first instance for failure to comply with any provision of this Chapter and is not required for subsequent violations of the same or substantially similar activity. 4. Notice under this provision is not required before the City may pursue an administrative penalty under Chapter 1.10. D. Civil Actions. In addition to any other remedies provided in this section, any violation of this Chapter may be enforced by civil action brought by the City. In any such action, the City may seek, as appropriate, any or all of the following remedies: 1. A temporary and/or permanent injunction. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 19 2. Assessment of the violator for the costs of any investigation, inspection, or monitoring survey which led to the establishment of the violation, and for the reasonable costs of preparing and bringing legal action under this subsection. 3. Costs incurred in removing, correcting, or terminating the adverse effects resulting from violation. 4. Compensatory damages for loss, damage or destruction of water quality, wildlife, fish, or aquatic life. E. Administrative Enforcement Powers. In addition to the other enforcement powers and remedies established by this Chapter, the Authorized Enforcement Officers have the authority to utilize the following administrative remedies: 1. Cease and Desist Orders. When an Authorized Enforcement Officer finds that a violation of this Chapter has taken plan or is likely to take place, the Officer may issue an order to cease and desist such discharge, or practice, or operation likely to cause such violation and direct that those persons not complying shall: (i) comply with the requirement, (ii) comply with a time schedule for compliance, or (iii) take appropriate remedial or preventive action to prevent a specified violation from recurring. 2. Notice to Clean. Whenever an Authorized Enforcement Officer finds any oil, earth, debris, grass, weeds, dead trees, rubbish, refuse, waste, container or any other material of any kind, in or upon the sidewalk abutting or adjoining any parcel of land, or upon any parcel of land or grounds, which may result in pollutants entering the MS4 or a non-storm water discharge to the MS4, he or she may give notice to the owner or occupant of the adjacent property to remove such oil, earth, debris, grass, weeds, dead trees, rubbish, refuse, waste, container or other material, in any manner that the Officer may reasonably direct. The recipient of such notice shall undertake the activities as described in the notice. F. Permit Revocation. To the extent the City makes a provision of this Chapter or any identified BMP a condition of approval to the issuance of a permit or license, any person in violation of such condition is subject to the permit revocation procedures set forth in this Code. G. Remedies. Remedies specified in this Chapter are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil, or criminal, including remedies under the Federal Clean Water Act and/or Porter-Cologne Act. The remedies provided for in this Section shall be cumulative and not exclusive. H. Citizen Reporting. Members of the public are encouraged to report possible violations of this Chapter to the City's Public Works Department. 8.44. 120 No Taking The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed or operated to deprive any property owner of substantially all of the market value of such owner's property or otherwise constitute an unconstitutional taking without compensation. Section 2. The following Sections modifying the CalGreen Code in Section 15.48.020 of Chapter 15.48 of Title 15 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code are repealed: Section A4.106.4; Section A5.106.2; Section A5.106.2.1; Section A5.106.2.2; Section A5.106.3; Section A5.106.3.1; and Section A.5.106.3.2. City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Ordinance 20 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __day of _____________, 2015. ____________________________ MAYOR Attest: _______________________ City Clerk 1 1742637-1 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 7 OF TITLE 5 OF THE TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA WHEREAS, the federal Clean Water Act provides for the regulation and reduction of pollutants discharged into the waters of the United States by extending National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) requirements to stormwater and urban runoff discharged into municipal storm drain systems. WHEREAS, the City of Torrance (the “City”) is a co-permittee under the “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, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES Permit No. CAS00401” (“MS4 Permit”) issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Los Angeles Region, and, as a co-permittee under the MS4 Permit, the City is required to adopt ordinances and implement procedures with respect to discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”). WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted ordinances to ensure that it possesses the legal authority necessary to control discharges to and from those portions of the MS4 over which it has jurisdiction, in order to comply with the MS4 Permit, and to specifically prohibit certain discharges identified in the MS4 Permit. WHEREAS, Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the Torrance Municipal Code is being revised in order to comply with the current MS4 Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Torrance, California does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the Torrance Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: “5-7.101 Title. This chapter shall be known as the City of Torrance Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 5-7.102 Findings. A. The federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq.,) provides for the regulation and reduction of pollutants discharged into the waters of the United States by 2 1742637-1 extending National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) requirements to stormwater and urban runoff discharge into municipal storm drain systems; B. Stormwater and urban runoff flows from individual properties onto streets, then through storm drains passing through the City and finally into the waters of the United States; C. The City is a co-permittee under the “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, which also serves as a NPDES Permit under the federal Clean Water Act (NPDES No. CAS614001), as well as waste discharge requirements under California law (the Municipal NPDES Permit”) and, as a co-permittee under the Municipal NPDES Permit, the City is required to adopt ordinances and implement procedures with respect to the entry of non-stormwater discharges into the municipal stormwater system; D. Part III, Section A of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires the City to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges from within its boundaries, into that portion of the MS4 which it owns or operates and into watercourses, except where such discharges are: (1) in compliance with a separate individual or general NPDES permit, or (2) identified and in compliance with Part III.A (non-stormwater discharges) of the Municipal NPDES Permit, or (3) originate from federal, state or other facilities which the City is preempted from regulating, and further provides that compliance with the terms of the Municipal NPDES Permit through the development and implementation of the programs described in the Municipal NPDES Permit will constitute compliance with the discharge prohibition in the Municipal NPDES Permit; E. Part VI, Section A.2 of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires the City to establish and maintain the legal authority necessary to control discharges to and from those portions of the MS4 over which it has jurisdiction, so as to comply with the Municipal NPDES Permit and to specifically prohibit certain discharges identified in the Municipal NPDES Permit; F. The Municipal NPDES Permit contemplates the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program in which the City will participate, which will in turn require the development and the implementation of programs for, among other things, the elimination of illicit connections and illicit discharges, development planning, development construction, and public information and education requirements, and which may require the later adoption of additional legal authority to implement such programs as they are developed by the permittees and approved by the Regional Board; G. In order to control, in a cost-effective manner, the quantity and quality of stormwater and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable, the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter is essential. 5-7.103 Purpose and intent. 3 1742637-1 A. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and the water quality of the receiving waters of the County of Los Angeles and surrounding coastal areas by: 1. Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable; 2. Regulating illicit connections and illicit discharges and reducing the level of contamination of stormwater and urban runoff in the municipal stormwater system; and 3. Regulating non-stormwater discharges to the municipal stormwater system. B. The intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands within the City in a manner consistent with the federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the Municipal NPDES Permit. C. This chapter is also intended to provide the City with the legal authority necessary to control discharges to and from those portions of the municipal stormwater system over which it has jurisdiction as required by the Municipal NPDES Permit, and fully and timely comply with the terms of the Municipal NPDES Permit while the Enhanced Watershed Management Program is being developed by the City as part of the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, and in contemplation of the subsequent amendment of this chapter or adoption by the City of additional provisions of this chapter to implement the subsequently adopted Enhanced Watershed Management Program, or other programs developed under the Municipal NPDES Permit. D. This chapter also sets forth requirements for the construction and operation of certain commercial development, new development and redevelopment and other projects (as further defined herein) which are intended to ensure compliance with the stormwater mitigation measures prescribed in the current MS4 Permit. This chapter authorizes the Engineer to define and adopt applicable best management practices and other stormwater pollution control measures, as provided herein, to carry out all inspections including entering entities discharging to the MS4, conduct surveillance, conduct monitoring, cite infractions and to impose fines pursuant to this chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Engineer shall administer, implement and enforce the provisions of this section. E. The City Council shall approve and enter into interagency agreements as deemed necessary by the City Council to control the contribution of pollutants of the shared MS4. 5-7.104 Definitions. Except as specifically provided herein, any term used in this chapter shall be defined as that term is defined in the current Municipal NPDES Permit, or if it is not specifically defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit, then as such term is defined in the Federal Clean Water Act, as 4 1742637-1 amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder. If the definition of any term contained in this section conflicts with the definition of the same term in the current Municipal NPDES Permit, then the definition contained in the Municipal NPDES Permit shall govern. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings when used in this chapter: “Area susceptible to runoff” means any surface directly exposed to precipitation or in the path of runoff caused by precipitation which path leads off the parcel on which the surface is located. “Automotive service facilities” means a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. For inspection purposes, Permittees need not inspect facilities with SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5511, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539 provided that these facilities have no outside activities or materials that may be exposed to stormwater. “Basin Plan” means the Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region, Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, adopted by the Regional Water Board on June 13, 1994 and subsequent amendments. “Best Management Practices (BMPs)” means practices or physical devices or systems designed to prevent or reduce pollutant loading from stormwater or non-stormwater discharges to receiving waters, or designed to reduce the volume of stormwater or non-stormwater discharged to the receiving water. Examples of BMPs may include public education and outreach, proper planning of development projects, proper cleaning of catch basin inlets, and proper sludge- or waste-handling and disposal, among others. “Biofiltration” means a LID BMP that reduces stormwater pollutant discharges by intercepting rainfall on vegetative canopy, and through incidental infiltration and/or evapotranspiration, and filtration. Incidental infiltration is an important factor in achieving the required pollutant load reduction. Therefore, the term “biofiltration” as used in this chapter is defined to include only systems designed to facilitate incidental infiltration or achieve the equivalent pollutant reduction as biofiltration BMPs with an underdrain (subject to approval by the Regional Board’s Executive Officer). Biofiltration BMPs include bioretention systems with an underdrain and bioswales. “Bioretention” means a LID BMP that reduces stormwater runoff by intercepting rainfall on vegetative canopy, and through evapotranspiration and infiltration. The bioretention system typically includes a minimum 2-foot top layer of a specified soil and compost mixture underlain by a gravel-filled temporary storage pit dug into the in-situ soil. As defined in this Ordinance, a bioretention BMP may be designed with an overflow drain, but may not include an underdrain. When a bioretention BMP is designed or constructed with an underdrain it is regulated by the Municipal NPDES Permit as biofiltration. “Bioswale” means a LID BMP consisting of a shallow channel lined with grass or other dense, low-growing vegetation. Bioswales are designed to collect stormwater runoff and to achieve a uniform sheet flow through the dense vegetation for a period of several minutes. 5 1742637-1 “City” means the City of Torrance, California. “Clean Water Act (CWA)” means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted in 1972, by Public Law 92-500, and amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants to Waters of the United States unless the discharge is in accordance with an NPDES permit. “Commercial development” means any development on private land that is not heavy industrial or residential. The category includes, but is not limited to: hospitals, laboratories and other medical facilities, educational institutions, recreational facilities, plant nurseries, car wash facilities, mini-malls and other business complexes, shopping malls, hotels, office buildings, public warehouses and other light industrial complexes. “Commercial Malls” means any development on private land comprised of one or more buildings forming a complex of stores which sells various merchandise, with interconnecting walkways enabling visitors to easily walk from store to store, along with parking area(s). A commercial mall includes, but is not limited to: mini-malls, strip malls, other retail complexes, and enclosed shopping malls or shopping centers “Construction” means any construction or demolition activity, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation or any other activity that result in land disturbance. Construction does not include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety or routine maintenance activities required to maintain the integrity of structures by performing minor repair and restoration work, maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purposes of the facility. See “Routine Maintenance” definition for further explanation. Where clearing, grading or excavating of underlying soil takes place during a repaving operation, State General Construction Permit coverage by the State of California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities or for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required if more than one acre is disturbed or the activities are part of a larger plan “Control” means to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or prohibit by technological, legal, contractual or other means, the discharge of pollutants from an activity or activities. “Development” means any construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment or reconstruction of any public or private residential project (whether single family, multi-unit or planned unit development); industrial, commercial, retail and other nonresidential projects, including public agency projects; or mass grading for future construction. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety. “Directly adjacent” means situated within two hundred (200) feet of the contiguous zone required for the continued maintenance, function, and structural stability of the environmentally sensitive area. 6 1742637-1 “Discharge” means when used without qualification the discharge of a pollutant. “Discharge of a pollutant” means any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source or, any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as a means of transportation. The term discharge includes additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from: surface runoff which is collected or channeled by a state, municipality, or other person which do not lead to treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances, leading into privately owned treatment works. “Discharging” directly means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely or predominantly of flows from the subject, property, development, subdivision, or industrial facility, and not commingled with the flows from adjacent lands. “Discretionary project” is defined in the same manner as Section 15357 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, as amended, and means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the City decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the City merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances or regulations. “Disturbed area” means an area that is altered as a result of clearing, grading, and/or excavation. “Engineer” means the City Engineer and persons directed by him or her and under the instruction and supervision of the City Engineer who are assigned to enforce this chapter. “Environmentally sensitive area (ESA)” means an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments (California Public Resources Code § 30107.5). Areas subject to storm water mitigation requirements are areas designated as Significant Ecological Areas by the County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Significant Areas Study, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (1976) and amendments); an area designated as a Significant Natural Area by the California Department of Fish and Games Significant Natural Areas Program, provided that area has been field verified by the Department of Fish and Game; an area listed in the Basin Plan as supporting the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) beneficial use; and an area identified by the City as environmentally sensitive. “Flow-through treatment BMPs” means a modular, vault type “high flow biotreatment” devices contained within an impervious vault with an underdrain or designed with an impervious liner and an underdrain. “Full Capture System” means any single device or series of devices, certified by the Executive Officer, that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design 7 1742637-1 treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area. “Good housekeeping practices” means common practices related to the storage, use or cleanup of materials, performed in a manner that minimizes the discharge of pollutants. Examples include, but are not limited to, purchasing only the quantity of materials to be used at a given time, use of alternative and less environmentally harmful products, cleaning up spills and leaks, and storing materials in a manner that will contain any leaks or spills. “General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit (GCASP)” means the general NPDES permit adopted by the State Board which authorizes the discharge of stormwater from construction activities under certain conditions. “General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit (GIASP)” means the general NPDES permit adopted by the State Board which authorizes the discharge of stormwater from certain industrial activities under certain conditions. “Green Roof” means a LID BMP using planter boxes and vegetation to intercept rainfall on the roof surface. Rainfall is intercepted by vegetation leaves and through evapotranspiration. Green roofs may be designed as either a bioretention BMP or as a biofiltration BMP. To receive credit as a bioretention BMP, the green roof system planting medium shall be of sufficient depth to provide capacity within the pore space volume to contain the design storm depth and may not be designed or constructed with an underdrain. “Hillside” means property located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, where the development contemplates grading on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent (25%) or greater and where grading contemplates cut or fill slopes. “Illicit connection” means any human-made conveyance that is connected to the storm drain system without a permit, excluding gutters, roof-drains and other similar connections. Examples include channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets or outlets that are connected directly to the storm drain system. “Illicit discharge” means any discharge to the storm drain system that is prohibited under local, state or federal statutes, ordinances, codes or regulations. This includes all non-stormwater discharges except discharges pursuant to a separate NPDES permit and discharges that are exempted or conditionally exempted in accordance with Part III the Municipal NPDES permit. “Industrial/Commercial Facility” means any facility involved and/or used in the production, manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution, exchange or sale of goods and/or commodities, and any facility involved and/or used in providing professional and non- professional services. This category of facilities includes, but is not limited to, any facility defined by either the Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) or the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Facility ownership (federal, state, municipal, private) and profit motive of the facility are not factors in this definition. 8 1742637-1 “Industrial Park” means land development that is set aside for industrial development. Industrial parks are usually located close to transport facilities, especially where more than one transport modalities coincide: highways, railroads, airports, and navigable rivers. It includes office parks, which have offices and light industry. “Infiltration BMP” means a LID BMP that reduces stormwater runoff by capturing and infiltrating the runoff into in-situ soils or amended onsite soils. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration basins, dry wells, and pervious pavement. “Infiltration” means the downward entry of water into the surface of the soil. “Low Impact Development” or “LID” consists of building and landscape features designed to retain or filter stormwater runoff. “Material” means any substance including, but not limited to: garbage and debris; lawn clippings, leaves, and other vegetation; biological and fecal waste; sediment and sludge; oil and grease; gasoline; paints, solvents, cleaners, and any fluid or solid containing chemicals. “Municipal NPDES Permit” means the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles, and the Incorporated Cities Therein, Except the City of Long Beach (Order No. R4-2012-0175), NPDES Permit No. CAS00401), issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Los Angeles Region, and any successor permit to that permit. “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)” means a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): 1. Owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; 2. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; 3. Which is not a combined sewer; and 4. Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR Section 122.2. “New development” means land-disturbing activities; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or structure, creation of impervious surfaces; and land subdivision. 9 1742637-1 “Non-stormwater discharge” means any discharge to a municipal stormwater system that is not composed entirely of stormwater. “NPDES permit” means any waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Board or the State Water Resources Control Board in the form of an NPDES permit pursuant to Water Code Section 13370 (other than the Municipal NPDES Permit). “Outfall” means a point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the United States and does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewers, or pipes, tunnels or other conveyances with connect segments of the same stream or other waters of the United Sates and are used to convey waters of the United States. (40 CFR Section 122.26(b)(9)) “Parking lot” means land area or a facility for the parking or storage of motor vehicles used for businesses, commerce, industry or personal use with a lot size of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of surface area, or with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces. “Planning priority projects” means those projects specified in Section 18.04.105.C of this chapter that are required to incorporate appropriate storm water mitigation measures into the design plan for their respective projects. “Pollutant” means those pollutants defined in Section 502(6) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1362(6)), or incorporated into California Water Code Section 13373. The term “pollutant” shall not include uncontaminated stormwater, potable water or reclaimed water generated by a lawfully permitted water treatment facility. “Project” means all development, redevelopment, and land disturbing activities. The term is not limited to "Project" as defined under CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21065). “Rainfall Harvest and Use” means a LID BMP system designed to capture runoff, typically from a roof but can also include runoff capture from elsewhere within the site, and to provide for temporary storage until the harvested water can be used for irrigation or non-potable uses. The harvested water may also be used for potable water uses if the system includes disinfection treatment and is approved for such use by the local building department (Order No. R4-2012-0175). “Receiving Water” means “water of the United States” into which waste and/or pollutants are or may be discharged. “Redevelopment” means land-disturbing activity that result in the creation, addition, or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Redevelopment includes, but is not limited to: the expansion of a building footprint; addition or replacement of a structure; replacement of impervious surface area that is not part of routine maintenance activity; and land disturbing activity related to structural or impervious surfaces. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic 10 1742637-1 capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety. “Regional Board” means the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Los Angeles Region. “Restaurant” means a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption. (SIC Code 5812). “Retail gasoline outlet” means any facility engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. “Routine Maintenance” includes, but is not limited to projects conducted to: 1. Maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility. 2. Perform as needed restoration work to preserve the original design grade, integrity and hydraulic capacity of flood control facilities. 3. Includes road shoulder work, regrading dirt or gravel roadways and shoulders and performing ditch cleanouts. 4. Update existing lines and facilities, which include replacing existing lines with new materials or pipes, to comply with applicable codes, standards, and regulations regardless if such projects result in increased capacity. 5. Repair leaks. Routine maintenance does not include construction of new lines or facilities resulting from compliance with applicable codes, standards and regulations. New lines are those that are not associated with existing facilities and are not part of a project to update or replace existing lines. “Runoff” means any runoff including storm water and dry weather flows from a drainage area that reaches a receiving water body or subsurface. During dry weather it is typically comprised of base flow either contaminated with pollutants or uncontaminated, and nuisance flows. “Significant Ecological Area” means an area that is determined to possess an example of biotic resources that cumulatively represent biological diversity, for the purposes of protecting biotic diversity, as part of the Los Angeles County General Plan. Areas are designated as SEAs, if they possess one or more of the following criteria: 1. The habitat of rare, endangered, and threatened plant and animal species. 11 1742637-1 2. Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either one of a kind, or are restricted in distribution on a regional basis or within Los Angeles County. 3. Habitat that at some point in the life cycle of a species or group of species, serves as a concentrated breeding, feeding, resting, migrating grounds and is limited in availability either regionally or within Los Angeles County. 4. Biotic resources that are of scientific interest because they are either an extreme in physical/geographical limitations, or represent an unusual variation in a population or community. 5. Areas important as game species habitat or as fisheries. 6. Areas that would provide for the preservation of relatively undisturbed examples of natural biotic communities in Los Angeles County. 7. Special areas. “Site” means the land or water area where any facility or activity is physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility or activity. “Source control BMP” means any schedule of activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures, managerial practices or operational practices that aim to prevent stormwater pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. “Standard urban stormwater mitigation plan” or “SUSMP” means a report submitted by an applicant for approval by the Engineer prior to issuance of a building, grading, planning or similar permit outlining the necessary LID requirements and BMPs which must be incorporated into design plans for development or redevelopment projects. “Storm Drain System” means any facility or any parts of the facility, including streets, gutters, conduits, natural or artificial drains, channels and watercourse that are used for the purpose of collecting, storing, transporting or disposing of stormwater and are located within the City. “Stormwater runoff” means that part of precipitation (rainfall) which travels via flow across a surface to the MS4 or receiving waters from impervious, semi-pervious or pervious surfaces. When all other factors are equal, runoff increases as the perviousness of a surface decreases. “Structural BMP” means any structural facility designed and constructed to mitigate the adverse impacts of stormwater and urban runoff pollution (e.g. canopy, structural enclosure). Structural BMPs may include both treatment control BMPs and source control BMPs. “Treatment” means the application of engineered systems that use physical, chemical or biological processes to remove pollutants. Such processes include, but are not limited to, 12 1742637-1 filtration, gravity settling, media adsorption, biodegradation, biological uptake, chemical oxidation and UV radiation. “Treatment control BMP” means any engineered system designed to remove pollutants by simple gravity settling of particulate pollutants, filtration, biological uptake, media adsorption or any other physical, biological or chemical process. “Urban runoff” means surface water flow produced by non-stormwater resulting from residential, commercial and industrial activities involving the use of potable and nonpotable water. 5-7.105 Construction and application. This chapter shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and acts amendatory or supplementary to the Federal Clean Water Act, applicable implementing regulations, and the Municipal NPDES Permit, and any amendment, revision or reissuance of the Municipal NPDES Permit. 5-7.106 Inspection. The Engineer, or his representative, shall be authorized at any reasonable time to enter the premises of any property discharging to the MS4 to determine compliance with the provisions of this chapter; such inspection may include but not be limited to: sampling, monitoring, reviewing, photographing, videotaping and inspecting treatment facilities and discharge location. 5-7.107 Storm drain impact fees. A. Every applicant for a permit pursuant to Section 9-1.02 of this Code for development construction shall pay a storm drain impact fee. B. The proceeds of the storm drain impact fee shall be applied to offset the City’s costs of enforcing the order as a result of development construction, and the amount of the storm drain impact fee shall not exceed the City’s reasonable costs therefor. C. The amount of the storm drain impact fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council, as amended from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of this section, as amended from time to time. D. The City Engineer shall administer and collect the storm drain impact fee. E. Permits issued pursuant to Section 9-1.02 for development construction shall not be issued until payment of the storm drain impact fee. 5-7.108 Critical source of pollution inspection fee. 13 1742637-1 A. Every person required to obtain a license pursuant to Torrance Municipal Code Section 6-1.06 and also engaged in a business designated in the Municipal NPDES permit as a critical source of pollution shall pay an annual critical source of pollution inspection fee. B. The proceeds of the critical source of pollution inspection fee shall be applied to offset the City’s costs of performing the inspections required by the Municipal NPDES permit and the amount of the critical source of pollution inspection fee shall not exceed the City’s reasonable costs therefor. C. The amount of the critical source of pollution inspection fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council as amended from time to time in accordance with provisions of this section. D. The License Clerk and Collector shall administer and collect the critical source of pollution inspection fee. E. No license issued pursuant to Torrance Municipal Code Section 6-1.06 shall be issued or renewed until payment of the critical source of pollution inspection fee is received by the License Clerk and Collector. 5-7.109 Prohibited activities. A. Illicit Discharges and Connections. It is prohibited to commence, establish, use, maintain or continue any illicit connections to the MS4 or any illicit discharges to the MS4. This prohibition against illicit connections applies to the use, maintenance or continuation of any illicit connection, whether that connection was established prior to or after the effective date of this chapter. B. Littering. No person shall throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, business place, or upon any or private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream, or other body of water within the City. This section shall not apply to refuse, rubbish or garbage deposited in containers, bags or other appropriate receptacles which are placed in designated locations for regular solid waste pick-up and disposal. C. Disposal of Landscape Debris. No person shall dispose of leaves, dirt, or other landscape debris into the municipal separate stormwater system. D. Non-stormwater Discharges. The following non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 are prohibited unless in compliance with a separate NPDES permit or pursuant to a discharge exemption by the Regional Board, the Regional Board’s Executive Officer, or the State Water Resources Control Board: 14 1742637-1 1. The discharge of untreated wash waters to the MS4 when gas stations, auto repair garages, or other type of automotive service facilities are cleaned; 2. The discharge of untreated wastewater to the MS4 from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning, mobile carpet cleaning, and other such mobile commercial and industrial operations; 3. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges to the MS4 from areas where repair of machinery and equipment, including motor vehicles, which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; 4. Discharges of untreated runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other hazardous substances, and uncovered receptacles containing hazardous materials; 5. Discharges of commercial/municipal swimming pool filter backwash to the MS4; 6. Discharges of untreated runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas to the MS4; provided, however, that nonindustrial and noncommercial activities which incidentally generate urban runoff, such as the hosing of sidewalks, shall be excluded from this prohibition; 7. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges to the MS4 from washing impervious surfaces in industrial/commercial areas which results in a discharge of untreated runoff to the MS4, unless specifically required by state law, or the City’s Municipal code, or Los Angeles County’s Health and Safety Codes, or permitted under a separate NPDES permit; 8. Discharges from the washing out of concrete trucks into the MS4; 9. Discharges to the MS4 of any pesticide, fungicide or herbicide, banned by the USEPA or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; or 10. The disposal of hazardous wastes into trash containers used for municipal trash disposal where such disposal causes or threatens to cause a direct or indirect discharge to the MS4. E. Car Washing. No motor vehicle, boat, trailer, or other type of mobile transportation may be washed, other than at a commercial carwash, unless such vehicle is being washed by: 1. A resident at their residence using a hand-held bucket or a water hose equipped with an automatic shutoff nozzle as long as water does not flow onto streets; or 15 1742637-1 2. A business that has an approved car wash facility for its fleet vehicles, provided that water does not flow onto streets. 5-7.110 Exempted discharges, conditionally exempted discharges or designated discharges. A. Discharges from those activities specifically identified in, or pursuant to, Part III.A.1-3 of the Municipal NPDES Permit as being exempted discharges, conditionally exempted discharges or designated discharges shall not be considered a violation of this chapter; provided that, consistent with Part III.A.1-3 of the Municipal NPDES Permit: 1. Any applicable BMPs developed pursuant to the Municipal NPDES Permit are implemented to minimize any adverse impacts from such identified sources; 2. The discharger meets all notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements; and 3. The discharger has conducted all applicable monitoring requirements. B. Discharges in Violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit. Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit, either separately or in combination with other discharges, is prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such person(s) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from all losses, liabilities, claims or causes of actions in any administrative or judicial action relating to such discharge. 5-7.111 Good housekeeping provisions. Owners and occupants of property within the City shall comply with the following requirements: A. Septic Waste. No person shall leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose any chemical or septic waste to precipitation in an area where a discharge to City streets or MS4 may or does occur. B. Use of Water. Runoff of water used for irrigation purposes shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff of water from the permitted washing down of paved areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. C. Storage of Materials, Machinery and Equipment. Machinery or equipment that is to be repaired or maintained in areas susceptible to or exposed to stormwater, shall be placed in a manner so that leaks, spills and other maintenance-related pollutants are not discharged to the MS4. 16 1742637-1 D. Removal and Disposal of Debris from Industrial/Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking Lots. Industrial/commercial motor vehicle parking lots with more than twenty-five (25) parking spaces that are located in areas potentially exposed to stormwater shall be swept regularly or other equally effective measures shall be utilized to remove debris from such parking lots. E. Food Wastes. Food wastes generated by nonresidential food service and food distribution sources shall be properly disposed of and in a manner so such wastes are not discharged to the MS4. F. Best Management Practices. Best management practices shall be used in areas exposed to stormwater for the removal and lawful disposal of all fuels, chemicals, fuel and chemical wastes, animal wastes, garbage, batteries, or other materials which have potential adverse impacts on water quality. G. Maintenance of Structural BMPs. Structural BMPs shall be properly operated and maintained, consistent with the approved SUSMP. Records and documentation of such maintenance shall be provided to the Engineer upon request. 5-7.112 Requirements for industrial/commercial and construction activities. A. Industrial/Commercial and Construction Related Dischargers Generally. Each discharger associated with industrial/commercial activity or construction activity, or other discharger described in any general NPDES permit addressing such discharges, as may be issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Regional Board shall comply with all requirements of such NPDES permit and the City’s development construction program. Each discharger identified in an individual NPDES permit shall comply with and undertake all activities required by such permit. Proof of compliance with any such NPDES permit and the City’s development construction program may be required in a form acceptable to the Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading, building or occupancy permits, or any other type of permit or license issued by the City. B. Non-stormwater discharges to the MS4 from industrial, commercial or construction activities in violation of any applicable NPDES permit or the City’s development construction program are prohibited. C. Source Control BMPs for Industrial/Commercial Facilities. Industrial/commercial facilities shall implement the effective source control BMPs listed in Table 10 of Part VI.D.6.f. of the Municipal NPDES Permit, unless a particular pollutant generating activity does not occur on a facility’s site. 5-7.113 Standard urban stormwater mitigation plan (SUSMP) and low impact development (LID) requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. A. Objective. Pursuant to Part VI.D.7.b of the Municipal NPDES Permit, the provisions of this section establish requirements for construction activities and facility operations 17 1742637-1 of development and redevelopment projects to comply with the current Municipal NPDES Permit to lessen the water quality impacts of development by using smart growth practices and integrate LID practices and standards for stormwater pollution mitigation through means of infiltration, evapotranspiration, biofiltration, and rainfall harvest and use. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City shall administer, implement and enforce the provisions of this section. B. Scope. This section contains requirements for stormwater pollution control measures in development and redevelopment projects and authorizes the City to further define and adopt stormwater pollution control measures, and to develop LID principles and requirements, including but not limited to the objectives and specifications for integration of LID strategies. As specified in this section, certain Planning Priority Projects shall meet the requirements of this section through the preparation and submittal of a standard urban stormwater mitigation plan (SUSMP), which shall include the applicable LID requirements set forth in this section as an element of the SUSMP. C. LID Standards Manual. The Engineer shall prepare, maintain, and update, as deemed necessary and appropriate, a manual ("LID Standards Manual"), which shall include urban and stormwater runoff quantity and quality control development principles and technologies for achieving compliance with the provisions of this section. The LID Standards Manual shall also include technical feasibility and implementation parameters, as well as other rules, requirements, and procedures as the Engineer deems necessary, for implementing the provisions of this Chapter. D. Applicability – Planning Priority Projects. The following development and redevelopment projects shall be designated as Planning Priority Projects, which are subject to City conditioning and approval for the design and implementation of post-construction controls to mitigate storm water pollution prior to completion of the projects, and shall meet the requirements of this section: 1. New Development Projects. a. All development projects equal to one (1) acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. b. Industrial parks 10,000 square feet or more of surface area. c. Commercial malls 10,000 square feet or more of surface area. d. Retail gasoline outlets with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area. e. Restaurants (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of 5812) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area. f. Parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area, or with 25 or more parking spaces. g. Streets and roads construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. Street and road construction applies to standalone streets, roads, highways, and freeway projects, and also applies to streets within larger projects. 18 1742637-1 h. Automotive service facilities (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of 5013, 5014, 5511, 5541, 7532-7534 and 7536-7539) 5,000 square feet or more of surface area. i. Projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to an Significant Ecological Area (SEA), where the development will: (i) Discharge stormwater runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and (ii) Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface area. j. Single-family hillside homes. 2. Redevelopment Projects a. Land disturbing activity that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site on Planning Priority Project categories. b. Where Redevelopment results in an alteration to more than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post-construction stormwater quality control requirements, the entire project must be mitigated. c. Where Redevelopment results in an alteration of less than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post-construction stormwater quality control requirements, only the alteration must be mitigated, and not the entire development. d. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of facility or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. Impervious surface replacement, such as the reconstruction of parking lots and roadways which does not disturb additional area and maintains the original grade and alignment, is considered a routine maintenance activity. Redevelopment does not include the repaving of existing roads to maintain original line and grade. e. Existing single-family dwelling and accessory structures are exempt from the Redevelopment requirements unless such projects create, add, or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. E. Stormwater Pollution Control Requirements. The site for every Planning Priority Project shall be designed to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume to the maximum extent feasible by minimizing impervious surface area and controlling runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and use. In addition, the following specific requirements apply: 1. New Single-Family Hillside Homes. A new single-family hillside home development project shall include mitigation measures to: a. Conserve natural areas; 19 1742637-1 b. Protect slopes and channels; c. Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage; d. Divert roof runoff to vegetated areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability; and e. Direct surface flow to vegetated areas before discharge, unless the diversion would result in slope instability. 2. Street and Road Construction of 10,000 square feet or more. Street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface shall follow the City’s Green Street Manual developed by the Engineer and approved by City Council resolution. The City’s Green Street Manual shall be based on the USEPA guidance regarding Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure: Green Streets (December 2008 EPA-833-F-08-009). 3. Remainder of Planning Priority Projects Require a SUSMP. Except for the projects listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection D of this section, all other Planning Priority Projects shall prepare and submit to the Engineer for review and approval a SUSMP which shall also contain LID requirements consistent with Parts VI.D.7.c and VI.D.7.d(iii) of the Municipal NPDES Permit. In addition, Planning Priority Projects subject to this paragraph (3) shall do the following: a. Incorporate the SUSMP into Project Plans. An applicant for a Planning Priority Project identified in paragraph (3) of subsection D of this section shall incorporate into the applicant’s project plans a Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWMP), which includes those BMPs necessary to control storm water pollution from construction activities and facility operations, as set forth in the SUSMP applicable to the applicant’s project. Structural or Treatment Control BMPs (including, as applicable, post-construction treatment control BMPs) set forth in project plans shall meet the design standards set forth in the SUSMP and the current Municipal NPDES Permit. b. Verify Maintenance of BMPs. If a project applicant has included or is required to include structural or treatment control BMPs in project plans, the applicant shall provide verification of maintenance provisions. The verification shall include the applicant’s signed statement, as part of its project application, accepting responsibility for all structural and treatment control BMP maintenance until such time, if any, the property is transferred. E. Issuance of Discretionary Permits. No discretionary permit may be issued for any Planning Priority Project identified in this section until the Engineer confirms the project plans comply with the applicable requirements of this section. F. Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. As a condition for issuing a certificate of occupancy for a Planning Priority Project identified in this section, the Engineer shall require facility operators and/or owners to build all the stormwater pollution control BMPs and structural or treatment control BMPs that are shown on the approved project plans and to submit a signed certification statement stating that the site and all structural or treatment control BMPs will be maintained in compliance with the SUSMP and other applicable regulatory requirements. 20 1742637-1 G. Transfer of Properties Subject to Requirement for Maintenance of Structural and Treatment Control BMPs. 1. The transfer or lease of a property subject to a requirement for maintenance of structural and treatment control BMPs shall include conditions requiring the transferee and its successors and assigns to either (a) assume responsibility for maintenance of any existing structural or treatment control BMP or (b) to replace an existing structural or treatment control BMP with new control measures or BMPs meeting the then current standards of the City and the SUSMP. Such requirement shall be included in any sale or lease agreement or deed for such property. The condition of transfer shall include a provision that the successor property owner or lessee conduct maintenance inspections of all structural or treatment control BMPs at least once a year and retain proof of inspection. 2. For residential properties where the structural or treatment control BMPs are located within a common area which will be maintained by a homeowners association, language regarding the responsibility for maintenance shall be included in the projects conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs). Printed educational materials will be required to accompany the first deed transfer to highlight the existence of the requirement and to provide information on what stormwater management facilities are present, signs that maintenance is needed, and how the necessary maintenance can be performed. The transfer of this information shall also be required with any subsequent sale of the property. 3. If structural or treatment control BMPs are located within an area proposed for dedication to a public agency, said BMPs shall be the responsibility of the developer until the dedication is accepted by the public agency. H. CEQA. Provisions of this section shall be complementary to, and shall not replace, any applicable requirements for stormwater mitigation required under the California Environmental Quality Act. 5-7.114 Enforcement. A. Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance. 1. The following violations shall be deemed a public nuisance: a. Any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter; or b. Any failure to comply with any applicable requirement of either the SUSMP or an approved stormwater mitigation plan with respect to a property; or c. Any false certification or verification, or any failure to comply with a certification or verification provided by a project applicant or the applicant’s successor in interest; or 21 1742637-1 d. Any failure to properly operate and maintain any structural or treatment control BMP on a property in accordance with an approved stormwater mitigation plan or the SUSMP, is determined to be a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, is declared and deemed a public nuisance, and may be abated or restored by any Engineer, and a civil or criminal action to abate, enjoin or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be brought by the City Attorney. 2. The cost of such abatement and restoration shall be borne by the owner of the property and the cost shall be billed to the owner of the property, as provided by law or ordinance for the recovery of nuisance abatement costs, 3. If any violation of this chapter constitutes a seasonal and recurrent nuisance, the Engineer shall so declare. The failure of any person to take appropriate annual precautions to prevent stormwater pollution after written notice of a determination under this section shall constitute a public nuisance and a violation of this chapter. B. Concealment. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a violation of such provision. C. Civil Actions. In addition to any other remedies provided in this chapter, any violation of this chapter may be enforced by civil action brought by the City. In any such action, the City may seek any or all of the following remedies: 1. A temporary and/or permanent injunction; 2. Assessment of the violator for the costs of any investigation, inspection or monitoring survey which led to the establishment of the violation, and for the reasonable costs of preparing and bringing legal action under this section; 3. Costs incurred in removing, correcting or terminating the adverse effects resulting from violation; 4. Compensatory damages for loss or destruction to water quality, wildlife, fish and aquatic life. D. Administrative Enforcement Powers. In addition to the other enforcement powers and remedies established by this chapter, the Engineer has the authority to utilize the following administrative remedies: 1. Cease and Desist Orders. When a discharge has taken place or is likely to take place in violation of this chapter, the Engineer may issue an order to cease and desist such discharge, or practice or operation likely to cause such discharge and direct that those persons not complying shall: (a) comply with the requirement; (b) comply with a time schedule for compliance; and (c) take appropriate remedial or preventive action to prevent the violation from recurring. 22 1742637-1 2. Notice to Clean. Whenever the Engineer finds any oil, earth, debris, grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, rubbish, refuse, waste or any other material of any kind, in or upon the sidewalk abutting or adjoining any parcel of land, or upon any parcel of land or grounds, which may result in pollutants entering the MS4 or a non-stormwater discharge to the MS4, he or she may give notice to the owner or occupant of the adjacent property to remove such oil earth, debris, grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, rubbish, refuse, waste or other material, in any manner that he or she may reasonably provide. The recipient of such notice shall undertake the activities as described in the notice. E. Penalties. Violation of this chapter shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 1- 2.01 of this Code. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. F. Permit Revocation. To the extent the City makes a provision of this chapter or any identified BMP a condition of approval to the issuance of a permit or license, any person in violation of such condition is subject to the permit revocation procedures set forth in this code. G. Burden of Proof. In an enforcement action, the burden of proof shall be on the person who is the subject of such action to establish that the reduction or elimination of the discharge to the maximum extent practicable has been accomplished through compliance with the best management practices available, including applicable monitoring, notifications and reporting requirements. H. Remedies. Remedies under this chapter are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other available remedies, civil or criminal. The remedies provided for in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive. 5-7.115 No taking. The provisions of this chapter shall not operate to deprive any property owner of substantially all of the market value of such owner’s property or otherwise constitute an unconstitutional taking without compensation.” Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Torrance hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions were to be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the Low Impact Development requirements for new development and redevelopment projects of this Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment, and the adoption of this Ordinance and the timing thereof is mandated by the action of the Los 23 1742637-1 Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“LARWQCB”). In this case, the City is acting at the direction of the LARWQCB and federal law to protect, maintain, restore and enhance natural resources and the environment. To comply with the requirements of the LARWQCB, the City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308. Staff is hereby directed to prepare and post a notice of exemption pursuant to Guidelines Section 15062. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner prescribed by law. APPROVED and ADOPTED this ____ day of _______, 2014. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix N | Green Streets Policies N-1 | Page 2015 Appendix N Green Street Policies Green Street Policy Green Street Policy - Hermosa Beach(Final) 3-12-2015.docx 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ADOPTING A GREEN STREET POLICY FOR STREET AND ROADWAY PROJECTS The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. Purpose It is the policy of the City of Hermosa Beach (City) to implement green street Best Management Practices (BMPs) as elements of street and roadway projects including public works capital improvement projects to the maximum extent practicable. This policy is implemented to demonstrate compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 effective December 28, 2012, and any amendment thereto (Municipal Stormwater Permit). Green streets are amenities that provide multiple benefits including water quality improvement, groundwater replenishment, attractive streetscapes, traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, reduction in the heat island effect, and creation of linear or pocket parks. Green streets can incorporate a wide variety of design elements and techniques including the minimization of impervious area through reduction in street width and the application of permeable pavements, landscaped medians, bioretention, vegetated swales, infiltration, and/or storage of stormwater. Application of green techniques encourages stormwater contact with soil and vegetation to facilitate natural pollutant removal processes as well as retention and/or infiltration of stormwater to reduce runoff. Section 2. Policy A. Application. The City will require the application of green street strategies consistent with USEPA guidance regarding Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure—Green Streets (December 2008 EPA-833-F-08-009) to the maximum extent practicable for the following types of projects: 1. New public and private street and road construction or private development projects that include street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area; 2. Redevelopment of streets and roads that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site. The term “street and road construction projects” applies to projects that are stand-alone street, road, highway, alley or walk-street projects and also applies to such projects within larger projects. Routine maintenance (as defined in the Municipal Stormwater Permit) and linear utility projects are excluded from these requirements. Routine maintenance includes slurry seals, repaving, and reconstruction of the road or street where the original line and grade are maintained. It also Green Street Policy Green Street Policy - Hermosa Beach(Final) 3-12-2015.docx 2 includes road shoulder work, regrading of dirt or gravel roadways and shoulders, and performing ditch cleanouts. B. Benefits. The City will consider opportunities to improve stormwater quality, eliminate non- stormwater runoff, replenish groundwater, create attractive streetscapes, and provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety through new development and redevelopment of streets and roadway projects and related capital improvement projects. C. Best Management Practice (BMP) Selection and Design. The City will require projects subject to this policy to incorporate green street BMPs to address stormwater runoff from the project area using the Green Street BMP Selection Guideline shown in Attachment A. The most recent version of the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development (LID) Standards Manual will serve as the design reference for selected Green Street BMPs. The City of Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works has final authority in decisions regarding project/site-specific technical feasibility for selected BMPs. D. Retrofit Scope. The City will use the Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program to identify opportunities for green street BMP retrofits. Final decisions regarding implementation will be determined by the Director of Public Works based on the availability of adequate funding. E. Training. The City of Hermosa Beach will incorporate aspects of green streets into internal annual staff trainings. Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution; record this Resolution in the book of the City’s original resolutions; and make a minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the City Council’s records and the minutes of this meeting. Section 4. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2015. __________________________ Green Street Policy Green Street Policy - Hermosa Beach(Final) 3-12-2015.docx 3 ATTACHMENT A City of Hermosa Beach Green Street BMP Selection Guideline BMP Type Green Street Project Location Primary Arterials, State Highway Secondary Arterials Other City Streets, Residential Streets Streets without curb and gutter Alleys Sidewalks Alternative Street Designs + X X X X X X VEG-2 : Stormwater Planter X X X X VEG-3 : Tree-Well Filter X X X X VEG-4: Vegetated Swales X X VEG-5: Filter Strips X  RET-1: Bioretention X X X X RET-3: Infiltration Trench X X X X RET-5: Permeable Pavement without Underdrain X X X X T-6: Proprietary Treatment Control Measures X X X X X Curb Filtration System ++      + Not included in County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development (LID) Standards Manual, subject to review by the City of Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works/City Engineer ++ As per City of Hermosa Beach standard design or subject to review by the City of Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works/City Engineer  minimum BMPs to be implemented for green street project type X BMPs to be considered depending on greens street project types and specific location R6900-1028\1819564v1.doc Green Street Policy Purpose The City of Redondo Beach Department of Public Works shall implement green street BMPs for transportation corridors associated with new and redevelopment street and roadway projects, including Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs). This policy is enacted to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES MS4 Permit for the Los Angeles Region (Order No. R4-2012- 0175). Green streets are an amenity that provides many benefits including water quality improvement, groundwater replenishment, creation of attractive streetscapes, creation of parks and wildlife habitats, and pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Green streets are defined as right-of-way areas that incorporate infiltration, biofiltration, and/or storage and use BMPs to collect, retain, or detain stormwater runoff as well as a design element that creates attractive streetscapes. Policy A. Application. The Department of Public Works shall require new development and/or redevelopment streets and roadway projects and CIP projects conducted within the right- of-way of transportation corridors to incorporate green street BMPs. Transportation corridors projects are major arterials as defined in the City’s General Plan which add at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Routine maintenance or repair and linear utility projects are excluded from these requirements. Routine maintenance includes slurry seals, repaving, and reconstruction of the road or street where the original line and grade are maintained. B. Amenities. The Department of Public Works shall consider opportunities to replenish groundwater, create attractive streetscapes, create parks and wildlife habitats, and provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility through new development and redevelopment of streets and roadway projects and CIPs. C. Guidance. New development subject to this Policy shall comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County LID Standards Manual. In addition, to the maximum extent practicable, the Department of Public Works shall use the City of Los Angeles Green Streets guidance, USEPA’s Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook: Green Streets, or equivalent guidance developed by the Department of Public Works for use in public and private developments. The Department of Public Works shall prepare, maintain, and update, as deemed necessary and appropriate or upon direction from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, a list of minimum requirements for green street BMPs. These minimum requirements shall be in addition to any other BMPs that the Department of Public works deems necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this Policy. D. Retrofit Scope. The Department of Public Works shall use the City’s Watershed Management Program or Enhanced Watershed Management Program to identify -2- R6900-1028\1819564v1.doc opportunities for green street BMP retrofits. Final decisions regarding implementation will be determined by the City Engineer based on the availability of adequate funding. E. Training. The Department of Public Works shall incorporate aspects of green streets into internal annual staff trainings. City of Torrance - Green Street Policy Purpose The City of Torrance shall implement green street BMPs for transportation corridors associated with new and rehabilitation roadway Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs). This policy is enacted to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES MS4 Permit for the Los Angeles Region (Order No. R4-2012-0175). Green streets are defined as right-of-way areas that incorporate infiltration, bio-filtration, and/or storage and use BMPs to collect, retain, or detain stormwater runoff as well as a design element that creates attractive streetscapes. Policy The Public Works Department shall require new and/or rehabilitation streets CIP projects conducted within the right-of-way to incorporate bio-filtration (Filterra or equal) BMPs adjacent to existing or proposed catch basins. Transportation corridors projects are major arterials as defined in the General Plan which add at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Routine maintenance or repair and linear utility projects are excluded from these requirements. Routine maintenance includes slurry seals, repaving, and reconstruction of the road or street where the original line and grade are maintained. New storm drain CIP projects that install catch basins within irrigated parkways within watershed areas that DO NOT drain to detention or retention basins shall also include bio-filtration BMPs to be installed adjacent to catch basins to intercept irrigation run off. The Public Works Department and Community Development Department shall require new or redeveloped alleys that have known drainage problems to include Interlocking Pavers with Infiltration Trenches in lieu of concrete gutter for alley upgrades. (Interlocking Pavers shall be per City of Los Angeles Standard Drawing S-485-0 until a new City of Torrance Standard Drawing is approved.) Final decisions regarding implementation will be determined by the City Engineer based on the availability of adequate funding. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-1 | Page 2015 Appendix O Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-2 | Page 2015 Table O-1. Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench (Alternative 1) Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Demolish and remove existing asphalt or concrete Assume 5% BMP footprint requires asphalt removal, 3" to 6" deep, bituminous roads SY Carollo, 2014 $6.75 548 $3,699 600 $4,051 Excavation, 250 to 2500 CY Larger scale excavations to 3 to 8 ft depth; sub-regional detention facilities, etc. CY RS Means $14.45 20,432 $295,239 24,781 $358,079 Hauling, 10 CY truck, 10 miles RT 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait CY Carollo, 2014 $9.00 15,324 $137,915 22,302 $200,722 Utility area drain, catch basins or manholes Curb inlet frame, grate and curb box, large, 24"x36" EA RS Mean Line No 334413131582 $1,572 1 $1,572 1 $1,572 Shoring System 2 wall shoring system SF Carollo, 2014 $37 20,831 $770,758 25,592 $946,898 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252 500 $126,000 1,000 $252,000 Vent/Cleanout/Observation Wells PVC, 6’’ diameter EA RS Means Line No 220576205210 $141 25 $3,486 54 $7,636 Diversion Structure Infiltration Basin EA Carollo, 2014 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 72" corrugated steel, perforated pipe, 16 gauge (reduced for 36'' pipe with 1.2 multiplier) Infiltration gallery LF RS Means $16.63 11,715 $194,846 11,715 $194,846 CDS More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Geosynthetic Fabric; non-woven geotextile 120 lb tensile strength SY RS Means Line No $1.39 131,961 $183,425 146,114 $203,099 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-3 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item 313219161550 Geo-grid Soil stabilization grid (various sizes) SY Estimate from online manufacturers $3.00 131,961 $395,882 146,114 $438,343 Washed Pea Gravel (1/4 to 1/2") - AASHTO #7 or #8 stone Or similar gradation commonly available in the area CY RS Means $70.00 − − 8,002 $560,117 Drainage/Storage Rock (#2 stone) Drainage fill CY RS Means, Line No 333650102600 $37.85 13,030 $493,174 13,030 $493,174 Subtotal $2,705,995 N/A $3,820,537 1 Safety factor of 1.05 (low) and 1.15 (high) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-4 | Page 2015 Table O-2. Manhattan Beach Infiltration Trench (Alternative 2) Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Demolish and remove existing asphalt or concrete Assume 5% BMP footprint requires asphalt removal, 3" to 6" deep, bituminous roads SY Carollo, 2014 $6.75 438 $2,959 480 $3,241 Excavation, 250 to 2500 CY Larger scale excavations to 3 to 8 ft depth; sub-regional detention facilities, etc. CY RS Means $14.45 16,670 $240,874 20,148 $291,146 Hauling, 10 CY truck, 10 miles RT 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait CY Carollo, 2014 $9.00 12,502 $112,519 18,134 $163,203 Utility area drain, catch basins or manholes Curb inlet frame, grate and curb box, large, 24"x36" EA RS Mean Line No 334413131582 $1,572 1 $1,572 1 $1,572 Shoring System 2 wall shoring system SF Carollo, 2014 $37 16,768 $620,417 20,589 $761,802 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252 500 $126,000 1,000 $252,000 Vent/Cleanout/Observation Wells PVC, 6’’ diameter EA RS Means Line No 220576205210 $141 20 $2,789 43 $6,108 Diversion Structure Infiltration Basin EA Carollo, 2014 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 72" corrugated steel, perforated pipe, 16 gauge (reduced for 36'' pipe with 1.2 multiplier) Infiltration gallery LF RS Means $16.63 9,372 $155,877 9,372 $155,877 CDS More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Geosynthetic Fabric; non-woven geotextile 120 lb tensile strength SY RS Means Line No $1.39 108,171 $150,358 119,507 $166,115 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-5 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item 313219161550 Geo-grid Soil stabilization grid (various sizes) SY Estimate from online manufacturers $3.00 108,171 $324,514 119,507 $358,522 Washed Pea Gravel (1/4 to 1/2") - AASHTO #7 or #8 stone Or similar gradation commonly available in the area CY RS Means $70.00 − − 6,401 $448,094 Drainage/Storage Rock (#2 stone) Drainage fill CY RS Means, Line No 333650102600 $37.85 10,424 $394,539 13,030 $493,174 Subtotal $2,232,418 N/A $3,260,853 1 Safety factor of 1.05 (low) and 1.15 (high) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-6 | Page 2015 Table O-3. Polliwog Park Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Demolition Assume 5% BMP footprint requires asphalt removal, 6" deep SY RS Means Line No. 024113175050 $9.70 237 $2,295 257 $2,494 Excavation Assume no chemical contamination CY OC Public Works Abstract Report Bid No EF07398 $15.00 7,885 $118,278 10,285 $154,275 Hauling 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait. Includes cost of dust monitoring, dust control, and BMP requirements. (Conversion from CY to Ton = 1/1.8) Tons Carollo, 2014 $9.00 5,914 $53,225 9,257 $83,309 Finish Grading Fine grading, loam or topsoil fine grade SY RS Means Line No. 312216101020 $1.16 4,731 $5,488 5,143 $5,965 Shoring System 2 wall shoring system SF Carollo, 2014 $37 2,918 $107,974 3,651 $135,085 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252 500 $126,000 1,000 $252,000 Diversion Structure Cast-in-place concrete structure EA NMC Builders, 2008 $150,000 1 $150,000 1 $150,000 Manholes 5' ID manhole, 8' deep with cover EA Internal Geosyntec estimate $4,000 1 $4,000 2 $8,000 Solids Removal (Pretreatment) More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Cistern, concrete Range of precast, cast in place, and cast in place floor with precast vault CF Jensen Stormwater and Contech $8.95 148,104 $1,325,039 148,104 $1,325,039 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-7 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Traditional Asphalt Subgrade and Base Course Plant mixed asphaltic base courses for roadways and large paved areas (2'' low and 4'' high) CY RS Means, Line No 321126131600 $78.35 13 $1,030 29 $2,238 Traditional Asphalt Top Course Wearing course, plant mix asphalt, less than 300 tons SY RS Means Line No 321216131585 $17.31 237 $4,095 257 $4,451 Soil preparation Topsoil placement and grading, top dress by hand, 6 inch depth SF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No ER20369 (2012) $0.52 42,580 $22,142 46,283 $24,067 Mixed BMP Vegetation Shrubs - broadleaf evergreen, plant 6' on center SF RS Means $2.00 42,580 $85,160 46,283 $92,565 Bentonite Liner 1" - 4" thick layer CY www.bentoniteliner.com $0.68 9,462 $6,434 10,285 $6,994 Geosynthetic Fabric 120 lb tensile strength SY OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07405 (2013) $2.76 4,731 $13,058 5,143 $14,193 Gravel Delivery Includes delivery (Conversion = 2Tons/CY) Tons Internal Geosyntec estimate $28.00 1,577 $44,157 2,571 $71,995 Gravel Spreading and Grading Includes spreading and grading only CY Internal Geosyntec Estimate $10.00 1,577 $15,770 2,571 $25,713 Subtotal $2,144,143 N/A $2,478,383 1 Safety factor of 1.15 (low) and 1.25 (high) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-8 | Page 2015 Table O-4. Hermosa Beach Infiltration Trench Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Demolish and remove existing asphalt or concrete Assume 5% BMP footprint requires asphalt removal, 3" to 6" deep, bituminous roads SY Carollo, 2014 $6.75 45 $303 49 $332 Excavation, 250 to 2500 CY Larger scale excavations to 3 to 8 ft depth; sub-regional detention facilities, etc. CY RS Means $14.45 1,321 $19,087 1,678 $24,243 Hauling, 10 CY truck, 10 miles RT 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait CY Carollo, 2014 $9.00 991 $8,916 1,510 $13,590 Utility area drain, catch basins or manholes Curb inlet frame, grate and curb box, large, 24"x36" EA RS Mean Line No 334413131582 $1,572 1 $1,572 1 $1,572 Shoring System 2 wall shoring system SF Carollo, 2014 $37 2,136 $79,025 2,674 $98,931 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252 500 $126,000 1,000 $252,000 Vent/Cleanout/Observation Wells PVC, 6’’ diameter EA RS Means Line No 220576205210 $141 2 $286 4 $626 Diversion Structure Infiltration Basin EA Carollo, 2014 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 72" corrugated steel, perforated pipe, 16 gauge (reduced for 30'' pipe with 1.2 multiplier) Infiltration gallery LF RS Means $13.86 757 $10,485 757 $10,485 Pump EA www.rainharvestingsupplies.com $2,135 2 $4,270 4 $8,540 CDS More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 − − 1 $60,000 Geosynthetic Fabric; non-woven geotextile 120 lb tensile strength SY RS Means Line No $1.39 10,228 $14,217 11,537 $16,036 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-9 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item 313219161550 Geo-grid Soil stabilization grid (various sizes) SY Estimate from online manufacturers $3.00 10,228 $30,684 11,537 $34,610 Washed Pea Gravel (1/4 to 1/2") - AASHTO #7 or #8 stone Or similar gradation commonly available in the area CY RS Means $70.00 − − 657 $45,956 Drainage/Storage Rock (#2 stone) Drainage fill CY RS Means, Line No 333650102600 $37.85 884 $33,449 884 $33,449 Subtotal $368,296 N/A $640,372 1 Safety factor of 1.05 (low) and 1.15 (high) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-10 | Page 2015 Table O-5. Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Excavation Assume no chemical contamination CY OC Public Works Abstract Report Bid No EF07398 $15.00 16,299 $244,482 20,669 $310,031 Hauling 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait. Includes cost of dust monitoring, dust control, and BMP requirements. (Conversion from CY to Ton = 1/1.8) Tons Carollo, 2014 $9.00 12,224 $110,017 18,602 $167,417 Finish Grading Fine grading, loam or topsoil fine grade SY RS Means Line No. 312216101020 $1.16 8,149 $9,453 8,858 $10,275 Shoring System 2 wall shoring system SF Carollo, 2014 $37 4,596 $170,052 5,590 $206,840 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252.00 500 $126,000 1,000 $252,000 Diversion Structure Cast-in-place concrete structure EA NMC Builders, 2008 $150,000 1 $150,000 1 $150,000 Manholes 5' ID manhole, 8' deep with cover EA Internal Geosyntec estimate $4,000 2 $8,000 3 $12,000 Solids Removal (Pretreatment) More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Cistern, concrete Range of precast, cast in place, and cast in place floor with precast vault CF Various $8.95 318,889 $2,852,998 318,889 $2,852,998 Soil preparation Topsoil placement and grading, top dress by hand, 6 inch depth SF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No ER20369 (2012) $0.52 73,344 $38,139 79,722 $41,456 Mixed BMP Vegetation Shrubs - broadleaf evergreen, plant 6' on center SF RS Means $2.00 73,344 $146,689 79,722 $159,445 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-11 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Bentonite Liner 1" - 4" thick layer CY www.bentoniteliner.com $0.68 16,299 $11,083 17,716 $12,047 Geosynthetic Fabric 120 lb tensile strength SY OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07405 (2013) $2.76 8,149 $22,492 8,858 $24,448 Gravel Delivery Includes delivery (Conversion = 2Tons/CY) Tons Internal Geosyntec estimate $28.00 2,716 $76,061 4,429 $124,012 Gravel Spreading and Grading Includes spreading and grading only CY Internal Geosyntec Estimate $10.00 2,716 $27,165 4,429 $44,290 Subtotal $4,052,630 N/A $4,487,259 1 Safety factor of 1.15 (low) and 1.25 (high) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-12 | Page 2015 Table O-6. Park #3 Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Excavation Assume no chemical contamination CY OC Public Works Abstract Report Bid No EF07398 $15.00 4,453 $66,792 5,647 $84,700 Hauling 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait. Includes cost of dust monitoring, dust control, and BMP requirements. (Conversion from CY to Ton = 1/1.8) Tons Carollo, 2014 $9.00 3,340 $30,056 5,082 $45,738 Finish Grading Fine grading, loam or topsoil fine grade SY RS Means Line No. 312216101020 $1.16 2,226 $2,583 2,420 $2,807 Shoring System 2 wall shoring system SF Carollo, 2014 $37 2,402 $88,883 2,922 $108,112 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252 500 $126,000 1,000 $252,000 Diversion Structure Cast-in-place concrete structure EA NMC Builders, 2008 $150,000 1 $150,000 1 $150,000 Manholes 5' ID manhole, 8' deep with cover EA Internal Geosyntec estimate $4,000 1 $4,000 1 $4,000 Solids Removal (Pretreatment) More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Cistern, concrete Range of precast, cast in place, and cast in place floor with precast vault CF Jensen Stormwater and Contech $8.95 87,120 $779,435 87,120 $779,435 Soil preparation Topsoil placement and grading, top dress by hand, 6 inch depth SF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No ER20369 (2012) $0.52 20,038 $10,420 21,780 $11,326 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-13 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Mixed BMP Vegetation Shrubs - broadleaf evergreen, plant 6' on center SF RS Means $2.00 20,038 $40,075 21,780 $43,560 Bentonite Liner 1" - 4" thick layer CY www.bentoniteliner.com $0.68 4,453 $3,028 4,840 $3,291 Geosynthetic Fabric 120 lb tensile strength SY OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07405 (2013) $2.76 2,226 $6,145 2,420 $6,679 Gravel Delivery Includes delivery (Conversion = 2Tons/CY) Tons Internal Geosyntec estimate $28.00 742 $20,780 1,210 $33,880 Gravel Spreading and Grading Includes spreading and grading only CY Internal Geosyntec Estimate $10.00 742 $7,421 1,210 $12,100 Subtotal $1,395,618 N/A $1,657,628 1 Safety factor of 1.15 (low) and 1.25 (high) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-14 | Page 2015 Table O-7. Powerline Easement Infiltration Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Demolition Assume 5% BMP footprint requires asphalt removal, 6" deep SY RS Means Line No. 024113175050 $9.70 − − 1,916 $18,584 Excavation Assume no chemical contamination CY OC Public Works Abstract Report Bid No EF07398 $15.00 58,056 $870,833 63,861 $957,917 Hauling 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait. Includes cost of dust monitoring, dust control, and BMP requirements. (Conversion from CY to Ton = 1/1.8) Tons Carollo, 2014 $9.00 24,190 $217,708 31,931 $287,375 Finish Grading Fine grading, loam or topsoil fine grade SY RS Means Line No. 312216101020 $1.16 34,833 $40,407 38,317 $44,447 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252.00 300 $75,600 500 $126,000 Distribution Laterals 24" diameter RCP, includes excavation, backfill, bedding LF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07398 (2012) $156.00 500 $78,000 500 $78,000 Diversion Structure Cast-in-place concrete structure EA NMC Builders, 2008 $150,000 1 $150,000 1 $150,000 Manholes 5' ID manhole, 8' deep with cover EA Internal Geosyntec estimate $4,000 2 $8,000 3 $12,000 Solids Removal (Pretreatment) More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Soil preparation Topsoil placement and grading, top dress by hand, 6 inch depth SF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No ER20369 (2012) $0.52 313,500 $163,020 344,850 $179,322 Mixed BMP Vegetation Shrubs - broadleaf evergreen, plant 6' on center SF RS Means $2.00 313,500 $627,000 344,850 $689,700 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-15 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Bentonite Liner 1" - 4" thick layer CY www.bentoniteliner.com $0.68 968 $658 4,257 $2,895 Geosynthetic Fabric 120 lb tensile strength SY OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07405 (2013) $2.76 34,833 $96,140 38,317 $105,754 Engineered Biofiltration Media If possible, obtain costs for media that meets recently revised City specifications CY RS Means $100.00 58,056 $5,805,556 63,861 $6,386,111 Subtotal $8,192,922 N/A $9,158,105 1 Safety factor of 1.1 (high cost) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-16 | Page 2015 Table O-8. Artesia Blvd Infiltration Unit Costs1 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Demolition Assume 5% BMP footprint requires asphalt removal, 6" deep SY RS Means Line No. 024113175050 $9.70 − − 267 $2,593 Excavation Assume no chemical contamination CY OC Public Works Abstract Report Bid No EF07398 $15.00 9,719 $145,790 12,473 $187,097 Hauling 8 CY truck, 15 MPH average, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait. Includes cost of dust monitoring, dust control, and BMP requirements. (Conversion from CY to Ton = 1/1.8) Tons Carollo, 2014 $9.00 4,050 $36,448 6,237 $56,129 Finish Grading Fine grading, loam or topsoil fine grade SY RS Means Line No. 312216101020 $1.16 4,860 $5,637 5,346 $6,201 BMP Inflow and Outflow Conveyance 48" diameter class 3 reinforced culvert LF NMC Builders, 2008 $252.00 300 $75,600 500 $126,000 Distribution Laterals 24" diameter RCP, includes excavation, backfill, bedding LF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07398 (2012) $156.00 500 $78,000 500 $78,000 Diversion Structure Cast-in-place concrete structure EA NMC Builders, 2008 $150,000 1 $150,000 1 $150,000 Manholes 5' ID manhole, 8' deep with cover EA Internal Geosyntec estimate $4,000 2 $8,000 3 $12,000 Solids Removal (Pretreatment) More than 4 acres tributary area EA Carollo, 2014 $60,000 1 $60,000 2 $120,000 Soil preparation Topsoil placement and grading, top dress by hand, 6 inch depth SF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No ER20369 (2012) $0.52 43,737 $22,743 48,111 $25,018 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-17 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Mixed BMP Vegetation Shrubs - broadleaf evergreen, plant 6' on center SF RS Means $2.00 43,737 $87,474 48,111 $96,221 Bentonite Liner 1" - 4" thick layer CY www.bentoniteliner.com $0.68 135 $92 594 $404 Geosynthetic Fabric 120 lb tensile strength SY OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No EF07405 (2013) $2.76 4,860 $13,413 5,346 $14,754 Engineered Biofiltration Media If possible, obtain costs for media that meets recently revised City specifications CY RS Means $100.00 8,099 $809,944 8,909 $890,939 Subtotal $1,493,141 N/A $1,765,356 1 Safety factor of 1.1 (high cost) applied to BMP footprint DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-18 | Page 2015 Table O-9. Torrance Catch Basin Inlet Filter Unit Costs Cost Item Units Cost Source Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units per catch basin Unit Price Line Item Units per catch basin Unit Price Line Item Heavy Metal Filter Sock EA Carollo 2 $175 $350 3 $175 $525 Curb Inlet Filter Box EA Carollo 2 $360 $720 3 $360 $1,080 Installation Curb Inlet EA Carollo 1 $125 $125 1 $145 $145 Curb Markers EA Carollo 1 $25 $25 1 $25 $25 Subtotal (per catch basin) $1,220 N/A N/A $1,775 Table O-10. Torrance Catch Basin Inlet Filter Annual O&M Unit Costs Cost Item Units Cost Source Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units per catch basin Unit Price Line Item Units per catch basin Unit Price Line Item Maintenance twice per year EA Carollo 2 $150 $300 2 $155 $310 Replace 100% of filters each year EA Carollo 2 $175 $350 3 $175 $525 Subtotal (per catch basin) $650 N/A N/A $835 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-19 | Page 2015 Table O-11. Catch Basin Insert Unit Costs (Cities of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach) Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Low Cost Scenario Unit Cost High Cost Scenario Unit Cost ARS Furnish and install with Automatic Retractable Screen (ARS). 3.5-5' size used for low cost and 28' size used for high cost EA Machado Lake Trash TMDL Project $341 $2,046 CPS Install connector pipe screen full capture trash system (CPS) EA Machado Lake Trash TMDL Project $390 $390 Subtotal (per catch basin) $731 $2,436 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-20 | Page 2015 Table O-12. Catch Basin Insert Annual O&M Unit Costs (Cities of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach) Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Low Cost Scenario High Cost Scenario Units Line Item Units Line Item Storm-season inspections (monthly) 7 monthly inspections from October to April EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $14.79 7 $103.53 7 $103.53 Storm-season inspections (post-storm) Inspections after major storm event (storms with a rainfall intensity greater than 1 inch in 12 hours) EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $12.90 3 $38.70 5 $64.50 Storm-season cleanout Cleanout of debris/sediment after major storm event EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $33.69 3 $101.07 5 $168.45 Dry-weather season O&M Inspection/cleaning during the dry season (May 1 - September 30) EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $39.69 1 $39.69 1 $39.69 Admin/ Insurance Contract Admin/Liability Insurance EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $40.58 1 $40.58 1 $40.58 Disposal Disposal of debris/sediment EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $20.00 1 $20.00 1 $20.00 Subtract current cleaning cost1 Subtracting the current cost of cleaning a catch basin without an insert EA City of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval of Catch Basin Maintenance Agreement $15.25 1 $15.25 1 $15.25 Subtotal (per catch basin per year) $328.32 N/A $421.50 1 Subtracted from unit cost. Calculated from average total costs for cleaning non-retrofitted catch basins from 2006-2011, including contract administration costs. DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-21 | Page 2015 Capital cost estimates were developed for varying capacities of green streets and translated into unit costs per square foot of BMP footprint. Unit costs from several example projects were averaged to determine a low and high unit cost per square foot of green streets that would be applied for distributed green street BMPs. The resulting unit cost ranged from $15.42 (low) to $31.60 (high) per square foot of BMP area. Cost items and unit prices for line items included in this analysis are shown in Table F-13. Details of the units and line items for the various capacities can be made available upon request. Table O-13. Green Streets Unit Costs Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price Demolish and remove existing asphalt or concrete Pavement removal, 3" to 6" deep, bituminous roads SY Carollo, 2014 $6.75 Excavation, 5 to 50 CY Small scale excavations to 3 to 6 ft depth; curb bulb-outs, planter strips, etc. CY RS Means with multiplier applied $32.51 Excavation, 50 to 250 CY Small scale excavations to 3 to 6 ft depth; larger curb bulb-outs, planter strips, etc. CY RS Means with multiplier applied $20.66 Excavation, 250 to 2500 CY Larger scale excavations to 3 to 8 ft depth; sub-regional detention facilities, etc. CY RS Means $14.45 Hauling, 10 CY truck, 10 miles RT 8 CY truck, 15 MPH ave, 6 mile cycle, 20 minute wait CY Carollo, 2014 $9.00 Cast In Place, Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall1 4' high, $418.65/cu yd, assume 6" thick, LF RS Mean Line No 033053406200 $93.03 Cast in Place concrete curb and gutter, machine formed Radius, 6" x 18", includes concrete LF RS Means Line No. 3211613130416 $8.65 Utility area drain, catch basins or manholes Curb inlet frame, grate and curb box, large, 24"x36" EA RS Mean Line No 334413131582 $1,572 Shoring System1 SF Carollo, 2014 $37 12" Storm Drain (Public ROW) - fully installed; all costs; avg 4 to 6 ft depth2 Please provide all inclusive unit cost including asphalt cutting, trenching, bedding, pipe placement, backfill, and re-paving. Whatever pipe material is most common in City. LF 510-ASD12"Dia, Pipe, 12" Dia. PVC (all depths) including Excavation and Backfill $76.00 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix O | Structural BMP Unit Cost Tables O-22 | Page 2015 Cost Item Description Units Cost Source Unit Price 18" Storm Drain (Public ROW) - fully installed; all costs; avg 4 to 6 ft depth1 Please provide all inclusive unit cost including asphalt cutting, trenching, bedding, pipe placement, backfill, and re-paving. Whatever pipe material is most common in City. LF 510-ASD18"Dia, Pipe, 18" Dia. RCP (all depths) including Excavation and Backfill $130.00 Mulch Aged bark, hand spread 3" deep SY RS Means 329113160100 $8.56 Soil preparation Topsoil placement and grading, top dress by hand, 6 inch depth SF OC Public Works Bid Abstract Report No ER20369 (2012) $0.52 Mixed BMP Vegetation Shrubs - broadleaf evergreen, plant 6' on center SF RS Means pg 641 $2.00 Drainage/Storage Rock (#2 stone)1 Drainage fill CY RS Means, Line No 333650102600 $37.85 Washed Choke Stone (1/2 to 1-1/2") - AASHTO #57 or #67 stone2 Crushed 1-1/2" stone, compacted, (converted from SY using 1' depth) CY RS Means, Line No 321123230320 $14.02 Rounded Decorative Drain Rock Whatever is typically used in french drains and decorative features CY RS Means $110.00 Engineered Biofiltration Media If possible, obtain costs for media that meets recently revised City specifications CY RS Means $100.00 1 Line item included for high cost scenario only 2 Line item included for low cost scenario only DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix P | Documentation of Legal Authority P-1 | Page 2015 Appendix P Documentation of Legal Authority ~oF~osA~ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES J~ F'cF` OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL~~p ~. Y. r, ~,~ ~ ki d! ¢ 648 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRAT]ON ~y '"" ~~ ~~ 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET ~ ~~AUpoRN~~~ LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012-2713 JOHN F. KRATTLI County Counsel December 16, 2013 Mr. Samuel Unger, P.E., Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board —Los Angeles Region 320 West 4th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90013-2343 Attention: Mr. Ivar Ridgeway TELEPHONE (213)974-1923 FACSIMILE (213)687-7337 TDD (213)633-0901 Re: Certification By Legal Counsel For Los Angeles County Flood Control District's Annual Report Dear Mr. Unger: Pursuant to the requirements of Part VI(A)(2)(b) of Order No. R4-2012- 0175 (the "Order"), the Office of the County Counsel of the County of Los Angeles makes the following certification in support of the Annual Report of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District ("LACFCD"): Certification Pursuant To Order Part VI(A~(2Z(b~ "Each Permittee must submit a statement certified by its chief legal counsel that the Permittee has the legal authority within its jurisdiction to implement and enforce the requirements contained in 40 CFR ~122.26(d) (2) (i) (A- F) and this Order. " LACFCD has the legal authority within its jurisdiction to implement and enforce each of the requirements contained in 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i)(A-F) and the Order. Order Part VI(A)(2)(b)(i) "Citation of applicable municipal ordinances or other appropriate legal authorities and their relationship to the requirements of 40 CFR ~122.26(d) (2) (i) (A-F) and this Order" HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 2 Citations Of Applicable Ordinances Or Other Leal Authorities Although many portions of State law, the Charter of the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Code and LACFCD's Flood Control District Code ("Code") are potentially applicable to the implementation and enforcement of these requirements, the primary applicable laws and ordinances are as follows: Los Angeles County Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.80 STORMWATER AND RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL, including: § 12.80.010 - § 12.80.360 Definitions § 12.80.370 Short title. §12.80.380 Purpose and intent. §12.80.390 Applicability of this chapter. § 12.80.400 Standards, guidelines and criteria. § 12.80.410 Illicit discharges prohibited. § 12.80.420 Installation or use of illicit connections prohibited. §12.80.430 Removal of illicit connection from the storm drain system. § 12.80.440 Littering and other discharge of polluting or damaging substances prohibited. § 12.80.450 Stormwater and runoff pollution mitigation for construction activity. § 12.80.460 Prohibited discharges from industrial or commercial activity. § 12.80.470 Industrial/commercial facility sources required to obtain a NPDES permit. § 12.80.480 Public facility sources required to obtain a NPDES permit. § 12.80.490 Notification of uncontrolled discharges required. § 12.80.500 Good housekeeping provisions. § 12.80.510 Best management practices for construction activity. HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 3 § 12.80.520 Best management practices for industrial and commercial facilities. § 12.80.530 Installation of structural BMPs. § 12.80.540 BMPs to be consistent with environmental goals. § 12.80.550 Enforcement—Director's powers and duties. § 12.80.560 Identification for inspectors and maintenance personnel. § 12.80.570 Obstructing access to facilities prohibited. §12.80.580 Inspection to ascertain compliance—Access required. § 12.80.590 Interference with inspector prohibited. § 12.80.600 Notice to correct violations—Director may take action. §12.80.610 Violation a public nuisance. § 12.80.620 Nuisance abatement—Director to perform work when—Costs. §12.80.630 Violation—Penalty. §12.80.635 Administrative fines. § 12.80.640 Penalties not exclusive. § 12.80.650 Conflicts with other code sections. § 12.80.660 Severability. § 12.80.700 Purpose. § 12.80.710 Applicability. § 12.80.720 Registration required. § 12.80.730 Exempt facilities. § 12.80.740 Certificate of inspection—Issuance by the director. § 12.80.750 Certificate of inspection—Suspension or revocation. HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 4 § 12.80.760 Certificate of inspection—Termination. § 12.80.770 Service fees. § 12.80.780 Fee schedule. § 12.80.790 Credit for overlapping inspection programs. § 12.80.800 Annual review of fees. Los Angeles County Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.84 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, including: § 12.84.410 Purpose. § 12.84.420 Definitions. § 12.84.430 Applicability. § 12.84.440 Low Impact Development Standards. § 12.84.445 Hydromodification Control. § 12.84.450 LID Plan Review. § 12.84.460 Additional Requirements. Los Angeles County Code, Title 22 PLANNING AND ZONING, Part 6 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, including: §22.60.330 General prohibitions. §22.60.340 Violations. §22.60.350 Public nuisance. § 22.60.3 60 Infractions. § 22.6 0.3 70 Injunction. §22.60.380 Enforcement. HOA. 1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 5 §22.60.390 Zoning enforcement order and noncompliance fee. Los Angeles County Code, Title 26 BUILDING CODE, including: §26.103 Violations And Penalties §26.104 Organization And Enforcement §26.105 Appeals Boards §26.106 Permits §26.107 Fees §26.108 Inspections LACFCD Code Chapter 21 - STORMWATER AND RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL including: §21.01 Purpose and Intent §21.03 Definitions §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.19 Conflicts With Other Code Sections §21.21 Severability §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 6 California Government Code §6502 California Government Code §23004 California Water Code §8100 et. seq. Relationship Of Applicable Ordinances Or Other Leal Authorities To The Requirements of 40 CFR &122.26(d)~2)(i~A-F) And The Order Although, depending upon the particular issue, there may be multiple ways in which particular sections of the County of Los Angeles' ordinances, LACFCD's ordinances, and statutes relate to the requirements contained in 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i)(A-F) and the Order, the table below indicates the basic relationship with Part VI(A)(2)(a) of the Order: Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute i. Control the contribution of pollutants to its Los Angeles County Code: MS4 from storm water discharges associated § 12.80.410 [illicit discharge prohibited];with industrial and construction activity and control the quality of storm water discharged § 12.80.450 [construction] from industrial and construction sites. This § 12.80.460 [industrial and commercial] requirement applies both to industrial and construction sites with coverage under an § 12.80.470 and .480 [industrial and NPDES permit, as well as to those sites that commercial NPDES requirements] do not have coverage under an NPDES § 12.84.440 [LID standards] permit.§ 12.84.445 [hydromodification control] § 12.84.450 [LID Plan Review] §22.60.330 [general prohibitions] §22.60.340 [violations] §22.60.350 [public nuisance] §22.60.360 [infractions] §22.60.370 [injunction] §22.60.380 [enforcement.] §22.60.390 [zoning enforcement order] §26.103 [violations and penalties] HOA. ] 030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 7 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute §26.104 [enforcement] §26.106 [permits] §26.108 [inspections) LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance ii. Prohibit all non-storm water discharges Los Angeles County Code: through the MS4 to receiving waters not § 12.80.410 [illicit discharge prohibited]otherwise authorized or conditionally exempt pursuant to Part III.A.LACFCD Code: §21.07 Prohibited Discharges iii. Prohibit and eliminate illicit discharges Los Angeles County Code: and illicit connections to the MS4. § 12.80.410 [illicit discharge prohibited]; § 12.80.420 [illicit connections prohibited] LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 8 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute iv. Control the discharge of spills, dumping,Los Angeles County Code: or disposal of materials other than storm § 12.80.410 [illicit discharge prohibited]; water to its MS4. § 12.80.440 [littering and other polluting prohibited] LACFCD Code: § 19.07 Interference With or Placing Obstructions, Refuse, Contaminating Substances, or Invasive Species in Facilities Prohibited §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance v. Require compliance with conditions in Los Angeles County Code: Permittee ordinances; permits, contracts or § 12.80.490 [notification of uncontrolled orders (i.e., hold dischargers to its MS4 discharge]accountable for their contributions of pollutants and flows).§12.80.570 [obstructing access to facilities] § 12.80.580 [compliance inspection] § 12.80.610 [violation a nuisance] § 12.620 [nuisance abatement] §12.80.635 [violation penalty] HOA.10306232 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 9 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute § 12.80.640 [penalties not exclusive] § 12.84.440 [LID standards] § 12.84.445 [hydromodification control] § 12.84.450 [LID Plan Review] §22.60.330 [general prohibitions] §22.60.340 [violations] §22.60.350 [public nuisance] §22.60.360 [infractions] §22.60.370 [injunction] §22.60.380 [enforcement.] §22.60.390 [zoning enforcement order] §26.103 [violations and penalties] §26.104 [enforcement] §26.106 [permits] §26.108 [inspections] LACFCD Code: § 19.11 Violation a Public Nuisance §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 10 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute §21.19 Conflicts With Other Code Sections §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance vi. Utilize enforcement mechanisms to Same as item v., above require compliance with applicable ordinances, permits, contracts, or orders. vii. Control the contribution of pollutants California Government Code §6502 from one portion of the shared MS4 to California Government Code §23004another portion of the MS4 through , interagency agreements among Copermittees. viii. Control of the contribution of pollutants California Government Code §6502 from one portion of the shared MS4 to California Government Code §23004another portion of the MS4 through interagency agreements with other owners of the MS4 such as the State of California Department of Transportation. ix. Carry out all inspections, surveillance,Los Angeles County Code: and monitoring procedures necessary to § 12.80.490 [notification of uncontrolleddetermine compliance and noncompliance discharge]with applicable municipal ordinances, permits, contracts and orders, and with the § 12.80.570 [obstructing access to facilities] provisions of this Order, including the §12.80.580 [compliance inspection] prohibition of non-storm water discharges into the MS4 and receiving waters. This § 12.80.610 [violation a nuisance] means the Permittee must have authority to § 12.80.620 [nuisance abatement] enter, monitor, inspect, take measurements, § 12.80.635 .[violation penalty]review and copy records, and require regular reports from entities discharging into its MS4.§ 12.80.640 [penalties not exclusive] §22.60.380 [enforcement.] §26.106 [permits] §26.108 [inspections] HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 11 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.1.1 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance x. Require the use of control measures to Los Angeles County Code: prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants § 12.80.450 [construction mitigation]to achieve water quality standards/receiving water limitations.§ 12.80.500 [good housekeeping practices] § 12.80.510 [construction BMPs] § 12.80.520 [industrial/commercial BMPs] § 12.84.440 [LID standards] § 12.84.450 [LID Plan Review] §22.60.330 [general prohibitions] §22.60.380 [enforcement.] §22.60.390 [zoning enforcement order] §26.106 [permits] §26.108 [inspections] LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 201.3 Page 12 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance xi. Require that structural BMPs are properly Los Angeles County Code: operated and maintained. § 12.80.530 [installation of structural BMPs] §22.60.380 [enforcement.] §22.60.390 [zoning enforcement order] §26.106 [permits] §26.108 [inspections] LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze HOA.1030623.2 .~ ,~, _ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 13 Order Part VI(A)(2)(a) Items Primary Applicable Ordinance/Statute §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance xii. Require documentation on .the operation Los Angeles County Code: and maintenance of structural BMPs and their §12.80.530 [installation of structural BMPs] effectiveness in reducing the discharge of pollutants to the MS4.§22.60380 [enforcement.] §22.60390 [zoning enforcement order] §26.106 [permits] §26.108 [inspections] LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance Order Part VI(A)(2~(b)(ii~ "Identification of the local administrative and legal procedures available to mandate compliance with applicable municipal ordinances identified in subsection (i) above and therefore with the conditions of this Order, and a statement as to whether enfoNCement actions can be completed administratively or whether they must be commenced and completed in the judicial system." ~:c~nr~~xi~ry~cxa California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 14 The local administrative and legal procedures available to mandate compliance with the above ordinances are specified in those ordinances, particularly in: Los Angeles County Code: § 12.80.550 Enforcement—Director's powers and duties. § 12.80.600 Notice to correct violations—Director may take action. § 12.80.610 Violation a public nuisance. § 12.80.620 Nuisance abatement—Director to perform work when—Costs. §12.80.630 Violation—Penalty. § 12.80.635 Administrative fines. § 12.80.640 Penalties not exclusive. § 12.84:450 LID Plan Review. § 12.84.460 Additional Requirements. Title 26, § 103 Violations And Penalties Title 26, § 104 Organization And Enforcement Title 26, § 1 OS Appeals Boards Title 26, § 106 Permits §22.60.330 General prohibitions. §22.60.340 Violations. §22.60.350 Public nuisance. §22.60.360 Infractions. §22.60.3 70 Inj unction. §22.60.380 Enforcement. HOA.1030623.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region December 16, 2013 Page 15 §22.60.390 Zoning enforcement order and noncompliance fee. LACFCD Code: §21.05 Standards, Guidelines, and Criteria §21.07 Prohibited Discharges §21.09 Installation or Use of Illicit Connections Prohibited §21.11 Littering Prohibited §21.13 Evidence of Compliance With Permit Requirements for Industrial or Commercial Activity §21.15 Notification of Uncontrolled Discharges Required §21.17 Requirement to Monitor and Analyze §21.23 Violation a Public Nuisance LACFCD attempts to first resolve each enforcement action administratively. However, the above cited ordinances also provide LACFCD with the authority to pursue such actions in the judicial system as necessary. Very truly yours, JOHN F. KRATTLI County Counsel By ~~ DITH A. FRIES rincipal Deputy County Counsel Public Works Division JAF:jyj HOA.1030623.2 CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 - ADOPTION OF CODE (O-282; O-455; O-538; O-1758) 11.1.1 HOW CODE DESIGNATED AND CITED. The ordinances embraced in the following Divisions and Sections shall constitute and be designated as The Torrance Municipal Code and may be so cited. (O-1758) 11.1.2 NATURE OF CODE. This record shall consist of all of the regulatory and penal and of certain of the administrative ordinances of the City of Torrance. 11.1.3 PROVISIONS CONSIDERED CONTINUATIONS OF EXISTING ORDINANCES. The provisions appearing in this Code, so far as they are the same as those of ordinances existing at the time of the effective date of this Code, shall be considered as continuances thereof and not as new enactments. 11.1.4 EFFECT OF REPEAL OF ORDINANCES. The repeal of an ordinance shall not revive any ordinance in force before or at the time the ordinance repealed took effect. The repeal of an ordinance shall not affect any punishment or penalty incurred before the repeal took effect, nor any suit, prosecution or proceeding pending at the time of the repeal, for any offense committed under the ordinance repealed. 11.1.5 VALIDITY OF CODE. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Code are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Code be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this code. ARTICLE 2 - PENAL PROVISIONS 11.2.1 GENERAL PENALTY; CONTINUING VIOLATIONS. Whenever in this Code or in any other ordinance of the City, any act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense, or the doing of any act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful or a misdemeanor, where no specific penalty is provided for, the violation of any such provision of this Code or any other ordinance of the City shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or imprisonment of a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. 11.2.2 ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THIS CODE AND OTHER CITY ORDINANCES. (Added by O-925) When any person is arrested for a violation of this Code or of any uncodified ordinances of the City and such person is not immediately taken before a magistrate as prescribed in the Penal Code of the State of California, the arresting officer shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person, the offense charged, and the time and place where and when such person shall appear in court. 11.2.3 FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT IS A MISDEMEANOR. (Added by O-925) Any person wilfully violating his written promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he was originally arrested. 11.2.4 ISSUANCE OF WARRANT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT. (Added by O-925) When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Section 853.1 of the Penal Code of the State of California, or in any amendment thereto, or modification thereof, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution, a warrant for his arrest within twenty (20) days after his failure to appear as promised, or if such person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date which he promises to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of such written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense. 11.2.5 ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL. (Added by O-3302; Amended by O-3543; O-3746) a) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code, or any amendment thereof, those classifications of officers and employees of the City of Torrance set forth herein shall be authorized to exercise the powers of arrest. b) Those officers and employees listed herein may arrest a person without a warrant whenever the officer or employee has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in the presence of the officer or employee that is in violation of a statute or ordinance that the officer or employee has the duty to enforce. c) The following classification of officers and employees of the City are hereby authorized to exercise powers of arrest: 1) Assistant Finance Director; 2) Revenue Inspector Collector; 3) Director of Building and Safety; 4) Building Regulations Administrator; 5) Building Inspection Supervisor; 6) Building Inspector; 7) Environmental Services Administrator; 8) Environmental Quality Officer; 9) Public Works Inspector; 10) Senior Public Works Inspector; 11) Senior Building Inspector; 12) Senior Electrical Inspector; 13) Senior Environmental Quality Officer; 14) Senior Mechanical Inspector; 15) Senior Plumbing Inspector; 16) Senior Grading Inspector; 17) Public Works Director; 18) Deputy Public Works Director; (Operations); 19) Deputy Public Works Director; (Engineering); 20) Sanitation Services Manager; 21) Streetscape Manager; 22) Street Services Supervisor (Sanitation); 23) Street Services Supervisor (Waste Water); 24) Street Services Supervisor (Streetscape); 25) Animal Control Supervisor; 26) Animal Control Officer; 27) Fire Fighter; 28) Fire Engineer; 29) Fire Captain; 30) Fire Battalion Chief; 31) Fire Assistant Chief; 32) Senior Fire Inspector; 33) Fire Prevention Specialist; 34) Senior Fire Prevention Specialist; 35) Senior Fire Prevention Officer; 36) Hazardous Materials Analyst; 37) Hazardous Materials Specialist. 11.2.6 ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS. (Added by O-3302; Amended by O-3386; O-3430; O-3543; O-3694; O-3713; O-3762) Those persons holding the job titles enumerated in the Section 11.2.5 may issue citations, if at all, for those violations of the Torrance Municipal Code which are both listed in this section and for which they have the responsibility to enforce. The following Torrance Municipal Code sections may be enforced by means of the issuance of a citation, pursuant to law, for their violation. Each such section will be for the purposes of the citation, and any subsequent prosecution, an infraction, as provided in Government Code Section 36900. DIVISION 3 31.3.4 35.3.2 36.1.4 37.2.3 33.3.3 35.4.3 36.1.7 38.1.3 33.3.4 35.9.2 36.1.13 38.4.1 34.2.1 35.11.2 36.1.15 310.1.1 34.2.9 35.11.11 36.1.20 35.1.2 35.12.2 37.2.1 35.2.2 36.1.3 37.2.2 DIVISION 4 41.1.2 41.9.1 45.2.3 46.3.1 41.1.4 41.10.1 45.4.6 46.3.2 41.1.5 43.1.2 45.4.8 46.5.2 41.1.7 43.1.3 45.4.9 46.7.2 41.1.8 43.1.4 45.6.2 48.1.2 41.5.1 43.1.5 45.6.3 48.1.3 41.6.1 43.1.7 45.6.5 48.1.5 41.6.2 43.1.8 45.6.14 48.1.7 41.6.3 43.1.9 45.6.15 48.1.8 41.6.4 43.1.11 45.6.23 49.2.1 41.7.1 43.2.9 46.2.1 49.2.6 (b) 41.8.1 43.4.2 46.2.5 49.2.9 (a) 41.8.6 44.3.15 (b) 46.2.6 42.9.10 DIVISION 6 61.1.11 61.5.5 61.6.23 62.1.3 61.1.15 61.6.2 61.6.24 62.1.4 (a) 61.1.16 61.6.4 61.6.25 62.1.4 (b) 61.1.17 61.6.5 61.6.26 62.1.5 61.2.7 61.6.6 61.6.27 62.1.6 61.3.8 61.6.8 61.6.28 62.1.7 61.3.9 61.6.9 61.6.30 62.1.8 (a) 61.3.10 61.6.10 61.6.32 62.1.8 (b) 61.3.11 61.6.11 61.6.33 62.2.1 61.4.3 61.6.13 61.7.1 62.2.8 61.4.10 61.6.14 61.9.1 62.4.2 61.5.2 61.6.17 61.12.140 (a) 63.4.3 61.5.3 61.6.18 61.12.140 (f) 63.4.4 61.5.4 61.6.19 61.12.140 (g) DIVISION 7 72.1.1 72.2.17 74.5.18 75.1.10 72.2.3 72.2.18 74.6.2 75.1.14 72.2.10 72.2.21 74.6.8 75.2.1 72.2.12 72.2.22 74.8.2 77.1.30 72.2.14 74.2.3 75.1.6 72.2.15 74.2.4 75.1.8 72.2.16 74.5.4 75.1.9 DIVISION 8 88.5.1 88.5.4 88.6.1 88.6.14 88.5.2 88.5.7 88.6.13 88.11.2 DIVISION 9 91.4.1 91.21.1 92.2.8 97.2.3 91.4.5 91.23.1 92.2.9 97.5.1 91.4.6 91.24.1 92.5.13 97.5.4 91.4.11 91.25.1 92.5.14 97.5.6 91.7.1 91.25.3 92.10.2 97.5.12 91.8.1 91.25.6 92.13.1 97.8.2 91.9.1 91.25.7 92.18.1 97.8.3 91.10.1 91.30.1 92.21.1 97.8.4 91.11.1 91.31.1 92.22.3 97.8.5 91.11.2 91.36.3 92.30.4 97.8.6 91.13.1 91.36.6 93.1.1 97.8.7 91.15.1 91.38.1 93.1.7 91.20.1 91.47.5 97.2.2 11.2.7 FEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT PARKING CITATIONS. (Added by O-3716) Any person liable for a civil penalty will be required to pay the penalty provided on the bail schedule of parking penalties for parking violations, including process service fees, and any late payment penalty. In addition, if the City incurs collection costs in conjunction with the assignment of a parking citation, those costs will be added to the penalty and the violator will be liable to the city for both the civil penalties and the collection costs. ARTICLE 3 - RULES OF CONSTRUCTION 11.3.1 CONSTRUCTION; PROVISIONS GOVERNING. Unless the provisions of the context otherwise require, these general provisions, rules of construction and definitions shall govern the construction of this Code. The provisions of this Code and all proceedings under it are to be construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice. 11.3.2 HEADINGS, EFFECT OF. The headings of the sections of this Code are intended as catchwords to indicate the contents of the section and shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of any section. 11.3.3 REFERENCE APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS. Whenever a reference is made to any portion of this Code, or to any ordinances of this City, the reference applies to all amendments and additions now or hereafter made. ARTICLE 4 - DEFINITIONS In the construction of this Code and of all ordinances of the City, the following definitions of a general nature shall apply, unless the provisions of the context or the intent of the City Council clearly requires otherwise. 11.4.1 CHARTER. Shall mean and refer to the Charter of the City of Torrance, as amended. 11.4.2 CITY. Shall be construed as if followed by the words of Torrance. 11.4.3 CODE. Shall mean Torrance Municipal Code. 11.4.4 COMPUTATION OF TIME. Shall be the time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday and then it is also excluded. 11.4.5 COUNCIL. Shall be construed to mean the City Council of the City of Torrance. 11.4.6 COUNTY. Shall mean the County of Los Angeles. 11.4.7 DAY. A day is the period of time between any midnight and the midnight following. 11.4.8 DAYTIME, NIGHTTIME. Daytime is the period of time between sunrise and sunset. Nighttime is the period of time between sunset and sunrise. 11.4.9 GENDER. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. 11.4.10 IN THE CITY. Shall mean and include all territory over which the City now has, or shall hereafter acquire, jurisdiction for the exercise of its police powers or other regulatory powers. 11.4.11 JOINT AUTHORITY. All words giving a joint authority to 3 or more persons or officers shall be construed as giving such authority to a majority of such persons or officers. 11.4.12 MONTH. Shall mean a calendar month. 11.4.13 NUMBER. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural, the singular. 11.4.14 OATH. Shall include affirmation. 11.4.15 OFFICIAL TIME. Whenever certain hours are named herein, they shall mean Pacific Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time as may be in current use in the City. 11.4.16 OR, AND. Or may be read and, and and may be read or, if the sense requires it. 11.4.17 OWNER. As applied to a building or land, shall include any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or of a part of such building or land. 11.4.18 PERSON. Includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation or company. 11.4.19 PERSONAL PROPERTY. Includes every species of property, except real property, as herein defined. 11.4.20 PRECEDING, FOLLOWING. The words preceding and following mean next before and next after, respectively. 11.4.21 PROCESS. Includes a writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings of either a civil or criminal nature. 11.4.22 PROPERTY. Shall include real and personal property. 11.4.23 REAL PROPERTY. Shall include lands, tenements and hereditaments. 11.4.24 ROADWAY. Is that portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. 11.4.25 SHALL, MAY. Shall is mandatory and may is permissive. 11.4.26 SIDEWALK. Shall be that portion of a highway, other than the roadway, set apart for pedestrian travel. 11.4.27 SIGNATURE OR SUBSCRIPTION BY MARK. Includes mark when the signer or subscriber cannot write, such signer’s or subscriber’s name being written near the mark by a witness who writes his own name near the signer’s or subscriber’s name; but a signature or subscription by mark can be acknowledged or can serve as a signature or subscription to a sworn statement only when two (2) witnesses so sign their own names thereto. 11.4.28 STATE. The words the state and this state shall be construed to mean the State of California. 11.4.29 STREET, HIGHWAY. Shall be a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. 11.4.30 TENANT OR OCCUPANT. The words tenant or occupant applied to a building or land, shall include any person holding a written or an oral lease of or who occupies, the whole or a part of such building or land, either alone or with others. 11.4.31 TENSES. The present tense includes the past and future tenses, and the future includes the present. 11.4.32 WEEK. A week consists of seven consecutive days. 11.4.33 WRITING. Includes any form of a recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement or record is required or authorized by this Code, it shall be made in writing in the English language unless it is expressly provided otherwise. 11.4.34 YEAR. Shall mean a calendar year, except where otherwise provided. ARTICLE 5 - APPEALS; PROCEDURES (Added by O-957; Amended by O-2822) 11.5.1 FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL. (Amended by O-1661; O-3528) Except as otherwise provided in this Code, if any application for any permit or consent of any City body or official having such authority is denied or approved by any City body or official and no other body is designated in the Code to hear an appeal, the applicant, or any interested person adversely affected, upon payment of an appeal fee, the City Manager, or any member of the City Council may personally serve the City Clerk with a written notice of appeal to the City Council from such decision within fifteen (15) days after such decision. 11.5.2 CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, FEES. (Amended by O-3416) a) The notice of appeal shall contain the following information in addition to the information given by the applicant thereon or reasonably required by the City Clerk therefor: 1) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. 2) The type of permit desired or action requested. 3) The date on which said permit was issued or refused or the decision was made and the name of the City officer, body, or department taking such action. 4) The grounds on which the appeal is taken. b) A fee for filing an appeal shall be charged as provided by resolution of the City Council. 11.5.3 PROCEDURE AFTER FILING. a) Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, and the appeal fee, the City Clerk shall notify the concerned City officials, bodies or departments that an appeal has been filed and shall transmit a copy of the appeal documents to such officials, bodies or departments. b) The concerned City officials, bodies or departments shall prepare the necessary reports for the City Council, provide public notices, posting, mailing or advertising in the same manner as provided for the original hearing or decision making process, request the appeal be placed on the agenda for hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of receipt of the said notice of appeal, and notify the applicant in writing of the time, date and place of the hearing not less than five (5) days before the Council hearing. 11.5.4 HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL. The Council shall hold a hearing at the time set therefor as provided in Section 11.5.3. The Council may summon witnesses and hear evidence relating to such application, but the rules of evidence shall not apply. The Council may continue the hearing from time to time. At the conclusion thereof, the Council shall grant or deny such application or make such modifications of the decision or action appealed from with reference thereto as it may deem fit. The order of the Council shall be immediately final and conclusive, and no applicant, and no application for the same purpose may be made for one (1) year after the date of such order. ARTICLE 6 - IN GENERAL 11.6.1 NOTICES, SERVICE OF. Whenever a notice is required to be given under this Code, unless different provisions herein are otherwise specifically made, such notice may be given either by personal delivery thereof to the person to be notified or by deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope postage prepaid, addressed to such person to be notified, at his last known business or residence address as the same appears in the public records of the City or other records pertaining to the matter to which such notice is directed. Service by mail shall be deemed to have been completed at the time of deposit in the post office. 11.6.2 PROOF OF NOTICE. Proof of giving any notice may be made by the certificate of any officer or employee of the City, or by affidavit of any person over the age of eighteen (18) years, which shows service in conformity with this Code, or other provisions of law applicable to the subject matter concerned. 11.6.3 EFFECT OF ISSUANCE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE. (Added by O-1901) Any permit or license issued in violation of any provisions of this Code or of any City ordinance or which purports to authorize the doing of any act prohibited by this Code or other ordinance shall be void and shall not constitute approval of any violation of any provisions of this Code or any other law or ordinance. 11.6.4 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON CITY CLERK. (Added by O-2403; Amended by O-2732) Unless otherwise provided by the laws of the United States of America or the State of California, or by other provisions of this Code, or by a contract to which the City is a party, service upon the City of all notices, whether or not required by law, or any other documents, including any subpoenas duces tecum for the production of any City records, shall be effected by filing such notices, subpoenas, or other documents with the City Clerk of the City. ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL 410.1.010 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Chapter. Words and phrases not ascribed a meaning by this Chapter shall have the meanings ascribed by the regulations implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Clean Water Act Section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), including, but not limited to 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 and 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b), and Division 7 of the California Water Code, as they may be amended from time to time, if defined therein, and if not, to the definitions in an applicable permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles, as such permits may be amended from time to time. a) "Automotive Service Facility" means a facility in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 5511, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. b) "Best Management Practices or BMPs" means methods, measures, schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce Pollutants in discharges to the MS4 and thence into waters of the United States. BMPs include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal and drainage from raw material storage; public education and outreach; proper planning of development projects; structural and non- structural controls; and operations and maintenance procedures which can be applied before, during and after pollution-producing activities, including, but not limited to proper clean-out of catch basins and proper waste handling and disposal. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. c) "Discharge" means any release, spill, leak, pump, flow, escape, dumping or disposal, of any Pollutant, from any point source, into the environment, including waters of the United States, and City’s MS4. d) "Hazardous Materials" means any materials, wastes or mixture of wastes defined as a "Hazardous Substance" or "Hazardous Waste" pursuant to § 311(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(2), or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., or the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act, ("HSAA"), California Health and Safety Code §§ 25300, et seq., and all future amendments to any of them, or as defined by the State Water Resources Control Board or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles. Where there is a conflict in the definitions employed by two or more agencies having jurisdiction over hazardous The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 1 of 10 waste or water pollution, the terms "Hazardous Materials" and "Hazardous Waste" shall be construed to have the broader, more encompassing definition. e) "Illicit Connection" means any device or artifice, excluding roof drains and other similar connections, connected to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, without a permit, through or by which an Illicit Discharge may be discharged. Examples include channels, pipelines, pipes, conduits, inlets and outlets connected directly to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. f) "Illicit Discharge" means any discharge to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of Storm Water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit, Permitted Discharges (which are exempt or conditionally exempt in accordance with any applicable order of the RWQCB-LA) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. "Illicit Discharge" includes but is not limited to wash waters from the cleaning of Retail Gasoline Outlets, auto repair garages and similar Automotive Service Facilities; runoff from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning and mobile carpet cleaning, and other similar mobile commercial and industrial operations; discharges from areas where repair of machinery and equipment, including, but not limited to motor vehicles which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; discharges of runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other Hazardous Substances, and uncovered receptacles containing Hazardous Materials; chlorinated or brominated swimming pool water and filter backwash; runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas; discharge of runoff from washing impervious surfaces at sites of industrial activity, unless specifically required by State or local health and safety codes; discharge of concrete or cement-laden wash water from concrete trucks, pumps, tools and equipment; litter; construction and demolition debris; fuel and chemical wastes; animal wastes; garbage, food and food processing wastes; cooking oil or grease; leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt or any other landscape debris or wastes; any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide banned by or not registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; wash or rinse water from any Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility floor mats; any liquid used as a cooling fluid in any radiator of any engine; batteries; and any other materials or solid waste which has potential adverse effects on water quality of receiving waters. "Illicit Discharge" also includes any other discharge to the MS4 that is prohibited by this Code, or any state or federal law. g) "Industrial/Commercial Facility" means any facility involved used for the production, manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution, exchange or sale of goods or commodities, and any facility used in providing professional and non-professional services. This category of facilities includes, but is not limited to, any facility defined by the Standard Industrial The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 2 of 10 Classifications (SIC). Facility ownership (federal, state, municipal, private) and profit motive of the facility’s owners or operators are not factors in this definition. h) "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or "MS4" " means a conveyance or system of conveyances including municipal streets, alleys, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man- made channels, storm drains, conduits, or other facilities owned, operated, maintained or controlled by City and used for the purpose of collecting, storing, transporting or disposing of Storm Water, which are not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and which discharges directly or indirectly (through another agency’s MS4) to waters of the United States. i) "Non-Storm Water Discharge" means any discharge to a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System that is not composed entirely of Storm Water. See Illicit Discharge above, and Permitted Discharge, below. j) "NPDES" means the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" established by § 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, as it, from time to time, may be amended. k) "Permitted Discharge" means the following non-storm water discharges: 1) Discharges covered by a separate individual or general NPDES permit; 2) Natural flows, including the following: A) Natural springs and rising ground water; B) Flows from riparian habitats or wetlands; C) Stream diversions, permitted by the State Board; and D) Uncontaminated ground water infiltration [as defined by 40 CFR 35.2005(20)]. 3) Flows from emergency fire fighting activity. 4) Flows incidental to urban activities, including the following: A) Reclaimed and potable landscape irrigation runoff; B) Potable drinking water supply and distribution system releases (consistent with American Water Works Association guidelines for dechlorination and suspended solids reduction practices); C) Drains for foundations, footings, and crawl spaces; The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 3 of 10 D) Air conditioning condensate; E) Dechlorinated/debrominated swimming pool discharges; F) Dewatering of lakes and decorative fountains; G) Non-commercial car washing by residents or by non-profit organizations; and H) Sidewalk rinsing. l) "Pollutant" means a "Pollutant" as defined in § 502(6) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1362(6), or incorporated into California Water Code § 13373, discharged into water but shall not mean uncontaminated Storm Water, potable water or reclaimed water generated by a lawfully permitted water treatment facility, or any substance, the discharge of which into the MS4, through Best Management Practices, has been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Subject to the foregoing, "Pollutant" also includes but is not limited to wash waters from the cleaning of Retail Gasoline Outlets, auto repair garages and similar Automotive Service Facilities; runoff from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning and mobile carpet cleaning, and other similar mobile commercial and industrial operations; discharges from areas where repair of machinery and equipment, including, but not limited to motor vehicles which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; discharges of runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other Hazardous Substances, and uncovered receptacles containing Hazardous Materials; chlorinated or brominated swimming pool water and filter backwash; runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas; discharge of runoff from washing impervious surfaces at sites of industrial activity, unless specifically required by State or local health and safety codes; discharge of concrete or cement-laden wash water from concrete trucks, pumps, tools and equipment; litter; construction and demolition debris; fuel and chemical wastes; animal wastes; garbage, food and food processing wastes; cooking oil or grease; leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt or any other landscape debris or wastes; any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide banned by or not registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; wash or rinse water from any Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility floor mats; any liquid used as a cooling fluid in any radiator of any engine; batteries; and any other materials or solid waste which has potential adverse effects on water quality of receiving waters. m) "Restaurant" means a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (SIC Code 5812). The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 4 of 10 n) "Retail Gasoline Outlet or RGO" means, for the purpose of this Chapter, any facility engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. o) "Solid Waste" shall have the meaning ascribed by Public Resources Code § 40191, as it, from time to time, may be amended. p) "Storm Drain" (see Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or "MS4," above). q) "Storm Water" means Storm Water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage. r) "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPP" means a plan, as required by a State General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB"), identifying potential Pollutant sources and describing the design, placement and implementation of BMPs, to effectively prevent non-Storm Water Discharges and to reduce Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges during activities covered by the General Permit. s) "Structural BMP" means any structural facility designed and constructed to mitigate the adverse impacts of Storm Water and urban runoff pollution (e.g. canopy, structural enclosure). The category may include both Treatment Control BMPs and Source Control BMPs. t) "Treatment Control BMP" means any engineered system designed to remove pollutants by simple gravity settling of particulate pollutants, filtration, biological uptake, media absorption or any other physical, biological, or chemical process. u) "Wet Season" means the period beginning on October 1st and ending at midnight on April 15th, annually. 410.1.015 AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE AND IMPLEMENT. Under the Torrance City Charter, Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the California Government Code, and the California Water Code, the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, shall have the authority to take all actions necessary to enforce and implement all NPDES Permits and waste discharge requirements. 410.1.020 ILLICIT DISCHARGES PROHIBITED. No person shall cause any Illicit Discharge to enter the MS4 unless such discharge: (1) is authorized by an NPDES permit; or (2) is associated with emergency fire fighting activities; or (3) is a Permitted Discharge which is exempt or conditionally exempt in accordance with an applicable order of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles. No Pollutant in Storm Water may be discharged to the MS4 unless the Pollutant has been The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 5 of 10 reduced to the maximum extent practicable. 410.1.030 ILLICIT CONNECTIONS PROHIBITED. No person shall use or suffer the use of any Illicit Connection to convey an Illicit Discharge or any Pollutant to the MS4 from premises of which that person is an owner or is the person in charge of day-to-day activities. Illicit Connections are prohibited by the Clean Water Act, NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permits issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles and this Chapter. The owner and the person in charge of day-to-day activities of premises at which an Illicit Connection is located shall obtain a permit for, or remove, the Illicit Connection within one hundred and eighty (180) days of confirmation of discovery of the Illicit Connection. 410.1.040 CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS FROM SITES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. a) It shall be a violation of this Chapter for any person or entity required under federal or state law to comply with the requirements for a NPDES General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit (GIASP) for a facility or activity in the City to operate such facility or activity in the City which discharges to the City’s MS4 without complying with all applicable requirements for a General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit. b) Any person or entity in the City required to have a General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit for a facility or activity in the City which discharges to the City’s MS4 shall retain at such facility or activity the following documents which evidence compliance with General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit requirements: (i) a copy of the Notice of Intent to comply with the General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit; (ii) a waste discharge identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board; (iii) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (iv) any required Storm Water quality data; and (v) a plan containing urban runoff Best Management Practices (BMPs). c) Any person or entity in the City required to have a General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit for a facility or activity in the City which discharges to the City’s MS4, upon request from a duly authorized officer of the City, shall make available to the City for review, copying and inspection all of the documents described in subsection b) of this Section during any City Storm Water-related educational program or inspection and shall demonstrate compliance with such General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit, including but not limited to demonstration of the adequacy of, and compliance with, any required SWPPP and all applicable BMPs. 410.1.050 SPILLS, DUMPING AND DISPOSAL PROHIBITED. a) No person shall dump, deposit, release, spill, leak, pump, pour, emit, empty, discharge, The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 6 of 10 inject, bury or dispose into the environment any Solid Waste or liquid waste, including any Pollutant, in or upon any part of the MS4, or upon any public or private premises in the City, or to cause, suffer, or permit any Solid Waste or liquid waste or other Pollutant to come to be located upon, in, on or under any premises in the City, except in an authorized or permitted solid waste container or at an authorized or permitted solid waste facility or publicly owned or privately owned treatment works. b) No person shall dispose of leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt or any other landscape debris into any part of the MS4. c) No person shall dispose of any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide banned by, or not registered with, the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, or its successor, into any part of the MS4. d) No person shall dispose of any Hazardous Material into any Civic Litter Container or any other trash receptacle accessible to the public. e) No person shall pour oil or grease, or the residue of oil or grease onto any parking lot, or any part of the MS4. f) No person shall place any washout water or other liquid in any container for the disposal of Solid Waste. g) No person shall wash Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility floor mats in any place where the wash or rinse water may flow into any part of the MS4. 410.1.060 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REQUIRED. The owner, occupant or other person in charge of day-to-day operation of each premises within the City shall implement Best Management Practices as follows: a) The owner or other person in charge of day-to-day operation of parking lots with more than 25 parking spaces exposed to Storm Water which parking lots are associated with industrial or commercial activities, according to the United States Office of Management and Budget Standard Industrial Classification Code, shall use BMPs to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Such measures may include regular sweeping or other measures, if effective. b) The owner or other person in charge of day-to-day operation of premises where machinery or other equipment which is repaired or maintained, at facilities or activities associated with industrial or commercial activities, according to the United States Office of The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 7 of 10 Management and Budget Standard Industrial Classification Code, shall use BMPs or other steps to prevent discharge of maintenance related or repair related Pollutants to the MS4. c) For other premises exposed to Storm Water, the owner, occupant or other person in charge of day-to-day operations shall use BMPs, if they exist, or other steps to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including the removal and lawful disposal of any Solid Waste or any other substance which, if it were to be discharged to the MS4, would be a Pollutant, including fuels, waste fuels, chemicals, chemical wastes and animal wastes, from all parts of the premises exposed to Storm Water. 410.1.070 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY STORM WATER MEASURES. a) Each person applying to the City for a grading or building permit for projects for which compliance with regulations governing State Construction Activity Storm Water Permits ("GCASPs") is required, must submit satisfactory proof to City (i) that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the GCASP has been filed and (ii) that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared, before the City shall issue any grading or building permit on the construction project. A copy of the NOI and the SWPPP shall be maintained on-site during grading and construction and shall be made available for inspection, review and copying upon the request of any City inspector. b) It shall be a violation of this Chapter for any person or entity required under federal or state law to comply with the requirements for a State Construction Activity Storm Water Permits (GCASP) for construction activity in the City to conduct, authorize or permit construction activities in the City at any facility which discharges to the City’s MS4 without complying with all applicable requirements for a GCASP. c) Each person applying for a grading or building permit for any project for which compliance with regulations governing State Construction Activity Storm Water Permits is not required, shall submit to the City for information, and shall implement a grading and construction activity runoff control program adequate to accomplish all of the following: 1) Retain on-site the sediments generated on or brought to the project site, using Treatment Control or Structural BMPs; 2) Retain construction-related materials and wastes, spills and residues at the project site and prevent discharges to streets, drainage facilities, the MS4, receiving waters or adjacent properties; 3) Contain non-Storm Water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing at the project site; and The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 8 of 10 4) Control erosion from slopes and channels through use of effective BMPs, such as limitation of grading during the wet season, inspection of graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes, if any, and covering any slopes susceptible to erosion. d) No person generating or producing pavement sawcutting wastes in any street, curb or sidewalk in the City shall fail to recover and properly dispose of such sawcutting wastes, and in no case shall such wastes be permitted or suffered to enter any part of the MS4, including, but not limited to any storm drain. e) No person performing street and road maintenance in any street in the City shall fail to manage street and road maintenance materials in a manner which prevents such materials from being discharged to the MS4. f) No person shall wash any concrete truck or any part of any concrete truck, including, but not limited to any chute, pump or tools, in any place in the City except an area designated for that purpose by the City, if the City has designated such a place. No person shall permit or suffer any concrete rinseate or washwater from any truck, pump, tool or equipment to enter any drain, open ditch, street or road or any catch basin or any other part of the MS4. 410.1.080 VIOLATIONS. Violation of any provision of this Chapter, any Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, any provision of any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter, or any Administrative Enforcement Order issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor. 410.1.090 NOTICES OF VIOLATION; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS; AND ENFORCEMENT. a) The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designees, may issue Notices of Violation and Administrative Enforcement Orders to achieve compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, any approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of such a Notice of Violation or an Administrative Order shall constitute a violation of this Chapter. b) The City Attorney may bring civil and criminal actions to enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the provisions of any Administrative Enforcement Order, any Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. 410.1.100 NUISANCE. The violation of any provision of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and may be abated by the City in accordance with its authority to abate nuisances. The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 9 of 10 410.1.110 REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE. The remedies listed in this Chapter are not exclusive of any other remedies available to the City under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the City to seek cumulative remedies. 410.1.120 INSPECTIONS; SEARCHES. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any provisions of this Chapter and to conduct all inspections required by any applicable NPDES permit, the enforcement officer for the City may enter any property in the City regulated by this Chapter in a manner authorized by State law and take samples; inspect, review and copy records relevant to any Illicit Connection, Illegal Discharge or the Discharge of any Pollutant. The owner or other person in charge of day-to-day activities at the premises, upon request of any City inspector, shall make available for inspection, review and copying any required GIASP, GCASP, NoI, BMPs, SWPPP and any permit relevant to the reduction of the Discharge of any Pollutant to the maximum extent practicable. 410.1.130 FEES. The City Council may establish fees for the services provided under this Chapter. Such fees shall be fixed and established from time to time by the City Council by resolution. The Torrance Municipal Code is current through 3781, passed November 4, 2014. Torrance Municipal Code ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL Page 10 of 10 DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-1 | Page 2015 Appendix Q Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-2 | Page 2015 BACTERIA – 90TH PERCENTILE TMDL YEAR – MANHATTAN BEACH GAGE Manhattan Beach Gauge D1070 Precipitation Total Number of Wet Days Year Precip. (in) Percentile Year Days Percentile 1998 29.26 100% 1998 99 100% 1995 22 95% 2010 76 95% 2005 21.94 91% 1995 73 86% 1993 21.7 86% 2005 73 86% 2011 17.23 82% 1993 71 82% 1992 15.74 77% 1992 67 73% 2003 14.57 73% 2011 67 73% 2010 14.35 68% 1989 66 68% 2008 14.27 64% 1999 65 64% 2001 13.78 59% 1994 60 59% 1997 12.28 55% 2000 59 55% 2004 10.9 50% 1996 58 50% 2000 10.86 45% 2004 55 45% 1996 10.23 41% 2003 53 36% 2009 8.88 36% 2006 53 36% 1991 8.28 32% 2001 52 32% 2006 7.94 27% 2009 49 27% 1994 7.69 23% 1997 45 23% 1999 7.55 18% 2008 42 18% 1989 7.44 14% 1991 41 9% 1990 4.5 9% 2002 41 9% 2002 4 5% 2007 40 5% 2007 3.47 0% 1990 39 0% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-3 | Page 2015 COPPER – 90TH PERCENTILE DAILY LOAD - DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL ANALYSIS REGION Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 12/27/2004 31,312,007 60.7 31.0 100% 3/20/2011 29,060,258 46.7 25.8 100% 2/12/2003 26,298,172 45.5 27.7 99% 12/28/2004 22,781,614 44.2 31.0 99% 3/15/2003 23,632,270 41.4 28.1 98% 1/7/2005 23,704,308 39.5 26.7 98% 12/19/2010 22,415,152 38.4 27.4 98% 1/1/2005 22,887,234 36.4 25.5 97% 1/27/2008 17,368,762 30.9 28.5 97% 1/25/2008 18,665,740 30.7 26.3 96% 2/20/2004 16,833,095 28.0 26.6 96% 12/15/2008 15,951,698 27.8 27.9 96% 1/20/2010 15,798,848 27.7 28.1 95% 2/6/2010 15,729,036 26.2 26.7 95% 12/20/2010 14,546,645 24.9 27.4 95% 2/24/2008 14,917,722 24.7 26.5 94% 2/24/2004 13,785,525 24.7 28.7 94% 12/18/2010 14,369,712 24.6 27.4 93% 5/1/2003 13,244,040 24.0 29.1 93% 2/26/2006 12,677,625 23.8 30.1 93% 12/7/2009 14,264,586 23.8 26.7 92% 10/19/2004 14,063,955 23.5 26.7 92% 12/31/2005 13,537,145 22.9 27.1 91% 1/6/2008 13,704,266 22.7 26.5 91% 2/17/2009 13,278,389 22.1 26.7 91% 2/20/2005 12,442,688 21.5 27.7 90% 11/30/2007 13,129,863 21.1 25.8 90% 2/11/2003 12,156,135 21.0 27.7 89% 12/22/2010 12,190,852 20.9 27.4 89% 2/11/2005 11,861,441 20.6 27.8 89% 3/28/2006 12,817,317 20.5 25.7 88% 10/25/2004 12,937,482 20.4 25.2 88% 2/5/2010 11,979,000 20.0 26.7 88% 1/23/2008 10,620,633 18.5 28.0 87% 2/3/2008 10,016,045 18.3 29.3 87% 2/18/2005 9,756,024 17.9 29.5 86% 3/25/2012 10,919,891 17.8 26.1 86% 12/15/2002 9,230,222 17.0 29.4 86% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-4 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 2/16/2009 9,744,219 16.9 27.9 85% 12/12/2009 8,404,272 16.5 31.4 85% 2/19/2005 10,206,811 16.3 25.6 84% 2/9/2005 9,110,565 16.2 28.5 84% 10/14/2009 9,486,034 15.8 26.7 84% 1/19/2010 8,943,577 15.4 27.5 83% 1/28/2008 8,364,151 15.2 29.2 83% 11/6/2002 9,155,190 15.2 26.5 82% 1/18/2010 9,036,992 14.8 26.2 82% 4/4/2006 6,967,943 14.4 33.1 82% 12/21/2010 8,348,384 14.3 27.4 81% 2/27/2010 7,098,103 14.1 31.9 81% 1/4/2008 8,313,372 14.1 27.1 81% 11/26/2008 7,467,163 13.9 29.8 80% 1/21/2012 7,512,682 13.8 29.4 80% 10/6/2010 7,242,584 13.8 30.5 79% 2/23/2003 7,980,165 13.6 27.3 79% 2/17/2005 7,218,537 13.3 29.5 79% 12/12/2011 7,726,019 13.3 27.5 78% 1/2/2004 6,720,802 12.8 30.5 78% 12/29/2010 7,517,626 12.7 27.1 77% 1/8/2005 7,479,474 12.5 26.8 77% 10/15/2004 7,252,323 12.1 26.8 77% 10/31/2003 6,043,495 11.3 29.8 76% 3/17/2012 6,313,983 11.1 28.1 76% 2/21/2005 6,282,137 11.0 28.0 75% 4/12/2010 6,482,727 11.0 27.1 75% 11/4/2008 5,574,369 10.9 31.3 75% 11/8/2002 6,698,336 10.6 25.3 74% 2/29/2004 6,634,305 10.5 25.5 74% 3/21/2005 6,138,728 10.5 27.3 74% 2/22/2005 5,938,403 10.4 28.0 73% 4/13/2012 6,585,692 10.4 25.2 73% 2/9/2003 5,690,745 10.0 28.1 72% 3/23/2011 5,715,041 9.9 27.8 72% 12/31/2004 5,506,833 9.8 28.6 72% 1/2/2011 5,753,882 9.5 26.5 71% 2/6/2009 4,867,387 9.4 30.8 71% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-5 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 11/4/2011 5,106,680 9.2 29.0 70% 10/13/2007 5,927,135 9.2 24.8 70% 11/20/2011 5,155,535 9.0 27.9 70% 1/22/2008 5,130,327 8.8 27.5 69% 10/5/2011 5,321,098 8.8 26.4 69% 11/9/2005 5,533,232 8.7 25.3 68% 4/11/2012 4,446,967 8.7 31.2 68% 4/26/2005 5,030,015 8.6 27.2 68% 12/25/2003 5,245,611 8.4 25.7 67% 12/5/2004 4,949,169 8.3 26.8 67% 12/18/2007 5,653,928 8.3 23.4 67% 12/25/2010 5,010,113 8.2 26.3 66% 4/14/2003 4,548,122 8.0 28.1 66% 2/25/2011 4,769,946 7.9 26.6 65% 1/22/2010 4,414,439 7.8 28.4 65% 1/21/2010 4,344,942 7.7 28.4 65% 10/18/2004 4,587,728 7.7 26.7 64% 2/5/2009 3,865,855 7.4 30.8 64% 2/22/2008 4,216,191 7.4 28.1 63% 1/23/2012 4,308,546 7.3 27.2 63% 12/17/2010 4,248,719 7.3 27.4 63% 2/16/2005 3,923,685 7.2 29.5 62% 3/21/2011 4,486,104 7.2 25.8 62% 12/18/2002 4,210,652 7.1 26.8 61% 1/24/2008 4,227,769 7.0 26.3 61% 10/19/2010 3,474,342 6.9 32.0 61% 4/20/2007 3,776,909 6.8 28.6 60% 1/28/2005 3,733,545 6.7 28.6 60% 2/11/2007 3,515,013 6.6 30.1 60% 10/30/2010 3,807,601 6.6 27.6 59% 10/16/2005 3,685,195 6.5 28.2 59% 2/1/2004 4,141,935 6.5 25.0 58% 12/4/2004 3,884,430 6.3 25.9 58% 12/19/2007 4,220,534 6.2 23.4 58% 1/5/2008 3,533,926 6.0 27.1 57% 2/27/2006 3,135,758 5.9 30.1 57% 11/28/2002 3,341,100 5.8 28.0 56% 12/17/2008 3,607,544 5.7 25.5 56% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-6 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 2/25/2004 3,135,821 5.6 28.7 56% 1/30/2007 3,318,231 5.6 27.0 55% 3/5/2006 2,962,988 5.4 29.5 55% 12/16/2002 2,948,589 5.4 29.4 54% 1/9/2005 3,150,007 5.4 27.3 54% 4/12/2003 2,841,017 5.3 29.7 54% 5/2/2003 2,832,986 5.1 29.1 53% 2/18/2011 2,862,405 5.1 28.6 53% 2/20/2008 2,828,230 5.1 28.8 53% 4/14/2006 2,869,020 5.1 28.3 52% 11/6/2011 3,030,571 5.1 26.8 52% 2/9/2009 2,870,133 5.0 27.7 51% 1/24/2009 2,374,682 4.8 32.5 51% 1/17/2010 2,930,670 4.8 26.2 51% 9/21/2007 2,945,352 4.8 26.0 50% 2/26/2011 2,837,279 4.7 26.6 50% 12/6/2007 2,755,304 4.6 26.5 49% 12/5/2010 2,400,536 4.6 30.4 49% 12/11/2009 2,795,477 4.5 25.9 49% 10/26/2004 2,854,466 4.5 25.2 48% 5/20/2006 2,839,899 4.5 25.1 48% 11/11/2003 2,572,500 4.4 27.2 47% 11/5/2004 2,572,500 4.3 26.6 47% 2/19/2011 2,294,198 4.2 29.4 47% 2/15/2012 2,082,349 4.2 32.2 46% 12/24/2003 2,251,256 4.1 29.3 46% 1/3/2005 2,497,319 4.1 26.2 46% 5/18/2011 2,306,463 3.9 26.9 45% 4/25/2012 2,308,536 3.9 26.8 45% 11/12/2011 2,174,554 3.8 27.7 44% 1/26/2008 2,182,482 3.7 27.1 44% 12/25/2006 2,020,322 3.6 28.6 44% 3/17/2005 2,023,658 3.6 28.4 43% 2/17/2004 2,074,455 3.6 27.6 43% 1/23/2009 2,053,799 3.6 27.8 42% 2/10/2005 1,967,186 3.5 28.5 42% 2/20/2010 2,015,114 3.5 27.5 42% 2/13/2009 1,876,970 3.5 29.5 41% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-7 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 2/22/2007 2,076,926 3.4 26.3 41% 3/13/2003 2,023,658 3.3 26.4 40% 11/7/2002 1,992,933 3.3 26.5 40% 12/27/2006 1,776,634 3.2 29.0 40% 2/24/2003 1,885,761 3.2 27.3 39% 3/25/2011 1,760,492 3.2 29.2 39% 1/13/2010 2,066,943 3.2 24.8 39% 4/26/2012 1,897,335 3.2 26.8 38% 12/23/2003 1,951,005 3.1 25.8 38% 12/3/2004 1,835,372 3.1 27.4 37% 3/24/2011 1,696,950 3.1 29.2 37% 1/3/2011 1,769,701 2.9 26.7 37% 3/26/2006 1,911,518 2.9 24.5 36% 1/13/2006 1,500,212 2.9 30.8 36% 9/22/2007 1,823,679 2.9 25.2 35% 10/20/2010 1,625,021 2.7 27.1 35% 3/26/2012 1,661,845 2.7 26.1 35% 3/2/2011 1,629,468 2.7 26.4 34% 12/20/2002 1,428,401 2.7 30.1 34% 2/9/2010 1,570,402 2.7 27.1 33% 5/17/2011 1,556,834 2.6 26.9 33% 1/26/2010 1,637,395 2.6 25.5 33% 12/5/2007 1,555,742 2.6 26.5 32% 3/27/2006 1,600,858 2.5 25.4 32% 3/31/2012 1,483,027 2.5 27.4 32% 3/1/2004 1,589,905 2.5 25.5 31% 10/16/2004 1,502,745 2.5 26.8 31% 12/22/2008 1,419,467 2.5 28.2 30% 11/8/2010 1,333,938 2.5 29.6 30% 2/17/2006 1,505,022 2.4 26.0 30% 2/10/2003 1,309,194 2.3 28.1 29% 3/30/2006 1,214,504 2.2 29.3 29% 12/8/2006 1,284,662 2.2 27.5 28% 11/3/2003 1,454,949 2.2 23.9 28% 5/22/2006 1,241,330 2.2 27.9 28% 3/22/2005 1,255,348 2.1 27.3 27% 3/1/2006 1,433,024 2.1 23.1 27% 2/21/2008 1,149,453 2.0 28.6 26% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-8 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 11/23/2010 1,119,060 2.0 28.3 26% 4/27/2005 1,149,309 2.0 27.2 26% 2/7/2009 1,006,627 1.9 30.8 25% 2/18/2009 1,143,216 1.9 26.7 25% 3/20/2006 1,046,843 1.8 27.9 25% 10/24/2010 820,995 1.8 34.6 24% 11/29/2002 1,004,502 1.8 28.0 24% 2/2/2004 1,090,598 1.7 25.0 23% 3/6/2010 937,382 1.7 29.0 23% 12/19/2002 1,003,535 1.7 26.8 23% 5/4/2005 1,047,657 1.7 25.5 22% 4/20/2010 1,001,782 1.7 26.4 22% 11/2/2008 925,436 1.6 27.4 21% 2/19/2007 923,357 1.6 27.1 21% 2/16/2011 876,853 1.6 28.4 21% 10/25/2010 710,814 1.5 34.6 20% 9/18/2005 999,623 1.5 24.1 20% 4/11/2010 878,904 1.5 27.1 19% 3/18/2012 807,317 1.4 28.1 19% 10/4/2010 765,371 1.4 28.7 19% 2/20/2011 732,343 1.3 29.5 18% 12/6/2010 695,012 1.3 30.4 18% 3/6/2006 580,888 1.1 29.5 18% 4/11/2003 717,854 1.0 23.3 17% 4/28/2010 620,033 1.0 26.8 17% 12/26/2010 619,485 1.0 26.3 16% 4/10/2012 519,300 1.0 31.2 16% 11/12/2003 583,254 1.0 27.2 16% 11/6/2004 583,254 1.0 26.6 15% 5/21/2006 608,704 1.0 25.2 15% 12/26/2006 490,783 0.9 28.6 14% 1/2/2005 514,226 0.8 26.2 14% 2/23/2008 504,525 0.8 26.5 14% 2/18/2004 446,451 0.8 27.6 13% 1/14/2006 395,045 0.8 30.8 13% 9/20/2007 405,281 0.7 28.0 12% 3/18/2005 361,558 0.6 28.4 12% 3/14/2003 361,558 0.6 26.4 12% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-9 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Copper Cu Load (lb) Cu Conc (ug/L) Cu Load Percentile 4/13/2003 312,847 0.6 29.8 11% 10/12/2007 359,673 0.6 24.8 11% 12/13/2009 258,991 0.5 31.4 11% 12/9/2006 291,949 0.5 27.5 10% 12/21/2002 262,934 0.5 30.1 10% 3/19/2006 267,300 0.5 27.9 9% 1/10/2005 269,313 0.5 27.3 9% 3/2/2006 284,878 0.4 23.1 9% 3/31/2006 204,339 0.4 29.3 8% 3/3/2011 188,136 0.3 26.4 8% 11/25/2008 147,231 0.3 29.8 7% 5/5/2005 151,029 0.2 25.5 7% 12/10/2009 140,400 0.2 25.9 7% 2/19/2010 110,684 0.2 27.5 6% 1/7/2008 86,988 0.1 26.5 6% 9/19/2005 94,694 0.1 24.1 5% 2/15/2011 74,925 0.1 28.4 5% 1/23/2010 70,452 0.1 28.4 5% 4/27/2010 66,744 0.1 26.8 4% 12/23/2010 61,612 0.1 27.4 4% 10/13/2009 56,889 0.1 26.7 4% 11/24/2010 50,735 0.1 28.3 3% 2/14/2009 16,365 0.0 29.5 3% 4/1/2012 16,953 0.0 27.4 2% 12/14/2008 14,987 0.0 27.9 2% 10/5/2010 3,669 0.0 30.5 2% 2/18/2006 1,934 0.0 26.0 1% 12/6/2004 779 0.0 27.6 1% 12/18/2008 429 0.0 25.5 0% 3/7/2010 248 0.0 29.0 0% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-10 | Page 2015 LEAD – 90TH PERCENTILE DAILY LOAD - DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL ANALYSIS REGION Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 3/20/2011 29,060,258 24.9 13.7 100% 12/27/2004 31,312,007 22.4 11.4 100% 1/1/2005 22,887,234 20.7 14.5 99% 12/19/2010 22,415,152 17.2 12.3 99% 1/7/2005 23,704,308 16.6 11.2 98% 2/12/2003 26,298,172 16.3 9.9 98% 12/28/2004 22,781,614 16.3 11.4 98% 3/15/2003 23,632,270 16.2 11.0 97% 10/25/2004 12,937,482 15.8 19.5 97% 1/20/2010 15,798,848 14.1 14.3 96% 2/24/2008 14,917,722 13.7 14.7 96% 1/27/2008 17,368,762 13.3 12.3 96% 2/20/2004 16,833,095 13.0 12.4 95% 12/15/2008 15,951,698 12.5 12.5 95% 1/25/2008 18,665,740 12.1 10.4 95% 2/6/2010 15,729,036 11.4 11.6 94% 1/6/2008 13,704,266 11.3 13.2 94% 12/20/2010 14,546,645 11.2 12.3 93% 12/18/2010 14,369,712 11.0 12.3 93% 10/19/2004 14,063,955 10.4 11.8 93% 1/23/2008 10,620,633 10.0 15.1 92% 12/7/2009 14,264,586 9.9 11.1 92% 2/17/2009 13,278,389 9.8 11.9 91% 2/24/2004 13,785,525 9.6 11.2 91% 11/30/2007 13,129,863 9.5 11.6 91% 12/22/2010 12,190,852 9.4 12.3 90% 2/5/2010 11,979,000 8.7 11.6 90% 12/31/2005 13,537,145 8.7 10.2 89% 2/26/2006 12,677,625 8.7 10.9 89% 5/1/2003 13,244,040 8.6 10.5 89% 2/16/2009 9,744,219 8.4 13.8 88% 3/25/2012 10,919,891 8.3 12.1 88% 2/11/2005 11,861,441 8.2 11.1 88% 3/28/2006 12,817,317 8.1 10.2 87% 1/18/2010 9,036,992 8.0 14.2 87% 11/6/2002 9,155,190 7.9 13.8 86% 2/20/2005 12,442,688 7.9 10.1 86% 1/19/2010 8,943,577 7.7 13.8 86% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-11 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 2/3/2008 10,016,045 7.6 12.2 85% 2/19/2005 10,206,811 7.6 11.9 85% 2/11/2003 12,156,135 7.5 9.9 84% 1/4/2008 8,313,372 7.1 13.7 84% 12/12/2009 8,404,272 7.0 13.4 84% 12/15/2002 9,230,222 7.0 12.1 83% 2/18/2005 9,756,024 6.9 11.4 83% 1/21/2012 7,512,682 6.8 14.6 82% 2/9/2005 9,110,565 6.8 11.9 82% 1/28/2008 8,364,151 6.7 12.9 82% 12/29/2010 7,517,626 6.7 14.2 81% 10/14/2009 9,486,034 6.5 11.0 81% 2/29/2004 6,634,305 6.4 15.5 81% 12/21/2010 8,348,384 6.4 12.3 80% 2/27/2010 7,098,103 5.9 13.4 80% 12/12/2011 7,726,019 5.9 12.2 79% 10/6/2010 7,242,584 5.5 12.1 79% 4/4/2006 6,967,943 5.4 12.5 79% 1/2/2004 6,720,802 5.4 12.9 78% 1/8/2005 7,479,474 5.4 11.5 78% 11/8/2002 6,698,336 5.2 12.5 77% 10/15/2004 7,252,323 5.2 11.6 77% 2/23/2003 7,980,165 5.2 10.5 77% 12/18/2007 5,653,928 5.2 14.7 76% 2/17/2005 7,218,537 5.1 11.4 76% 2/21/2005 6,282,137 4.9 12.4 75% 3/17/2012 6,313,983 4.7 12.0 75% 3/23/2011 5,715,041 4.7 13.2 75% 11/26/2008 7,467,163 4.6 9.9 74% 2/22/2005 5,938,403 4.6 12.4 74% 10/31/2003 6,043,495 4.5 12.1 74% 11/20/2011 5,155,535 4.5 14.1 73% 4/12/2010 6,482,727 4.5 11.0 73% 11/4/2008 5,574,369 4.4 12.6 72% 3/21/2005 6,138,728 4.3 11.3 72% 4/13/2012 6,585,692 4.2 10.3 72% 1/22/2010 4,414,439 4.2 15.2 71% 1/21/2010 4,344,942 4.1 15.2 71% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-12 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 11/9/2005 5,533,232 4.1 11.8 70% 12/25/2003 5,245,611 4.1 12.4 70% 2/9/2003 5,690,745 3.9 11.0 70% 10/13/2007 5,927,135 3.9 10.5 69% 10/16/2005 3,685,195 3.9 16.9 69% 12/19/2007 4,220,534 3.9 14.7 68% 3/21/2011 4,486,104 3.9 13.7 68% 2/22/2008 4,216,191 3.8 14.6 68% 4/26/2005 5,030,015 3.7 11.9 67% 12/18/2002 4,210,652 3.7 14.1 67% 12/5/2004 4,949,169 3.7 11.8 67% 10/5/2011 5,321,098 3.6 10.8 66% 10/26/2004 2,854,466 3.5 19.5 66% 11/4/2011 5,106,680 3.5 10.9 65% 1/2/2011 5,753,882 3.5 9.6 65% 12/4/2004 3,884,430 3.4 14.2 65% 11/28/2002 3,341,100 3.4 16.4 64% 4/14/2003 4,548,122 3.4 12.1 64% 10/18/2004 4,587,728 3.4 11.8 63% 4/11/2012 4,446,967 3.4 12.2 63% 2/25/2011 4,769,946 3.3 11.2 63% 2/6/2009 4,867,387 3.3 10.9 62% 12/31/2004 5,506,833 3.3 9.6 62% 11/6/2011 3,030,571 3.3 17.3 61% 12/17/2010 4,248,719 3.3 12.3 61% 1/22/2008 5,130,327 3.2 9.9 61% 2/1/2004 4,141,935 3.1 12.0 60% 4/20/2007 3,776,909 3.1 13.1 60% 12/25/2010 5,010,113 3.1 9.9 60% 1/5/2008 3,533,926 3.0 13.7 59% 1/23/2012 4,308,546 2.9 10.7 59% 1/30/2007 3,318,231 2.8 13.7 58% 10/30/2010 3,807,601 2.8 11.9 58% 2/11/2007 3,515,013 2.8 12.9 58% 2/16/2005 3,923,685 2.8 11.4 57% 1/24/2008 4,227,769 2.7 10.4 57% 12/17/2008 3,607,544 2.7 12.0 56% 2/5/2009 3,865,855 2.6 10.9 56% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-13 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 4/14/2006 2,869,020 2.6 14.6 56% 1/17/2010 2,930,670 2.6 14.2 55% 1/28/2005 3,733,545 2.5 10.9 55% 10/19/2010 3,474,342 2.5 11.6 54% 1/9/2005 3,150,007 2.5 12.7 54% 12/11/2009 2,795,477 2.3 13.4 54% 11/11/2003 2,572,500 2.3 14.4 53% 1/13/2010 2,066,943 2.3 17.6 53% 3/5/2006 2,962,988 2.2 12.2 53% 12/16/2002 2,948,589 2.2 12.1 52% 2/18/2011 2,862,405 2.2 12.3 52% 2/25/2004 3,135,821 2.2 11.2 51% 2/27/2006 3,135,758 2.1 10.9 51% 9/21/2007 2,945,352 2.1 11.6 51% 1/3/2005 2,497,319 2.1 13.5 50% 2/9/2009 2,870,133 2.1 11.6 50% 2/20/2008 2,828,230 2.0 11.6 49% 11/5/2004 2,572,500 2.0 12.5 49% 2/26/2011 2,837,279 2.0 11.2 49% 11/12/2011 2,174,554 2.0 14.6 48% 12/24/2003 2,251,256 1.9 13.8 48% 2/15/2012 2,082,349 1.9 14.9 47% 1/24/2009 2,374,682 1.9 13.0 47% 4/25/2012 2,308,536 1.9 13.2 47% 12/6/2007 2,755,304 1.9 10.8 46% 5/2/2003 2,832,986 1.8 10.5 46% 5/20/2006 2,839,899 1.8 10.3 46% 4/12/2003 2,841,017 1.8 10.1 45% 12/5/2010 2,400,536 1.8 11.8 45% 2/13/2009 1,876,970 1.8 15.0 44% 11/7/2002 1,992,933 1.7 13.8 44% 2/19/2011 2,294,198 1.7 11.8 44% 4/26/2012 1,897,335 1.6 13.2 43% 3/1/2004 1,589,905 1.5 15.5 43% 1/3/2011 1,769,701 1.5 13.8 42% 1/23/2009 2,053,799 1.5 11.9 42% 1/26/2008 2,182,482 1.5 11.0 42% 2/10/2005 1,967,186 1.5 11.9 41% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-14 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 12/25/2006 2,020,322 1.5 11.5 41% 5/18/2011 2,306,463 1.4 9.9 40% 3/26/2006 1,911,518 1.4 11.6 40% 3/13/2003 2,023,658 1.4 10.8 40% 12/3/2004 1,835,372 1.4 11.8 39% 3/25/2011 1,760,492 1.3 12.0 39% 2/9/2010 1,570,402 1.3 13.3 39% 9/22/2007 1,823,679 1.3 11.2 38% 3/24/2011 1,696,950 1.3 12.0 38% 1/26/2010 1,637,395 1.3 12.3 37% 3/26/2012 1,661,845 1.3 12.1 37% 2/22/2007 2,076,926 1.3 9.7 37% 2/24/2003 1,885,761 1.2 10.5 36% 12/20/2002 1,428,401 1.2 13.8 36% 12/23/2003 1,951,005 1.2 10.0 35% 2/20/2010 2,015,114 1.2 9.5 35% 5/22/2006 1,241,330 1.2 15.2 35% 12/27/2006 1,776,634 1.2 10.6 34% 2/17/2004 2,074,455 1.2 8.9 34% 3/17/2005 2,023,658 1.1 8.9 33% 3/1/2006 1,433,024 1.1 12.5 33% 3/30/2006 1,214,504 1.1 14.7 33% 1/13/2006 1,500,212 1.1 11.6 32% 10/16/2004 1,502,745 1.1 11.6 32% 2/17/2006 1,505,022 1.0 11.2 32% 3/27/2006 1,600,858 1.0 10.5 31% 12/5/2007 1,555,742 1.0 10.8 31% 12/22/2008 1,419,467 1.0 11.8 30% 11/29/2002 1,004,502 1.0 16.4 30% 3/31/2012 1,483,027 1.0 11.0 30% 11/8/2010 1,333,938 1.0 12.1 29% 11/3/2003 1,454,949 1.0 10.8 29% 5/17/2011 1,556,834 1.0 9.9 28% 10/20/2010 1,625,021 0.9 9.3 28% 3/2/2011 1,629,468 0.9 9.2 28% 2/10/2003 1,309,194 0.9 11.0 27% 11/23/2010 1,119,060 0.9 12.8 27% 2/21/2008 1,149,453 0.9 12.3 26% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-15 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 12/19/2002 1,003,535 0.9 14.1 26% 3/22/2005 1,255,348 0.9 11.3 26% 12/8/2006 1,284,662 0.9 10.7 25% 4/27/2005 1,149,309 0.9 11.9 25% 2/18/2009 1,143,216 0.8 11.9 25% 3/20/2006 1,046,843 0.8 12.8 24% 2/2/2004 1,090,598 0.8 12.0 24% 4/20/2010 1,001,782 0.8 12.9 23% 3/6/2010 937,382 0.8 13.7 23% 2/19/2007 923,357 0.7 12.9 23% 2/16/2011 876,853 0.7 13.2 22% 2/7/2009 1,006,627 0.7 10.9 22% 11/2/2008 925,436 0.7 11.6 21% 10/24/2010 820,995 0.6 12.4 21% 9/18/2005 999,623 0.6 9.9 21% 4/28/2010 620,033 0.6 15.9 20% 3/18/2012 807,317 0.6 12.0 20% 4/11/2010 878,904 0.6 11.0 19% 5/4/2005 1,047,657 0.6 8.9 19% 10/25/2010 710,814 0.6 12.4 19% 2/20/2011 732,343 0.5 11.8 18% 11/12/2003 583,254 0.5 14.4 18% 12/6/2010 695,012 0.5 11.8 18% 4/11/2003 717,854 0.5 10.8 17% 2/23/2008 504,525 0.5 14.7 17% 11/6/2004 583,254 0.5 12.5 16% 3/6/2006 580,888 0.4 12.2 16% 1/2/2005 514,226 0.4 13.5 16% 10/4/2010 765,371 0.4 9.1 15% 5/21/2006 608,704 0.4 10.4 15% 4/10/2012 519,300 0.4 12.2 14% 12/26/2010 619,485 0.4 9.9 14% 12/26/2006 490,783 0.4 11.5 14% 9/20/2007 405,281 0.3 12.6 13% 1/14/2006 395,045 0.3 11.6 13% 2/18/2004 446,451 0.2 8.9 12% 3/14/2003 361,558 0.2 10.8 12% 10/12/2007 359,673 0.2 10.5 12% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-16 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Lead Pb Load (lb) Pb Conc (ug/L) Pb Load Percentile 12/21/2002 262,934 0.2 13.8 11% 3/2/2006 284,878 0.2 12.5 11% 12/13/2009 258,991 0.2 13.4 11% 3/19/2006 267,300 0.2 12.8 10% 1/10/2005 269,313 0.2 12.7 10% 3/18/2005 361,558 0.2 8.9 9% 4/13/2003 312,847 0.2 10.1 9% 12/9/2006 291,949 0.2 10.7 9% 3/31/2006 204,339 0.2 14.7 8% 12/10/2009 140,400 0.1 13.4 8% 3/3/2011 188,136 0.1 9.2 7% 11/25/2008 147,231 0.1 9.9 7% 5/5/2005 151,029 0.1 8.9 7% 1/7/2008 86,988 0.1 13.2 6% 1/23/2010 70,452 0.1 15.2 6% 4/27/2010 66,744 0.1 15.9 5% 2/19/2010 110,684 0.1 9.5 5% 2/15/2011 74,925 0.1 13.2 5% 9/19/2005 94,694 0.1 9.9 4% 12/23/2010 61,612 0.0 12.3 4% 11/24/2010 50,735 0.0 12.8 4% 10/13/2009 56,889 0.0 11.0 3% 2/14/2009 16,365 0.0 15.0 3% 12/14/2008 14,987 0.0 12.5 2% 4/1/2012 16,953 0.0 11.0 2% 10/5/2010 3,669 0.0 12.1 2% 2/18/2006 1,934 0.0 11.2 1% 12/6/2004 779 0.0 9.8 1% 12/18/2008 429 0.0 12.0 0% 3/7/2010 248 0.0 13.7 0% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-17 | Page 2015 ZINC – 90TH PERCENTILE DAILY LOAD - DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL ANALYSIS REGION Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 12/27/2004 31,312,007 618.6 316.5 100% 3/20/2011 29,060,258 583.6 321.7 100% 2/12/2003 26,298,172 489.6 298.2 99% 1/7/2005 23,704,308 477.5 322.7 99% 12/19/2010 22,415,152 471.6 337.0 98% 12/28/2004 22,781,614 450.1 316.5 98% 3/15/2003 23,632,270 416.3 282.2 98% 1/1/2005 22,887,234 373.7 261.5 97% 1/27/2008 17,368,762 334.6 308.6 97% 2/20/2004 16,833,095 331.2 315.2 96% 1/25/2008 18,665,740 321.0 275.5 96% 12/20/2010 14,546,645 306.0 337.0 96% 12/18/2010 14,369,712 302.3 337.0 95% 12/15/2008 15,951,698 292.3 293.5 95% 2/6/2010 15,729,036 286.8 292.1 95% 12/31/2005 13,537,145 279.1 330.2 94% 12/7/2009 14,264,586 278.9 313.2 94% 1/20/2010 15,798,848 278.6 282.5 93% 10/19/2004 14,063,955 275.4 313.6 93% 12/22/2010 12,190,852 256.5 337.0 93% 5/1/2003 13,244,040 256.2 309.9 92% 2/24/2008 14,917,722 254.5 273.3 92% 2/17/2009 13,278,389 252.3 304.3 91% 1/6/2008 13,704,266 241.8 282.7 91% 2/20/2005 12,442,688 237.8 306.2 91% 2/11/2005 11,861,441 230.4 311.2 90% 2/26/2006 12,677,625 229.7 290.2 90% 2/11/2003 12,156,135 226.3 298.2 89% 2/24/2004 13,785,525 225.8 262.4 89% 10/25/2004 12,937,482 224.5 278.0 89% 11/30/2007 13,129,863 218.6 266.6 88% 2/5/2010 11,979,000 218.4 292.1 88% 3/25/2012 10,919,891 216.7 317.9 88% 3/28/2006 12,817,317 204.7 255.9 87% 1/23/2008 10,620,633 199.6 301.0 87% 2/16/2009 9,744,219 197.5 324.7 86% 2/19/2005 10,206,811 197.2 309.5 86% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-18 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 12/15/2002 9,230,222 193.7 336.1 86% 2/3/2008 10,016,045 178.1 284.8 85% 12/21/2010 8,348,384 175.6 337.0 85% 1/18/2010 9,036,992 173.1 306.8 84% 2/9/2005 9,110,565 170.1 299.2 84% 1/19/2010 8,943,577 169.8 304.1 84% 11/6/2002 9,155,190 167.2 292.5 83% 1/4/2008 8,313,372 166.7 321.2 83% 2/23/2003 7,980,165 165.3 331.9 82% 2/18/2005 9,756,024 160.7 263.9 82% 10/14/2009 9,486,034 160.6 271.1 82% 12/12/2009 8,404,272 153.5 292.5 81% 12/12/2011 7,726,019 152.3 315.9 81% 1/28/2008 8,364,151 149.1 285.5 81% 1/8/2005 7,479,474 148.2 317.4 80% 2/27/2010 7,098,103 142.9 322.4 80% 11/26/2008 7,467,163 134.9 289.3 79% 10/15/2004 7,252,323 133.1 293.9 79% 1/2/2004 6,720,802 132.8 316.6 79% 4/13/2012 6,585,692 130.4 317.1 78% 1/21/2012 7,512,682 128.5 273.9 78% 10/6/2010 7,242,584 126.6 279.9 77% 12/29/2010 7,517,626 123.6 263.4 77% 11/9/2005 5,533,232 123.3 357.0 77% 3/17/2012 6,313,983 121.5 308.3 76% 10/13/2007 5,927,135 120.9 326.7 76% 2/29/2004 6,634,305 120.7 291.4 75% 4/12/2010 6,482,727 120.3 297.2 75% 2/17/2005 7,218,537 118.9 263.8 75% 3/21/2005 6,138,728 116.9 305.1 74% 11/8/2002 6,698,336 115.4 276.0 74% 11/4/2008 5,574,369 113.8 327.0 74% 12/18/2007 5,653,928 112.3 318.2 73% 4/4/2006 6,967,943 111.8 257.0 73% 12/31/2004 5,506,833 109.8 319.3 72% 2/21/2005 6,282,137 107.6 274.4 72% 1/2/2011 5,753,882 105.8 294.5 72% 3/23/2011 5,715,041 102.6 287.7 71% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-19 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 2/22/2005 5,938,403 101.7 274.4 71% 10/5/2011 5,321,098 99.9 300.7 70% 2/9/2003 5,690,745 99.2 279.2 70% 10/31/2003 6,043,495 99.0 262.4 70% 12/5/2004 4,949,169 96.7 313.1 69% 12/25/2003 5,245,611 95.7 292.3 69% 2/6/2009 4,867,387 92.2 303.6 68% 1/22/2008 5,130,327 92.2 287.8 68% 11/20/2011 5,155,535 90.2 280.4 68% 3/21/2011 4,486,104 90.1 321.7 67% 10/18/2004 4,587,728 89.8 313.6 67% 11/4/2011 5,106,680 89.6 281.2 67% 12/17/2010 4,248,719 89.4 337.0 66% 4/11/2012 4,446,967 88.4 318.4 66% 1/22/2010 4,414,439 87.8 318.4 65% 2/25/2011 4,769,946 87.1 292.5 65% 12/25/2010 5,010,113 86.8 277.5 65% 2/22/2008 4,216,191 86.7 329.6 64% 4/26/2005 5,030,015 86.4 275.2 64% 1/21/2010 4,344,942 86.4 318.4 63% 4/14/2003 4,548,122 84.8 298.7 63% 12/19/2007 4,220,534 83.8 318.2 63% 1/23/2012 4,308,546 82.3 305.9 62% 10/16/2005 3,685,195 80.5 349.9 62% 12/18/2002 4,210,652 75.8 288.3 61% 10/19/2010 3,474,342 74.6 343.7 61% 2/5/2009 3,865,855 73.3 303.6 61% 1/24/2008 4,227,769 72.7 275.5 60% 12/4/2004 3,884,430 72.1 297.1 60% 1/5/2008 3,533,926 70.9 321.2 60% 1/28/2005 3,733,545 69.9 300.1 59% 2/11/2007 3,515,013 69.9 318.7 59% 4/20/2007 3,776,909 68.4 290.1 58% 12/17/2008 3,607,544 66.2 294.0 58% 1/30/2007 3,318,231 66.1 318.9 58% 10/30/2010 3,807,601 65.2 274.2 57% 2/16/2005 3,923,685 64.6 263.8 57% 11/28/2002 3,341,100 63.5 304.6 56% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-20 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 2/1/2004 4,141,935 62.9 243.2 56% 12/16/2002 2,948,589 61.9 336.1 56% 9/21/2007 2,945,352 60.1 327.1 55% 11/6/2011 3,030,571 59.4 313.8 55% 1/9/2005 3,150,007 58.0 295.1 54% 2/27/2006 3,135,758 56.8 290.2 54% 1/17/2010 2,930,670 56.1 306.8 54% 5/2/2003 2,832,986 54.8 309.9 53% 5/20/2006 2,839,899 53.7 303.1 53% 2/9/2009 2,870,133 52.9 295.4 53% 12/6/2007 2,755,304 52.3 303.8 52% 2/26/2011 2,837,279 51.8 292.5 52% 3/5/2006 2,962,988 51.7 279.5 51% 2/25/2004 3,135,821 51.4 262.4 51% 2/18/2011 2,862,405 51.3 287.0 51% 11/5/2004 2,572,500 51.0 317.9 50% 4/14/2006 2,869,020 50.4 281.6 50% 2/20/2008 2,828,230 50.3 285.1 49% 4/12/2003 2,841,017 49.9 281.1 49% 12/11/2009 2,795,477 49.8 285.1 49% 10/26/2004 2,854,466 49.5 278.0 48% 1/3/2005 2,497,319 48.8 313.1 48% 1/26/2008 2,182,482 48.8 357.9 47% 12/5/2010 2,400,536 48.3 322.4 47% 2/19/2011 2,294,198 47.6 332.1 47% 11/11/2003 2,572,500 45.6 283.7 46% 4/25/2012 2,308,536 44.3 307.4 46% 1/13/2010 2,066,943 44.0 341.4 46% 5/18/2011 2,306,463 43.9 305.1 45% 1/23/2009 2,053,799 43.5 339.6 45% 12/24/2003 2,251,256 42.0 299.0 44% 1/24/2009 2,374,682 41.3 278.7 44% 11/12/2011 2,174,554 41.3 304.2 44% 3/26/2006 1,911,518 39.3 329.3 43% 2/24/2003 1,885,761 39.1 331.9 43% 2/20/2010 2,015,114 39.0 310.2 42% 3/17/2005 2,023,658 38.6 305.6 42% 9/22/2007 1,823,679 37.5 329.5 42% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-21 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 12/25/2006 2,020,322 36.9 292.5 41% 3/13/2003 2,023,658 36.9 292.0 41% 2/10/2005 1,967,186 36.7 299.2 40% 4/26/2012 1,897,335 36.4 307.4 40% 11/7/2002 1,992,933 36.4 292.5 40% 2/22/2007 2,076,926 36.2 279.3 39% 2/17/2004 2,074,455 36.0 277.7 39% 12/3/2004 1,835,372 35.5 309.8 39% 2/15/2012 2,082,349 34.9 268.5 38% 3/25/2011 1,760,492 34.8 316.5 38% 12/23/2003 1,951,005 34.6 284.4 37% 12/27/2006 1,776,634 33.7 304.3 37% 3/24/2011 1,696,950 33.5 316.5 37% 2/13/2009 1,876,970 33.0 281.6 36% 3/26/2012 1,661,845 33.0 317.9 36% 1/3/2011 1,769,701 33.0 298.3 35% 1/26/2010 1,637,395 32.6 318.5 35% 3/2/2011 1,629,468 32.3 317.5 35% 3/1/2006 1,433,024 30.7 342.7 34% 5/17/2011 1,556,834 29.7 305.1 34% 10/20/2010 1,625,021 29.6 291.6 33% 12/5/2007 1,555,742 29.5 303.8 33% 3/1/2004 1,589,905 28.9 291.4 33% 11/3/2003 1,454,949 28.9 317.8 32% 2/17/2006 1,505,022 28.2 299.6 32% 10/16/2004 1,502,745 27.6 293.9 32% 3/27/2006 1,600,858 27.2 272.4 31% 2/9/2010 1,570,402 26.8 273.4 31% 1/13/2006 1,500,212 26.4 281.6 30% 3/31/2012 1,483,027 25.1 270.8 30% 3/30/2006 1,214,504 24.5 323.1 30% 12/20/2002 1,428,401 24.2 270.9 29% 3/22/2005 1,255,348 23.9 305.1 29% 2/21/2008 1,149,453 23.7 330.9 28% 12/22/2008 1,419,467 23.6 266.6 28% 12/8/2006 1,284,662 23.6 293.9 28% 11/8/2010 1,333,938 23.0 276.2 27% 2/10/2003 1,309,194 22.8 279.2 27% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-22 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 9/18/2005 999,623 22.1 353.4 26% 5/4/2005 1,047,657 22.0 337.1 26% 2/18/2009 1,143,216 21.7 304.3 26% 5/22/2006 1,241,330 21.6 278.6 25% 4/20/2010 1,001,782 21.0 335.3 25% 3/6/2010 937,382 20.5 350.3 25% 4/27/2005 1,149,309 19.7 275.2 24% 11/29/2002 1,004,502 19.1 304.6 24% 2/7/2009 1,006,627 19.1 303.6 23% 11/23/2010 1,119,060 18.9 270.4 23% 3/20/2006 1,046,843 18.7 286.8 23% 12/19/2002 1,003,535 18.1 288.3 22% 2/16/2011 876,853 18.0 329.1 22% 2/19/2007 923,357 17.1 297.0 21% 2/2/2004 1,090,598 16.6 243.2 21% 11/2/2008 925,436 16.5 284.8 21% 4/11/2010 878,904 16.3 297.2 20% 3/18/2012 807,317 15.5 308.3 20% 2/20/2011 732,343 15.2 333.2 19% 10/4/2010 765,371 14.1 294.5 19% 12/6/2010 695,012 14.0 322.4 19% 10/24/2010 820,995 13.9 271.9 18% 4/11/2003 717,854 13.8 307.8 18% 4/28/2010 620,033 12.3 317.1 18% 10/25/2010 710,814 12.1 271.9 17% 11/6/2004 583,254 11.6 317.9 17% 5/21/2006 608,704 11.5 302.7 16% 12/26/2010 619,485 10.7 277.5 16% 11/12/2003 583,254 10.3 283.7 16% 4/10/2012 519,300 10.3 318.4 15% 3/6/2006 580,888 10.1 279.5 15% 1/2/2005 514,226 10.1 313.1 14% 12/26/2006 490,783 9.0 292.5 14% 2/23/2008 504,525 8.6 273.3 14% 9/20/2007 405,281 8.1 320.8 13% 2/18/2004 446,451 7.7 277.7 13% 10/12/2007 359,673 7.3 326.7 12% 1/14/2006 395,045 6.9 281.6 12% DRAFT Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix Q | Selection of Critical Condition Year/Days for WBPCs Q-23 | Page 2015 Date Inflow (cubic feet) Zinc Zn Load (lb) Zn Conc (ug/L) Zn Load Percentile 3/18/2005 361,558 6.9 305.6 12% 3/14/2003 361,558 6.6 292.0 11% 3/2/2006 284,878 6.1 342.7 11% 4/13/2003 312,847 5.5 280.5 11% 12/9/2006 291,949 5.4 293.9 10% 1/10/2005 269,313 5.0 295.1 10% 3/19/2006 267,300 4.8 286.8 9% 12/13/2009 258,991 4.7 292.5 9% 12/21/2002 262,934 4.4 270.9 9% 3/31/2006 204,339 4.1 323.1 8% 3/3/2011 188,136 3.7 317.5 8% 5/5/2005 151,029 3.2 337.1 7% 11/25/2008 147,231 2.7 289.3 7% 12/10/2009 140,400 2.5 285.1 7% 2/19/2010 110,684 2.1 310.2 6% 9/19/2005 94,694 2.1 353.4 6% 2/15/2011 74,925 1.5 329.1 5% 1/7/2008 86,988 1.5 282.7 5% 1/23/2010 70,452 1.4 318.4 5% 4/27/2010 66,744 1.3 317.1 4% 12/23/2010 61,612 1.3 337.0 4% 10/13/2009 56,889 1.0 271.1 4% 11/24/2010 50,735 0.9 270.4 3% 2/14/2009 16,365 0.3 281.6 3% 4/1/2012 16,953 0.3 270.8 2% 12/14/2008 14,987 0.3 293.5 2% 10/5/2010 3,669 0.1 279.9 2% 2/18/2006 1,934 0.0 299.6 1% 12/6/2004 779 0.0 326.3 1% 12/18/2008 429 0.0 294.0 0% 3/7/2010 248 0.0 350.3 0% 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE BEACH CITIES ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND ADOPTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT’S PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PEIR) FOR EWMP AND THE CORRESPONDING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1. In December 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4‐2012‐0175; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit No. CAS004001) covering discharges within coastal watersheds from the collective storm sewer systems in Los Angeles County (except from the City of Long Beach) (“MS4 Permit” or “Permit”). The Permit regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff to waters of the United States from facilities owned and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD or District), the County of Los Angeles, and 84 incorporated cities within Los Angeles County (collectively referred to as Permittees). The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to achieve and maintain water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the Los Angeles region. Each of the Permittees identified in the MS4 permit is responsible for meeting the conditions of the permit for MS4 discharges occurring within their jurisdiction. 2. The MS4 Permit gives Permittees the option of implementing an innovative approach to permit compliance through development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). An EWMP is a Watershed Management Plan that comprehensively evaluates 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. Where such retention is not feasible, EWMPs must include other watershed control measures to ensure that the MS4 disharges achieve compliance with water quality standards and do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations. 2 3. The LACFCD, along with the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance, have opted to exercise this EWMP compliance option for the Santa Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake Watersheds. 4. The City submitted its Notice of Intent to develop an EWMP on June 28, 2013 and submitted its EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014. 5. The LACFCD and participating cities have been working collaboratively to create an EWMP for the Santa Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake Watersheds. 6. The Watershed Group conducted public outreach to engage the public and other interested parties to support the EWMP development. Comments received from the community have been incorporated as appropriate. 7. The MS4 Permit requires that Permittees submit the EWMP to the LARWQCB for review by June 29, 2015. SECTION 2. CEQA 1. The LACFCD, as a regional agency, is a member of each of the 12 EWMP working groups in the region. Thus, the LACFCD prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide the public and the responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with implementation of the EWMPs. The LACFCD is the Lead Agency for the PEIR. 2. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published by the LACFCD on August 29, 2014. The NOP was circulated to federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other interested parties, for a period of 30 days. The NOP was made available in print and electronic form, and the LACFCD accepted comments on the NOP for a 30-day period, closing on September 29, 2014. In addition, an email notification regarding the availability of the NOP was sent to over 700 interested EWMP stakeholders. The initial 30-day comment period was extended an additional 30 days to October 29, 2014, to provide greater opportunity for public comment on the NOP. 3. The LACFCD held three public Scoping Meetings on September 9, 10, and 15 of 2014 to receive comments on the NOP. 4. The Draft PEIR for the proposed project was initially circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on January 21, 2015 and ending on March 9, 2015. Per an announcement via e- 3 mail on March 6, the comment period was extended through March 16, 2015. The Final PEIR includes written responses to the 46 comment letters received. 5. LACFCD held six community meetings throughout the region on January 29 and February 3, 5, 10, 11 and 17, 2015 to discuss the Draft PEIR analysis and alternatives. 6. On May 26, 2015, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors certified the Program Environmental Impact Report for the EWMPS, made findings of fact, adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The LACFCD PEIR studied the environmental impacts of adoption of all 12 EWMPs throughout the region. 7. The City is a Responsible Agency that will be implementing one of the twelve EWMPs analyzed in the PEIR. The City intends to rely on the environmental analysis contained therein to understand the environmental impacts that could be associated with the EWMP at a program level before submittal of the EWMP to the LARWQCB for review, comment and approval. 8. The PEIR evaluates the major environmental effects of implementing proposed EWMP projects from a broad perspective; this evaluation is a program-level analysis. At this stage, the Permittees are developing the conceptual plans certain EWMP projects and other activities that would provide reasonable assurances of meeting the permit requirements. Comprehensive project design, construction and operation details (and in some cases even project location) are not the focus of the EWMPs or the PEIR. Instead, the PEIR frames the nature and magnitude of the expected environmental impacts associated with these proposed EWMP projects and identifies program mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the projects as proposed. More detailed project-level analyses of individual EWMP projects may be conducted separately as required by CEQA. The PEIR can be used by the LACFCD or other permittees to streamline environmental review of individual EWMP projects. The implementing agency may determine that a more detailed, project-level analysis is required, or may determine some projects to be exempt from CEQA. For non-exempt projects, project-level CEQA review will be conducted. The separate environmental review of individual projects will evaluate site-specific impacts as required under CEQA. 9. The findings made in this resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the PEIR and the administrative record of the PEIR proceedings, and upon other substantial evidence 4 that has been presented at all public meetings regarding the City's proposed EWMP and in the record of the EWMP proceedings. 10. The City Council, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the PEIR and its record of proceedings prior to deciding whether to adopt the facts and analysis in the PEIR. 11. The PEIR, SCH #2014081106, is available at www.LACoH2Osheds.com and in the Hermosa Beach City Clerk’s Office and is incorporated herein by reference. The record of proceedings of the City’s use of the PEIR is available in the City Clerk’s Office at the Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, 90254. The record of proceedings regarding LACFCD’s certification of the PEIR is available at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 900 south Fremont Avenue, 11th Floor, Alhambra, CA 91803, during normal business hours. 12. The PEIR determined that the EWMP could result in some environmental impacts that, although mitigated to the extent feasible, would remain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. A full discussion of the impacts is contained in the Findings of Fact in Support of Findings Related to Significant Environmental Impacts for Enhanced Watershed Management Programs, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council understands that the PEIR analysis is conservative in nature by having to assess such a wide range of geographic areas and conceptual EWMP projects. Nevertheless, the PEIR found that EWMP could potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (Impact 3.2-2 air quality violations from construction and 3.2-3 cumulatively considerable increase when projects combined with other foreseeable projects), Cultural Resources (3.4-1 potential adverse change to historic or archaeological resources from projects and cumulative impact when projects combined with other foreseeable projects) and Noise (3.10.1 and 3.10-4 construction noise and cumulative construction noise). At this program-level stage, the City has not found any additional feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measure within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid these significant impacts the EWMP may have on the environment. As noted above, more detailed project-level analyses of individual EWMP projects may be conducted separately as required by CEQA. 13. The PEIR also found that if Responsible Agencies did not implement recommended mitigation measures to reduce certain impacts to less-than-significant levels, the EWMPS could result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural 5 Resources, Geologic and Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems. Since the City will implement the recommended Mitigation Measures proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, as set forth in the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, the City like LACFCD finds that these impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Thus, feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts. 14. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council declares that the City of Hermosa Beach has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the City's proposed EWMP against its unavoidable environmental risks, as set forth in the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) attached hereto and incorporate herein by reference. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." The [INSERT WATERSHED NAME] EWMP may potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Air Quality, Cultural Resources and Noise. The City Council finds that the EWMP’s benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and finds that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. 15. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts the facts and analysis in the PEIR, and adopts the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A), Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) and MMRP (Exhibit C) with the following additional findings: a. All mitigation measures included in the PEIR and MMRP are feasible. b. While the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the proposed program itself, the City Council finds that to the extent that the other proposed alternatives do not meet project objectives, those alternatives are infeasible. c. By implementing the MMRP, there will be no additional significant and unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geologic and Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and 6 Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems. Thus, the SOC only applies to the significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources and Noise. d. In addition to the benefits listed in the SOC, the City Council also finds that EWMP will prevent polluted stormwater runoff from reaching the Santa Monica Bay and other local receiving waters, includingDominguez Channel, and Machado Lake watershed areas. California beaches are a precious natural and economic resource. Poor water quality not only threatens the health of aquatic life, swimmers, and beachgoers but also hurts California’s ocean-dependent economy valued at $43 billion. Each year between 150 million and nearly 400 million visits are made to California beaches. The primary goal of the EWMP is to improve beach water quality and improve the environment generally, which protects against health and economic harms and that is a primary benefit of the EWMP. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the EWMP and directs the City Manager, or designee, to submit the EWMP to the LARWQB for review and approval, and to submit revisions to the plan as necessary following review by the LARWQCB. LA County Flood Control District 1 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Exhibit A FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 for Enhanced Watershed Management Programs Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2014081106 Lead Agency: Los Angeles County Flood Control District 1.0 Introduction The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) for the Enhanced Watershed Management Program, as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The Final Program EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at the Department of Public Works, 900 south Fremont Avenue, 11th Floor, Alhambra, CA 91803, during normal business hours, and is also available on the District’s website www.LACoH2Osheds.com. In December 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4‐2012‐0175; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit No. CAS004001) covering discharges within coastal watersheds from the collective storm sewer systems in Los Angeles County (except from the City of Long Beach). The Permit regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff to waters of the United States from facilities owned and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD or District), the County of Los Angeles, and 84 incorporated cities within Los Angeles County (collectively referred to as Permittees). The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to achieve and maintain water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the Los Angeles region. Each of the Permittees identified in the MS4 permit is responsible for meeting the conditions of the permit for MS4 discharges occurring within their jurisdiction. The MS4 Permit gives Permittees the option of implementing an innovative approach to permit compliance through development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). The EWMPs will identify potential and priority structural and non-structural Best Management Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 2 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Practices (BMPs) within the region’s stormwater collection system to improve runoff water quality. The LACFCD, along with participating Permittees, has opted to exercise this option and has submitted to the LARWQCB 12 separate Notices of Intent (NOIs) for the development of EWMPs within 12 distinct watershed groups. Implementation of the EMWPs would be the responsibility of each Permittee and would occur following approval of the EWMPs by the LARWQCB. The LACFCD, as a regional agency, is a member of each of the 12 EWMP working groups, and as such provides a commonality within each EWMP group. However, LACFCD does not have a special status or authority designated by the MS4 Permit over any of the other Permittees. The LACFCD will be working with the applicable Permittees in all 12 EWMP watersheds as an equal partner to identify the types and locations of BMPs needed to achieve permit compliance within each watershed. The timeline identified in the MS4 Permit requires that Permittees submit the EWMP to the LARWQCB by June 28, 2015, in order to be in compliance with the permit conditions. The LACFCD recognizes that implementation of the EWMPs may potentially result in changes to environmental conditions. As a result, the LACFCD has prepared this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide the public and the responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with implementation of the EWMPs. The LACFCD will submit the PEIR to its governing body, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, for approval prior to submittal of the EWMPs. The EWMPs will be submitted by each EWMP group to the LARWQCB. The LACFCD issued a notice of preparation of a Draft Program EIR on July 27, 2012. The notice of preparation stated that the Draft Program EIR would contain a comprehensive analysis of environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. With respect to all impacts identified as “less than significant” or as having “no impact” in the Final Program EIR, the District finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant or have no impact. In addition, some impacts in the Final Program EIR were found to be potentially “significant” but are able to be mitigated to less-than- significant levels, and others were found to be “significant and unavoidable.” The District finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant with the implementation of mitigation or are significant and unavoidable. The District further finds that the application of mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR would be the responsibility of each agency implementing projects identified in the program (implementing agencies). The District finds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are reasonable and readily implementable under foreseeable circumstances, such that it is reasonably assumed that implementing agencies can and should adopt and implement them for their projects. The conclusions of significance for each impact in the Final Program EIR therefore assume that mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR would be applied as described therein. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 3 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact The District has adopted the mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR, and will implement those measures for projects it implements under the Program. However, as explained more fully in Section 5.0, because the District will not be the implementing agency for all projects being implemented as part of the proposed program, the District cannot state with certainty that all impacts capable of being mitigated to less-than-significant levels will in fact be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the District finds that as to projects where the District will not be an implementing agency, the impacts described in the Program EIR as being potentially "significant" but capable of being mitigated to less-than-significant levels must be found to be "significant and unavoidable." 2.0 Project Description The 12 EWMPs will vary for each watershed group, but will generally provide the opportunity for Permittees to customize their stormwater programs to achieve compliance with applicable receiving water limitations (RWLs) and water-quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in accordance with the MS4 Permit through implementation of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) or watershed control measures. BMPs vary in function and type, with each BMP providing unique design characteristics and benefits from implementation. The overarching goal of BMPs in the EWMP is to reduce the impact of stormwater and non-stormwater on receiving water quality and address the water quality priorities as defined by the MS4 Permit. The development of each EWMP will involve the evaluation and selection of multiple BMP types, including nonstructural (institutional) and distributed, centralized, and regional structural watershed control measures, that will be implemented to meet compliance goals and strategies under the 2012 MS4 Permit. The LACFCD has limited jurisdictional authority for ordinance and code enactment or enforcement and therefore is limited in nonstructural BMPs to education and outreach measures. The structural watershed control measures that will be implemented by the LACFCD will be multi-benefit stormwater projects that emphasize flood risk mitigation and water conservation and supply. The LACFCD has a vested interest in increasing opportunities for stormwater capture and groundwater recharge as a means of assisting local water supply augmentation. The LACFCD will be working with the applicable Permittees and other stakeholders in all 12 EWMP watersheds to develop such projects. The EWMPs will be implemented by the Permittees that have jurisdiction within each EWMP area. The implementing agencies will be responsible for the contents of the EWMPs affecting their jurisdictions and for implementing the projects developed by the EWMPs. Structural control measures are constructed BMPs that reduce the impact of stormwater and non- stormwater on receiving water quality. They are broken into three categories:  Distributed Structural BMPs, which treat runoff close to the source and are typically implemented at a single- or few-parcel level (e.g., facilities typically serving a contributing area less than one acre). Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 4 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact  Centralized Structural BMPs, which treat runoff from a contributing area of multiple parcels (e.g., facilities typically serving a contributing area on the order of tens or hundreds of acres or larger).  Regional Structural BMPs, which are meant to retain the 85th percentile storm over 24 hours from a contributing area. Generally, the 85th percentile storm is approximately 0.75 inches over 24 hours Whether distributed, centralized, or regional, the major structural BMP functions are infiltration, treatment, and storage, which may be used individually or combination:  Infiltration, where runoff is directed to percolate into the underlying soils. Infiltration generally reduces the volume of runoff and increases groundwater recharge.  Treatment, where pollutants are removed through various unit processes, including filtration, settling, sedimentation, sorption, straining, and biological or chemical transformations.  Storage, where runoff is captured, stored (detained), and slowly released into downstream waters. Storage can reduce the peak flow rate from a site, but does not directly reduce runoff volume. The types of structural BMPs to be implemented will vary between EWMPs, but most EMWPs will include a variety of distributed, centralized, and regional BMPs. Non-structural BMPs are policies, actions, and activities which are intended to minimize or eliminate pollutant sources. Most institutional BMPs are implemented to meet Minimum Control Measure (MCM) requirements in the MS4 permit; MCMs are considered a subset of institutional BMPs. These BMPs are not constructed, but may have costs associated with the procurement and installation of items such as signage or spill response kits. 3.0 CEQA Review and Public Participation A Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study (SCH No. 2014081106) was circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning on August 29, 2014. Twenty (20) individual written comment letters were received and used in the preparation of the Draft PEIR. The Draft PEIR for the proposed project was initially circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on January 21, 2015 and ending on March 9, 2015. Per an announcement via e-mail blast on March 6, the comment period was extended through March 16, 2015 at 5PM. A total of 46 individual written comment letters were received on the Draft PEIR. Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons and agencies that reviewed the Draft PEIR and prepare a written response addressing each of the comments received. The response to comments Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 5 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact is contained in this document—Volume 3, Chapter 12 of the Final PEIR. Volumes 1 through 3 together constitute the Final PEIR. A list of agencies and interested parties who have commented on the Draft PEIR is provided below. A copy of each numbered comment letter and a lettered response to each comment are provided in Chapter 12, Response to Comments, of this Final PEIR. LACFCD held 6 community meetings on January 29 and February 3, 5, 10, 11 and 17, 2015 to discuss the Draft PEIR analysis and alternatives. The six public meetings that took place at 6PM each night listed are as follows:  Public Meeting 1 (Florence-Firestone Service Center – January 29, 2015)  Public Meeting 2 (LA County Fire Camp – February 3, 2015)  Public Meeting 3 (San Pedro Service Center – February 5, 2015)  Public Meeting 4 (Topanga Library – February 10, 2015)  Public Meeting 5 (Hacienda Heights Community Center – February 11, 2015)  Public Meeting 6 (East Los Angeles Library – February 17, 2015) 4.0 No Environmental Impacts 4.1 Structural BMPs 4.1.1 Aesthetics The proposed program would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Impact 3.1-4). Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 4.1.2 Air Quality The proposed program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Impact 3.2-1). Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the AQMP prepared by SCAQMD and SCAG. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 6 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 4.1.3 Biological Resources The proposed program would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Impact 3.3-4) The proposed program would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (Impact 3.3-6) Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to the interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the impediment of the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.1.4 Cultural Resources The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to cultural resources that would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts unmitigated. 4.1.5 Geologic and Mineral Resources The proposed program would not locate new facilities in areas susceptible to seismic impacts such as (1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, (2) strong seismic groundshaking, or (3) seismically induced liquefaction or landslides, which could expose people, structures, or habitat to potential risk of loss, damage, injury, or death (Impact 3.5-1). The proposed program would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Impact 3.5-2). The proposed program would not be located on expansive soil as defined in 24 CCR 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks to life or structures. (Impact 3.5- 4). The proposed program would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of a septic tank or alternative wastewater treatment systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Impact 3.5-5). The proposed program would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or a locally important mineral Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 7 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan (Impact 3.5-6). Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to location of new facilities in areas susceptible to seismic impacts of various kinds. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to location on expansive soil. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to having soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tank or alternative wastewater treatment systems. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan. 4.1.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed program would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Impact 3.6-1). The proposed program would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (Impact 3.6-2). The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to GHGs. Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to generation of GHG emissions. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts to GHGs. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 8 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 4.1.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed program would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or the accidental release during construction and maintenance activities (Impact 3-7.1). The proposed program would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school (Impact 3.7-3). The proposed program would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Impact 3.7-6). The proposed program would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands (Impact 3.7-7). Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or accidental release during construction and maintenance activities. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the implementation of an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 4.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed program would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or further degrade water quality (Impact 3.8-1). The proposed program would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (Impact 3.8-3). The proposed program would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or, by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site (Impact 3.8-4). Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 9 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact The proposed program would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Impact 3.8-5). The proposed program would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map (Impact 3.8-6). The proposed program would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows (Impact 3.8-7). The proposed program would not expose structures to a significant risk of loss, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Impact 3.8-8). The proposed program would not place structures in areas subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (Impact 3.8-9). The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to hydrology and water quality. Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of a site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. In response to comment received on the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 has been added to ensure that Impact 3.8-3 and Impact 3.8-4 remain less than significant. The modification does not identify any new significant impact or trigger the need to recirculate the Draft PEIR under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. HYDRO-4: Prior to approving a structural BMP, the implementing agencies shall conduct an evaluation of the potential hydromodification impacts of the project. The evaluation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent or minimize any identified impacts, including flooding, erosion and/or scour. Design measures could include velocity dissipaters and bank re-enforcement components. Implementing agencies shall include these measures in project designs. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of a site which would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the creation or contribution to runoff water. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 10 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exposure of structures to a significant risk of loss, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to placement of structures in areas subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality. 4.1.9 Land Use and Agriculture The proposed program would not physically divide an established community (Impact 3.9-1). The proposed program would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the program (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Impact 3.9-2). The proposed program would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (Impact 3.9-3). The proposed program would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The proposed program would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Impact 3.9-4) The proposed program would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract (Impact 3.9-5). The proposed program would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). The proposed program would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (Impact 3.9-6). The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to land use and agriculture. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 11 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the physical division of an established community. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the program adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, or conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with existing zoning for forest land or timberland, or the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts to land use and agriculture. 4.1.10 Noise The proposed program would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration (Impact 3.10-2). For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, implementation of the proposed program would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels (Impact 3.10-5) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, the proposed program would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (Impact 3.10-6). Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 12 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to projects located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to projects located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. 4.1.11 Population and Housing and Environmental Justice Implementation of the proposed program would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (Impact 3.11-1). Implementation of the proposed program would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Impact 3.11-2). Implementation of the proposed program would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitation the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Impact 3.11-3). Implementation of the proposed program would not affect the health or environment of minority or low income populations disproportionately (Impact 3.11-4). The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to population and housing and environmental justice. Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to introduction of substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to displacement of substantial numbers of people. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to impacting the health or environment of minority or low income populations disproportionately. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 13 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts to population and housing and environmental justice. 4.1.12 Public Services and Recreation The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services (Impact 3.12-2). The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools (Impact 3.12-3). The proposed program would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Impact 3.12-4). The proposed program would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (Impact 3.12-5). The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to public services and recreation. Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered governmental police protection facilities. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered schools. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would not result significant cumulative impact to public services and recreation. However, Mitigation Measure PS-1 has been included to ensure that cumulative impacts remain less than significant. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 14 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact PS-1: The Permittee implementing the EWMP project shall provide reasonable advance notification to service providers such as fire, police, and emergency medical services as well as to local businesses, homeowners, and other residents adjacent to and within areas potentially affected by the proposed EWMP project about the nature, extent, and duration of construction activities. Interim updates should be provided to inform them of the status of the construction activities. 4.1.13 Transportation and Circulation Construction of the proposed program would not potentially cause traffic safety hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways, and would not increase traffic hazards due to possible road wear (Impact 3.13-2). The proposed program would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction (Impact 3.13-3). Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to traffic safety hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to inadequate emergency access during construction. 4.1.14 Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the proposed program would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in the construction of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities if the wastewater treatment provider has inadequate capacity to serve the proposed program (Impact 3.14-1). The proposed program would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects (Impact 3.14-2). Construction and operation of the proposed program would not require additional energy use that could result in wasteful consumption, affect local and regional energy supplies, or conflict with applicable energy efficiency policies or standards (Impact 3.14-5). Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in the construction of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 15 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to additional energy use. 4.2 Non-Structural (Institutional) BMPs Non-structural control measures are policies, actions, and activities which are intended to minimize or eliminate pollutant sources. Most institutional BMPs are implemented to meet Minimum Control Measure (MCM) requirements in the MS4 permit; MCMs are considered a subset of institutional BMPs. These BMPs are not constructed, but may have costs associated with the procurement and installation of items such as signage or spill response kits. The MS4 Permit categorizes institutional BMPs into six program categories:  Development Construction Programs, which establish standards for stormwater management from construction sites of all sizes (e.g., with or without a stormwater pollution prevention plan [SWPPP]).  Industrial/Commercial Facilities Programs, which establish standards for pollutant reduction and control measures at industrial and commercial facilities.  Illicit Connection and Illicit Discharges (IC/ID) Detection and Elimination Programs, which describe procedures for identifying, eliminating, and reporting illicit connections and discharges to the stormwater system.  Public Agency Activities Programs, which describe a broad range of municipal practices such as street cleaning, landscape management, storm drain operation, and more.  Planning and Land Development Programs, which encourage the application of smart growth and low-impact development (LID) practices to development and redevelopment projects.  Public Information and Participation Programs, which educate and engage the public on a broad range of pollution- and stormwater-related issues. Permittees can evaluate the MCMs, identify potential modifications that will address water quality priorities, and provide justification for modification or elimination of any MCM that is determined to be ineffective (with the exception of the Planning and Land Development Program, which may not be eliminated or modified). MCM customization may include replacement, reduced implementation, augmented implementation, focused implementation, or elimination. Because the LACFCD has limited jurisdictional authority for ordinance and code enactment or enforcement, it is limited in application of MCMs to activities such as public information and participation programs. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 16 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Non-structural/institutional BMPs do not include construction of new facilities. Consequently, the Final Program EIR finds no significant environmental impacts associated with this type of BMP, and no mitigation is required for any of the environmental resource areas. Finding The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record, that the proposed program would result in either less than significant impacts or no impacts to all environmental topic areas analyzed in the Final Program EIR relating to implementation of non- structural/institutional BMPs within the program area. 5.0 Less than Significant Environmental Impacts The significant impacts identified in this section are capable of being mitigated to levels of less than significant through the mitigation identified in the Final Program EIR. This mitigation has been adopted by the District. Thus, for projects implemented under the program where the District has jurisdiction over the project, the significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. However, the EWMPs cover numerous jurisdictions and include potential projects that will be entirely within the jurisdiction of a different implementing agency. Because the District cannot ensure that these Implementing Agencies will adopt and implement the proposed mitigation measures, the District finds that the impacts identified in this section may also be significant and unavoidable with respect to projects where the District will not be an implementing agency. The conclusions of "less than significant" below will apply to the extent the Implementing Agencies adopt the proposed mitigation. 5.1 Aesthetics Significant Effect The proposed program could create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Impact 3.1-1). Description of Specific Impact During construction, equipment and materials required for temporary ground disturbances would be visible from public vantage points, but would not affect any scenic vistas past the temporary construction periods. Given the predominantly urban character of potential pump station sites and temporary nature of construction activities, impacts would be considered less than significant. A majority of structural BMPs would be located underground and would not introduce impacts to scenic vistas. Aboveground structures such as pump stations would be located in urbanized areas and would generally be single-story buildings. Such aboveground structures have the potential to impact scenic vistas, but will be required to be designed so as not to contrast existing neighborhood aesthetic features. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 17 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Finding Permanent aboveground structures associated with certain BMPs have the potential to create substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas in the project area. The implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts caused by the project relating to the creation of a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level by designing aboveground structures in a way that would avoid obstructing scenic vistas or views from public vantage points, and would ensure design consistency with neighboring structures. AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with neighboring development. Significant Effect The proposed program could substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Impact 3.1-2). Description of Specific Impact Parts of the proposed program may be visible from designated scenic highways or other locally designated scenic roadways in the project area. Rock outcroppings and historic buildings would likely not be disturbed by the project as most of the BMPs will be underground and not visible after construction is complete. Construction of the proposed program would involve removal of vegetation from individual project sites. Smaller aboveground structures would not substantially damage scenic resources, and impacts from larger structures would be reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1. Finding Permanent aboveground structures associated with certain BMPs have the potential to substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would serve to ensure design consistency with neighboring structures in individual project areas, thereby reducing damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with neighboring development. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 18 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Significant Effect The proposed program could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (Impact 3.1-3). Description of Specific Impact Construction activities would visually degrade the project site and its surroundings as a result of the appearance of demolition materials, excavated areas, stockpiles, and other materials. Due to the temporary nature of construction, these adverse effects are considered less than significant. Once constructed, the BMPs would be located predominantly in urban areas and largely underground, which will not have a permanent effect on the visual character or quality of an area. Aboveground structures may degrade existing visual character of project areas as they will add to the visual landscape. Without proper maintenance of BMPs, especially wet ponds or constructed wetlands, there is a potential for substantial degradation of existing visual quality of project sites due to algal growth or public littering. Finding Operation of the proposed program has the potential to result in impacts related to substantial degradation of existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts caused by the project relating to the substantial degradation of existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES- 2 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with neighboring development. AES-2: Implementing agencies shall develop BMP maintenance plans that are approved concurrently with each structural BMP approval. The maintenance plans must include measures to ensure functionality of the structural BMPs for the life of the BMP. These plans may include general maintenance guidelines that apply to a number of smaller distributed BMPs. Significant Effect The proposed program would result in a less than significant cumulative aesthetic impact with mitigation. Description of Significant Impact Cumulative projects in the program region have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources if they would result in the removal or substantial adverse change of visual Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 19 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact character or image of a neighborhood, community, state scenic highway, or localized area. Given that the BMPs will be located in primarily urbanized areas, introduction of structural BMPs would result in only minor changes to the visual landscape. The cumulative impacts of aboveground structures could have a significant impact to the aesthetic environment due to their potential size and location. Finding The proposed program’s cumulative aesthetic impact is considered cumulatively significant, but would be reduced to less-than-significant with mitigation. Overall, implementation of BMPs is anticipated to have a positive impact on the aesthetic environment through the creation of open space areas and less impervious surfaces in urbanized or residential areas. After implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics would be considered less-than-significant. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts caused by the project that results in a cumulative aesthetic impact. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, implementation of the proposed projects would result in less-than-significant cumulative aesthetics impacts. 5.2 Air Quality Significant Effect The proposed program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Impact 3.2-4). Description of Significant Impact While construction-related traffic on local roadways would occur during construction, the net increase of construction vehicle trips to the existing traffic volumes on local roadways would be relatively small and would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. These construction- related trips would only occur in the short-term, and because trip-generating land uses are not associated with the proposed program, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant. Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only temporarily at each individual structural BMP site, therefore the construction activities associated with each structural BMP project in the EWMP areas would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. During construction of the individual structural BMPs in the project area, sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers would be exposed to significant adverse localized air quality impacts. Operation of structural BMPs would not involve the emission of toxic air contaminants (TAC), and would operate passively without use of mechanical equipment. Project operation would not introduce health risks associated with TAC emissions. Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants from vehicle exhaust and dust. Depending on the size and scope of the individual structural BMPs, a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis may be required to ensure construction emissions Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 20 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact would not exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to the exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Finding The proposed program has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. AIR-3: For large construction efforts associated with regional or centralized BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a project-specific LST analysis where necessary to determine local health impacts to neighboring land uses. Where it is determined that construction emissions would exceed the applicable LSTs or the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, the structural BMP project shall reduce its daily construction intensity (e.g., reducing the amount of equipment used daily, reducing the amount of soil graded/excavated daily) to a level where the structural BMP project’s construction emissions would no longer exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Significant Effect The proposed program could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Impact 3.2-5). Description of Significant Impact The proposed program does not include any uses typically associated with odor complaints including agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plans, and landfills, among others. During the construction phase, exhaust odors from equipment may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites and would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses. These odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature, so would not be considered a significant environmental impact. Certain BMPs such as restored creeks and estuaries may result in odors from saturated mud or algal blooms when left permanently wet. This may result in a severe nuisance for sensitive receptors near such BMPs, and regular maintenance may be sufficient to reduce odors in some situations. Finding The proposed program has the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-2 and AIR-4 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant levels. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 21 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the potential creation of objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-2 and AIR-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. AES-2: Implementing agencies shall develop BMP maintenance plans that are approved concurrently with each structural BMP approval. The maintenance plans must include measures to ensure functionality of the structural BMPs for the life of the BMP. These plans may include general maintenance guidelines that apply to a number of smaller distributed BMPs. AIR-4: During planning of structural BMPs, implementing agencies shall assess the potential for nuisance odors to affect a substantial number of people. BMPs that minimize odors shall be considered the priority when in close proximity to sensitive receptors. 5.3 Biological Resources Significant Effect The proposed program would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Impact 3.3-1). Description of Significant Impact Construction of structural BMPs may affect large open space or riparian habitats that would have a higher potential to support special-status wildlife species, such as streams, wetlands, and upland scrub or oak woodlands. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 require suitability studies for potential BMP sites for their potential to impact valued habitats, and require impact characterization, minimization and compensation for impacts to highly valued habitats in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. The proposed program will implement BMPs that are designed to retain dry-weather flows, which could reduce wetted area or completely eliminate flows in certain drainages that support sensitive species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 would help ensure that impacts to downstream biological resources are less than significant for regional and centralized BMPs. The smaller distributed BMPs would not result in significant impacts and would not be required to implement the mitigation measures. Finding The proposed program would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 22 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Service. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures described below. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any sensitive species identified as special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In consideration of the potential use of the project site by special-status wildlife species, impacts on special-status wildlife species would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. BIO-1: Prior to approving a regional or centralized BMP, the Permittee shall conduct an evaluation of the suitability of the BMP location. Appropriate BMP sites should avoid impacting large areas of native habitats including upland woodlands and riparian forests that support sensitive species to the extent feasible. The evaluation shall include an assessment of potential downstream impacts resulting from flow diversions. BIO-2: Prior to ground-disturbing activities in areas that could support sensitive biological resources, a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur within affected areas, including areas directly or indirectly impacted by construction or operation of the BMPs. BIO-3: If a special-status wildlife species is determined to be present or potentially present within the limits of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys of proposed work zones and within an appropriately sized buffer around each area as determined by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities. Any potential habitat capable of supporting a special-status wildlife species shall be flagged for avoidance if feasible. BIO-4: If avoidance of special-status species or sensitive habitats that could support special-status species (including, but not limited to, critical habitat, riparian habitat, and jurisdictional wetlands/waters) is not feasible, the Permittee shall consult with the appropriate regulating agency (USACE/USFWS or CDFW) to determine a strategy for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and other regulations protecting special-status species and sensitive habitats. The Permittee shall identify appropriate impact minimization measures and compensation for permanent impacts to sensitive habitats and species in consultation with regulatory agencies. Construction of the project will not begin until the appropriate permits from the regulatory agencies are approved. BIO-5: If construction and vegetation removal is proposed between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for breeding and nesting birds and raptors within 500-feet of the construction limits to determine and map Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 23 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact the location and extent of breeding birds that could be affected by the project. Active nest sites located during the pre-construction surveys shall be avoided until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. BIO-6: All construction areas, staging areas, and right-of-ways shall be staked, flagged, fenced, or otherwise clearly delineated to restrict the limits of construction to the minimum necessary near areas that may support special-status wildlife species as determined by a qualified biologist. BIO-7: Prior to construction in areas that could support special-status plants, a qualified botanist shall conduct a pre-construction floristic inventory and focused rare plant survey of project areas to determine and map the location and extent of special-status plant species populations within disturbance areas. This survey shall occur during the typical blooming periods of special-status plants with the potential to occur. The plant survey shall follow the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (November 24, 2009). BIO-8: If temporary construction-related impacts to special-status plant populations are identified within a disturbance area, the implementing agencies shall prepare and implement a special-status species salvage and replanting plan. The salvage and replanting plan shall include measures to salvage, replant, and monitor the disturbance area until native vegetation is re-established under the direction of CDFW and USFWS. Significant Effect The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Impact 3.3-2) Description of Significant Impact Significant Ecological Areas (SEA), as identified by the Los Angeles County General Plan, riparian, and other sensitive communities are not expected to occur within the disturbance areas of the BMP projects since the majority of the structural BMPs would occur in developed or disturbed areas. While some regional and centralized structural BMPs could occur within or adjacent to SEAs, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, these types of BMPs would provide multi-beneficial water quality and habitat restoration improvements to the applicable EWMP watershed. Additionally, each development proposed within a designated SEA must undergo a performance review process for compliance with the SEA design compatibility criteria and other standards for approval by the LA County Department of Regional Planning. Finding Future project-level environmental review processes would consider all proposed projects on a case-by-case basis to determine whether an individual project would impact riparian or other sensitive natural communities. Site-specific mitigation measures would be required to minimize Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 24 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact and reduce potentially significant impacts to riparian and other sensitive natural communities. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-8 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significant Effect The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Impact 3.3-3) Description of Significant Impact Wetlands occur throughout the EWMP areas, and once project facility locations are determined, exact locations and acreages of jurisdictional areas located within or adjacent to impact areas shall be determined through a formal jurisdictional delineation. For projects impacting native vegetation within jurisdictional drainages, the implementing agency would be required to obtain California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404 compliance from the USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would ensure compliance with state and federal regulations relating to potentially jurisdictional features, including wash habitat vegetation that may fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Finding Any projects impacting native vegetation within jurisdictional drainages would be required to comply with California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404 compliance from the USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. These impacts would be further reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures described below. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. BIO-9: Prior to construction, a qualified wetland delineator shall be retained to conduct formal wetland delineation in areas where potential jurisdictional resources (i.e., wetlands or drainages) subject to the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW may be Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 25 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact affected by the project. If jurisdictional resources are identified in the EWMP area and would be directly or indirectly impacted by individual projects, the qualified wetland delineator shall prepare a jurisdictional delineation report suitable for submittal to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW for purposes of obtaining the appropriate permits. Habitat mitigation and compensation requirements shall be implemented prior to construction in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Significant Effect The proposed program would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Impact 3.3-5) Description of Significant Impact The proposed program would mainly be constructed within highly urbanized and disturbed areas within existing infrastructure. Any impacts to oak trees within Los Angeles County would be required to comply with the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (or other tree ordinances established by the local city). A tree permit may be required if impacts to oak trees or other protected trees are determined to be necessary. Finding No impacts to oak trees or other protected tree species is anticipated. However, the exact locations of the BMP projects have not been established. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would reduce any potential impacts to protected tree species to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. BIO-10: Oak trees and other protected trees shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If trees may be impacted by project construction, a certified arborist shall conduct a tree inventory of the construction impact area. If any oak trees or other protected trees will be impacted by BMP construction, the implementing agency shall obtain any required County or City permits. Significant Effect The proposed program would result in cumulative biological resource impacts. Description of Significant Impact Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention of stormwater and treatment of pollutants within each watershed, and the reduction of pollutant loading in waterways would substantially benefit the water quality of the region’s aquatic and coastal habitats, as well as the plants and wildlife dependent on them. Implementation of the BMPs would also return the local hydrology Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 26 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact to a more natural condition. Although some drainage segments may exhibit reduced riparian habitat or wetlands over time due to the reduced dry-weather flow, the cumulative effect would be offset by increased groundwater recharge and seepage supporting expanded wetland and riparian vegetation supporting local flora and fauna populations. Therefore, the program’s potential contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources is considered less than significant. Finding Most of the distributed BMPs would be small in scale and would not result in cumulatively significant impacts, as they would occur within existing developed or disturbed areas at existing stormwater infrastructure/facilities. For regional and centralized BMPs at the larger scale, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10 would reduce potentially significant impacts to biological resources, and any additional or more site-specific mitigation measures developed during the future project-level environmental review processes may further reduce potential impacts. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts to biological resources. Any potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources in the project region would be reduced by the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10. 5.4 Cultural Resources Significant Effect The proposed program could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources as defined in §15064.5 (Impact 3.4-2). Description of Significant Impact The program area, which spans most of Los Angeles County, should be considered sensitive for archaeological resources, with degree of sensitivity varying across the program area based on specific environmental factors. Any structural BMP which involves grading, trenching, excavation, vegetation removal, or other forms of ground disturbance could impact archaeological resources. Finding The proposed program’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the proposed program could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 27 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact archaeological resources. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-2. CUL-2: Implementing agencies shall ensure that individual EWMP projects that require ground disturbance shall be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project- specific basis prior to the implementing agency’s approval of project plans. The study shall be conducted or supervised by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the local Native American representatives expressing interest. The cultural resources inventory shall include a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist; and formal recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and significance evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report following the guidelines in Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format, Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State of California, 1990. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the implementing agency shall require that the resources are evaluated by the qualified archaeologist for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the appropriate Native American groups for prehistoric resources. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute or redesign, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. CUL-3: The implementing agency shall retain archaeological monitors during ground- disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 28 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact American representatives expressing interest in the project. Native American monitors shall be retained for projects that have a high potential to impact sensitive Native American resources, as determined by the implementing agency in coordination with the qualified archaeologist. CUL-4: During project-level construction, should subsurface archaeological resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute or redesign, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. Significant Effect The proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Impact 3.4-3). Description of Significant Impact The program area is underlain by a number of high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity units, which may contain significant paleontological resources. Significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity, though, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated with structural BMPs could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. Finding The proposed program’s potential to directly or indirectly damage or destroy unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the proposed program could be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would damage or destroy paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 29 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact features. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation Mitigation Measures CUL-5 and CUL-6. CUL-5: For individual structural BMP projects that require ground disturbance, the implementing agency shall evaluate the sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the project and provide recommendations regarding additional work, potentially including testing or construction monitoring. CUL-6: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during construction, the implementing agency shall notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will evaluate the potential resource, assess the significance of the find, and recommend further actions to protect the resource. Significant Effect The proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Impact 3.4-4). Description of Significant Impact There is no indication, either from the archival research results or the archaeological survey, that any particular location in the project area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during project construction activities, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. Finding The proposed program’s potential to uncover buried archaeological deposits including human remains is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to the disturbing of any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-7. CUL-7: The implementing agency shall require that, if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant of the deceased Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 30 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. 5.5 Geologic and Mineral Resources Significant Effect The proposed program could be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on-site or off-site non- seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure (Impact 3.5-3). Description of Significant Impact Infiltration of water into subsurface soils can increase soil instability and result in saturated soils, soil piping through preferential pathways, breakouts due to infiltrated water finding utility trenches and other preferential pathways, and raising the local groundwater levels such that infrastructure foundations and underground structures could be affected by unstable soils. Structural BMPs could potentially be undermined by unstable soils or impact adjacent infrastructure and buildings; Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Finding The proposed program’s potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on-site or off-site non- seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the proposed program would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to the project being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on-site or off-site non- seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. GEO-1: Prior to approval of infiltration BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of each infiltration BMP site to evaluate infiltration suitability. If infiltration rates are sufficient to accommodate an infiltration BMP, the geotechnical investigation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent excessive lateral spreading that could destabilize neighboring structures. Implementing agencies shall implement these measures in project designs. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 31 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Significant Effect Cumulative impacts on geology and soils would have a less than significant impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation. Description of Significant Impact The cumulative effect of multiple infiltration projects could increase the severity of perched or migrating water, which has the potential to inundate underground utilities or structures. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize the cumulative impact to regional infrastructure from perched or migrating water. The management of groundwater pumping among regional managers prevents impacts to structural foundations resulting from groundwater mounding from existing recharge efforts. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce the cumulative effects to soil stability from elevated groundwater levels to a less-than-significant level. Finding The proposed program’s cumulative impact to geology and soils is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the proposed program would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce cumulative impacts related to geology and soils. The cumulative project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2. GEO-1: Prior to approval of infiltration BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of each infiltration BMP site to evaluate infiltration suitability. If infiltration rates are sufficient to accommodate an infiltration BMP, the geotechnical investigation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent excessive lateral spreading that could destabilize neighboring structures. Implementing agencies shall implement these measures in project designs. GEO-2: Prior to installing BMPs designed to recharge the local groundwater supplies, the implementing agency shall notify local groundwater managers, including the Upper Los Angeles River Area Water Master, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, or the San Gabriel Water Master as well as local water producers such as local municipalities and water companies. The implementing agency shall coordinate BMP siting efforts with groundwater managers and producers to mitigate high groundwater levels while increasing local water supplies. 5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions that are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 32 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significant Effect The proposed program would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs (Impact 3.7-2). Description of Significant Impact Because of their function as water conveyance systems, the entire storm sewer system, as augmented by structural BMPs, would collect and retain sediment and chemicals from urban runoff, along with any accidental or illicit spills of hazardous materials. The introduction of hazardous materials into the storm sewer system could occur in large events as in a catastrophic spill, or could occur in small concentrations as in petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals picked up and carried by stormwater in urban runoff from the streets. Contaminants in the runoff water or as discrete concentrated spills could accumulate in the soils and vegetation of structural BMPs. To address the accumulation of contaminants in soil at BMPs, operations and maintenance plans for BMPs that might accumulate constituents in surface soils and media will be developed to include periodic removal and replacement of these potentially impacted surface materials to reduce the potential for long-term loading leading to hazardous concentrations in soils and groundwater. Finding The proposed program has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs. The implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs to less-than-significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, these impacts would be considered less than significant. HAZ-1: Implementing agencies shall prepare and implement maintenance practices that include periodic removal and replacement of surface soils and media that may accumulate constituents that could result in further migration of constituents to sub-soils and groundwater. A BMP Maintenance Plan shall be prepared by Implementing Agencies upon approval of the BMP projects that identifies the frequency and procedures for removal and/or replacement of accumulated debris, surface soils and/or media (to depth where constituent concentrations do not represent a hazardous conditions and/or have the potential to migrate further and impact groundwater) to avoid accumulation of hazardous concentrations and the potential to migrate further to sub-soils and groundwater. The Maintenance Plan shall include vector control requirements. The BMP Maintenance Plan Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 33 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact may consist of a general maintenance guideline that applies to several types of smaller distributed BMPs. For smaller distributed BMPs on private property, these plans may consist of a maintenance covenant that includes requirements to avoid the accumulation of hazardous concentrations in these BMPs that may impact underlying sub-soils and groundwater. Structural BMPs shall be designed to prevent migration of constituents that may impact groundwater. Significant Effect The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Impact 3.7-4). Description of Significant Impact It is possible that a proposed BMP may be located on a hazardous materials site listed on the Cortese List, which would expose construction workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials during earth-moving activities, introducing a significant impact. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in significant impacts related to the project location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to less-than-significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2, these impacts would be considered less than significant. HAZ-2: Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground-disturbing activities in areas where hazardous material use or management may have occurred, the implementing agencies shall complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E1527-13 for each construction site. Any recommended follow up sampling (Phase II activities) set forth in the Phase I ESA shall be implemented prior to construction. The results of Phase II studies, if necessary, shall be submitted to the local overseeing agency and any required remediation or further delineation of identified contamination shall be completed prior to commencement of construction. Significant Effect For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the proposed program could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area (Impact 3.7-5). Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 34 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Description of Significant Impact Some structural BMPs, such as detention basins that store water for a period of time or constructed wetlands that would increase or improve wildlife habitat, could be constructed on or near airports and could result in attracting wildlife. Deer and birds are known wildlife hazards to airports. If the proposed project is at or near an airport, this could increase hazards to aircraft from wildlife. Finding The proposed program, if located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, has the potential to result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials to less-than-significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3, these impacts would be considered less than significant. HAZ-3: Implementing Agencies shall require that those BMPs that are within an airport land use plan area are compatible with criteria specified in FAA Advisory Circular No: 150/5200-33B (FAA, 2007). If the proposed BMP is within the minimum separation criteria, the implementing agency shall consult with the airport and collaboratively evaluate whether the potential increase in wildlife hazards can be mitigated. Significant Effect The proposed program would result in cumulatively significant impacts to hazardous materials. Description of Significant Impact Most of the distributed BMPs would be small in scale and would not result in cumulatively significant impacts due to increased hazards from construction or operation. However, the combination of BMPs throughout the region would change the flow paths of stormwater and urban runoff that currently occurs in the region, resulting in the retention of pollutants generally within the soil of the BMPs that use soil for filtration and retention. Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention and treatment of pollutants within each watershed and the reduction of pollutant loading in waterways will substantially benefit water and sediment quality of the region’s habitats, rivers, and beaches. Therefore, the project’s potential contribution to cumulative effects on hazards and hazardous materials is considered beneficial. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazardous resources. Hazardous material could be released during project construction or operation. The implementation of appropriate safety measures during construction of the proposed project, as well as any other cumulative project, would reduce the impact to a level that Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 35 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact would not contribute to cumulative effects. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce cumulative impacts caused by the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, impacts would be less than significant. 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Significant Effect The proposed program would result in higher groundwater levels and could potentially affect groundwater quality (Impact 3.8-2). Description of Significant Impact Regional BMPs would recharge stormwater into the groundwater basin and could raise local groundwater levels following major storm events. Distributed infiltration BMPs would typically be too small to have a measureable effect on local groundwater levels. The increased water supplies captured by the infiltration basins through the EWMP areas would be a beneficial impact of the projects. Infiltration BMPs would not be suitable in areas of low permeability, though, and potential locations would need to be evaluated for suitability. Concentrations of contaminants found in stormwater runoff could increase, resulting in contaminated shallow soils and groundwater. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result significant impacts related to higher groundwater levels and degradation of groundwater quality. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to higher groundwater levels and potential degradation of groundwater quality to less-than-significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3, these impacts would be considered less than significant. HYDRO-1: Prior to approving an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall conduct an evaluation of the suitability of the BMP location. Appropriate infiltration BMP sites should avoid areas with low permeability where recharge could adversely affect neighboring subsurface infrastructure. HYDRO-2: Prior to approving an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall identify pretreatment technologies, type, and depth of filtration media; depth to groundwater; and other design considerations necessary to prevent contaminants from impacting groundwater quality. The design shall consider stormwater quality data within the BMP’s Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 36 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact collection area to assess the need and type of treatment and filtration controls. Local design manuals and ordinances requiring minimum separation distance to groundwater shall also be met as part of the design. HYDRO-3: Prior to the installation of an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall conduct a regulatory database review for contaminated groundwater sites within a quarter mile of the proposed infiltration facility. The review shall include locations of on-site wastewater treatment systems. The Permittee shall identify whether any contaminated groundwater plumes or leach fields are present and whether coordination with the local and state environmental protection overseeing agency and responsible party is warranted prior to final design of infiltration facility. 5.9 Land Use and Agriculture The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on land use that are potentially significant and that cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 5.10 Noise Significant Effect The proposed program would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (Impact 3.10-3). Description of Significant Impact No operational noise levels would be generated by the structural BMPs given their passive manner of operation. However, it is anticipated that some of the centralized and regional structural BMPs would require the use of irrigation pump stations and associated components to divert the collected stormwater. At these structural BMP sites, noise levels generated from the long-term operation of the pumps and associated components could result in increased noise levels in the surrounding noise environment. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 included below, these impacts would be considered less than significant. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 37 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact NOISE-1: The implementing agencies shall implement the following measures during construction as needed:  Include design measures necessary to reduce the construction noise levels to where feasible. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.  Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) as far as possible from the nearest noise-sensitive land uses.  Locate stationary construction noise sources as far from adjacent noise-sensitive receptors as possible.  If construction is to occur near a school, the construction contractor shall coordinate the with school administration in order to limit disturbance to the campus. Efforts to limit construction activities to non-school days shall be encouraged.  For the centralized and regional BMP projects located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses, identify a liaison for these off-site sensitive receptors, such as residents and property owners, to contact with concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison’s telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations.  For the centralized and regional BMP projects located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses, notify in writing all landowners and occupants of properties adjacent to the construction area of the anticipated construction schedule at least 2 weeks prior to groundbreaking. NOISE-2: All structural BMPs that employ mechanized stationary equipment that generate noise levels shall comply with the applicable noise standards established by the implementing agency with jurisdiction over the structural BMP site. The equipment shall be designed with noise-attenuating features (e.g., enclosures) and/or located at areas (e.g., belowground) where nearby noise-sensitive land uses would not be exposed to a perceptible noise increase in their noise environment. 5.11 Population and Housing and Environmental Justice The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to population, housing and environmental justice that would be potentially significant, but could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 38 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 5.12 Public Services and Recreation Significant Effect The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered governmental fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protective services (Impact 3.12-1). Description of Significant Impact The structural BMPs are not habitable structures, would not be constructed with flammable materials, and would not require fire protection services. Because of the relative scale of these infrastructure improvements, the construction of the various structural BMPs are not expected to result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. However, construction of new structural BMPs in streets, sidewalks, parkland, or other facilities (these may include public service facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and municipal maintenance yards) within existing high-density urban, commercial, industrial, and transportation areas, as well as associated staging areas, could temporarily disrupt the provision of fire services, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project related to significant cumulative impacts associated with public services. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1, these impacts would be considered less than significant. PS-1: The Permittee implementing the EWMP project shall provide reasonable advance notification to service providers such as fire, police, and emergency medical services as well as to local businesses, homeowners, and other residents adjacent to and within areas potentially affected by the proposed EWMP project about the nature, extent, and duration of construction activities. Interim updates should be provided to inform them of the status of the construction activities. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 39 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 5.13 Transportation and Circulation Significant Effect The proposed program would intermittently and temporarily increase traffic levels and traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways (Impact 3.13-1). Description of Significant Impact Vehicle trips would be generated primarily by construction workers commuting to and from the BMP work sites, and by trucks hauling materials and equipment to and from the sites. The construction traffic impacts associated with each individual structural BMP project would be short-term in nature and limited to the period of time when construction activity is taking place for that particular project. Although project-related traffic would be temporary, supplemental project-level analysis of potential site-specific impacts could determine that addition of project- generated traffic would be considered substantial in relation to traffic flow conditions on local roadways. For this program-level assessment, this impact is considered potentially significant. Finding The proposed program will potentially intermittently and temporarily increase traffic levels and traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to temporary and intermittent increase in traffic levels and traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways to less-than-significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, below, this impact would be considered less than significant. TRAF-1: For projects that may affect traffic, implementing agencies shall require that contractors prepare a construction traffic control plan. Elements of the plan should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. Use haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible.  To the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow, schedule truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours.  Install traffic control devices as specified in Caltrans’ Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones where needed to maintain safe driving conditions. Use flaggers and/or signage to safely direct traffic through construction work zones. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 40 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact  Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to the facility owner or operator of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities. Significant Effect The proposed program would contribute to cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation (Impact 3.13-4). Description of Significant Impact During construction of the structural BMPs, intermittent and temporary traffic-related impacts in the cumulative context would occur. The proposed program has the potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative construction-related impacts as a result of (1) cumulative projects (such as land development projects) that generate increased traffic at the same time on the same roads as would the proposed program, causing increased congestion and delays; and (2) infrastructure projects in roads that would be used by project construction workers and trucks, which could delay project-generated vehicles past the work zones of those other projects. Finding The proposed program is expected to cumulatively impact traffic and transportation; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 is expected to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation to less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, these impacts would be considered less than significant. 5.14 Utilities and Service Systems Significant Effect The proposed program would require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements or require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Impact 3.14-3). Description of Significant Impact Implementation of the EWMPS would not increase water demand due to the relatively short construction period for structural BMPs. Impacts to the existing water supplies are anticipated to be beneficial as a result of the stormwater and non-stormwater runoff infiltration and conservation BMPs implemented across the EWMP areas. Construction requiring ground disturbance could encounter buried utilities including water supply infrastructure. Construction of BMPs to detain stormwater and dry-weather flows may reduce flows downstream, thereby Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 41 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact reducing access to beneficial uses downstream. As part of the project design, Implementing Agencies would be required to identify the potential for underground utilities and determine whether they would need to be relocated to accommodate the BMP. Dry-weather flows in coastal streams and foothills are largely fed by groundwater seepage or wastewater discharges. Any detention of storm flows upstream would not substantially reduce storm flows downstream or significantly impede access to storm flow. Finding The proposed program is not expected to require expansion of existing water entitlements or result in the construction of new facilities that could result in environmental effects; the proposed program would further reduce its impact by implementing Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to landfill capacity to less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, these impacts would be considered less than significant. UTIL-1: Prior to implementation of BMPs, the implementing agency shall conduct a search for local utilities above and below ground that could be affected by the project. The implementing agencies shall contact each utility potentially affected and relocate the utility if necessary to ensure access and services are maintained. UTIL-2: Prior to approval of BMPs, implementing agencies shall evaluate the potential for impacts to downstream beneficial uses including surface water rights. Implementing agencies shall not approve BMPs that result in preventing access to previously appropriated surface water downstream. Significant Effect The proposed program would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed program’s solid waste disposal needs or the proposed program could not comply with federal, state, and local statuses and regulations related to solid waste (Impact 3.14-4). Description of Significant Impact Construction activities associated with the structural BMPs would include excavation and demolition of some existing infrastructure, which would produce solid waste requiring disposal in the nearest landfill. Some of the EWMPs are required to implement trash Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDLs) and associated trash removal structural BMPs, which would require the disposal of the trash collected by the BMPs, thereby increase the amount of trash being sent to landfills. The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain operation, which produce debris and trash requiring disposal, which could exceed landfill limits. The new trash collected that is associated with proposed trash removal structural BMPs and non- structural BMPs such as street cleaning and landscape management would be accommodated with existing and planned trash disposal facilities. Based on landfill capacity in the Los Angeles Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 42 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact region, there appears to be ample availability to receive the expected trash generated by the program. The program would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the Los Angeles County Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and Reuse Program. Finding The program is not expected to be served by a landfill with insufficient capacity to accommodate its waste disposal needs and would comply with all solid waste regulations; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would further reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to landfill capacity to less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, these impacts would be considered less than significant. UTIL-3: Implementing agencies shall encourage construction contractors to recycle construction materials and divert inert solids (asphalt, brick, concrete, dirt, fines, rock, sand, soil, and stone) from disposal in a landfill where feasible. Implementing agencies shall incentivize construction contractors with waste minimization goals in bid specifications where feasible. Significant Effect The proposed program would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems. Description of Significant Impact Structural BMPS constructed to treat, infiltrate, and/or store stormwater and non-stormwater throughout the watershed would not generate wastewater or require wastewater treatment or result in adverse cumulative impacts from operation or construction. Installation of storm drainage facilities identified in the proposed EWMPs would not substantially affect existing storm drain facilities. Impacts to the existing water supplies are anticipated to be beneficial as a result of the stormwater and non-stormwater runoff infiltration and conservation BMPs implemented across the EWMP areas. Construction and operation of the structural BMPs would generate solid waste; however, landfills serving the program area are expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the amount of waste generated. Disposal of the solid waste generated during construction and operation would comply with all pertinent regulations and statutes. All other projects implemented in the area would also be required to comply with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations and statutes. The use of energy anticipated for the proposed program is minor when compared to the County-wide use of electricity. The proposed program would use energy-efficient equipment and would not result in wasteful consumption. The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain operation, which would produce debris and trash for disposal. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 43 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Finding The proposed program would not likely result in cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems. The proposed program would further reduce its cumulative impact on utilities and service systems to a less-than-significant-level by implementing Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 and UTIL-2. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and UTIL-2, these impacts would be considered less than significant. 6.0 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts As described above in Section 5.0, the impacts identified above as being less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures could be significant and unavoidable if the proposed mitigation measures are not adopted and implemented by the Implementing Agencies for projects within their jurisdiction. Because the District cannot ensure that these Implementing Agencies will adopt and implement the proposed mitigation measures, the District finds that the impacts identified in section 5.0 may also be significant and unavoidable with respect to projects where the District will not be an implementing agency. The impacts discussed below were identified in the Final Program EIR as being "significant and unavoidable" for the program because they cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.1 Aesthetics The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on aesthetics that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.2 Air Quality Significant Effect The proposed program could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (Impact 3.2-2). Description of Significant Impact Construction activities at the individual project sites would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Through representative “worst-case” construction scenarios of each structural BMP type, ranging from small-, medium-, and large- scale projects, the magnitude of the daily emissions that can be generated by each structural BMP type is presented. The maximum daily construction emissions for the three structural BMP project types were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 44 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants for the three structural BMP types were modeled based on general information provided in the project description and CalEEMod default settings along with reasonable assumptions based on other similar types of projects. The model found that for smaller BMPs including distributed BMPs, air emissions would not be significant and would not require mitigation measures. For some of the larger regional and centralized BMPs, the model shows that the maximum daily level of construction-generated emissions of NOx would exceed the applicable SCAQMD-recommended thresholds under the worst-case construction scenarios. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce emissions, but they may not reduce these emissions to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds for every structural BMP project, as the amount of emissions generated, the land area that would need disturbing, and the length of the construction schedule for each structural BMP project would vary. Implementation of large regional or centralized BMPs could result in temporary significant and unavoidable air emissions during peak periods of construction. Long term operation of the proposed program would not result in substantial emissions of criteria air pollutants. There would be no new land use projects which would generate daily vehicle emissions. Inspection and maintenance activities would occur to the project site, but would be periodic throughout the year and would result in minimal emissions. Equipment for pump stations and ancillary components would be electrically powered, so would not generate emissions at the project site. Finding The proposed program would implement projects that could exceed identified emissions thresholds, and therefore have the potential to violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would help reduce this impact, but construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable for some larger projects. Impacts from operational emissions would be considered less-than-significant. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to the violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would help reduce the impact, but impacts from construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable for some of the larger projects. Impacts from operational emissions would be less than significant. AIR-1: Implementing agencies shall require for large regional or centralized BMPs the use of low-emission equipment meeting Tier II emissions standards at a minimum and Tier III and IV emissions standards where available as CARB-required emissions technologies become readily available to contractors in the region. AIR-2: For large construction efforts that may result in significant air emissions, implementing agencies shall encourage contractors to use lower-emission equipment through the bidding process where appropriate. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 45 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Significant Effect The proposed program could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the program region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) (Impact 3.2-3). The proposed program could result in a significant cumulative impact to air quality. Description of Significant Impact As the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the proposed program along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Under conditions where multiple structural BMPs would be constructed concurrently in the EWMP areas, it is anticipated that the total aggregate construction emissions generated from these multiple structural BMP projects on a daily basis would exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, the resulting aggregate daily emissions may not be reduced to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds should multiple structural BMP projects be constructed concurrently. Thus, construction-related air quality impacts associated with the proposed program would be considered significant and unavoidable. With respect to operational emissions, program implementation would not result in substantial long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. As such, the proposed program’s operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. Finding As air pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, PM10, and PM2.5) would be emitted as a result of the proposed program in excess of SCAQMD’s thresholds for construction activities, these pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce cumulative air quality impacts, but not to a level that is less than significant. With respect to operational emissions, program implementation would not result in substantial long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. As such, the proposed program’s operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts. Even after the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard remain significant and unavoidable for construction. Program implementation would not result in substantial long- Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 46 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact term regional emissions of criteria pollutants with respect to operational emissions, therefore operational emissions would be less than significant. AIR-1: Implementing agencies shall require for large regional or centralized BMPs the use of low-emission equipment meeting Tier II emissions standards at a minimum and Tier III and IV emissions standards where available as CARB-required emissions technologies become readily available to contractors in the region. AIR-2: For large construction efforts that may result in significant air emissions, implementing agencies shall encourage contractors to use lower-emission equipment through the bidding process where appropriate. 6.3 Biological Resources The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.4 Cultural Resources Significant Effect The proposed program would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5. (Impact 3.4-1) Description of Significant Impact Implementation of structural BMPs could impact significant historic built environment resources that exist within the program area, which may include not only buildings and structures, but also built infrastructure such as concrete channels, dams, sidewalks, and roads. Impacts to the could include not only physical demolition or alteration of built environment resources, but also changes to the historic setting of a resource, and impacts that may adversely affect that ability of a resource to convey its significance. Similarly, potentially significant buried archaeological resources could still exist within the program area, beneath and between structures and roads. If previously undiscovered artifacts or buried archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. Not all EWMP projects may result in a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to historical resources, as impacts associated with each project would be dependent on location; presence, nature, and significance of any historical resources within the construction area; and specific impacts to historical resources. In some circumstances, no mitigation is sufficient to maintain the historic integrity of the affected archaeological and other cultural resource or its surroundings, therefore implementation of the proposed program may ultimately result in a substantial adverse change. Finding The proposed program’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is considered significant. Potential adverse effects caused by the proposed Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 47 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact program could be minimized by mitigation measures; however the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. The project impacts are considered significant and unavoidable; implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would help minimize impacts. CUL-1: For individual EWMP projects that could impact buildings or structures (including infrastructure) 45 years old or older, implementing agencies shall ensure that a historic built environment survey is conducted or supervised by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. Historic built environment resources shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR or local register prior to the implementing agency’s approval of project plans. If eligible resources that would be considered historical resources under CEQA are identified, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources shall be avoided. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the implementing agency shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not be limited to, photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the implementing agency for review and approval prior to implementation. CUL-2: Implementing agencies shall ensure that individual EWMP projects that require ground disturbance shall be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project- specific basis prior to the implementing agency’s approval of project plans. The study shall be conducted or supervised by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the local Native American representatives expressing interest. The cultural resources inventory shall include a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist; and formal recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and significance evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report following the guidelines in Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format, Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State of California, 1990. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the implementing agency shall require that the resources are evaluated by the qualified archaeologist for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 48 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the appropriate Native American groups for prehistoric resources. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute or redesign, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. CUL-3: The implementing agency shall retain archaeological monitors during ground- disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in the project. Native American monitors shall be retained for projects that have a high potential to impact sensitive Native American resources, as determined by the implementing agency in coordination with the qualified archaeologist. CUL-4: During project-level construction, should subsurface archaeological resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute or redesign, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. Significant Effect The proposed program would result in cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 49 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Description of Significant Impact Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the cultural resources geographic scope of analysis could occur if other existing or proposed projects, in conjunction with the proposed program, had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2, CUL-3 and CUL-4, cumulatively significant environmental impacts to unique archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5 and CUL-6, cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Further, implementation of CUL-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains should they be encountered during ground-disturbing activities to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the proposed program may ultimately result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources through various development activities for which no possible mitigation may be available to maintain the historic integrity of the affected resource or its surroundings, and impacts to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable at a program level. Therefore, the implementation of structural BMPs may contribute to a cumulatively significant environmental impact to historical resources. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to cultural resources, specifically in regard to substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources resulting from excavation activities associated with projects in the cumulative impacts scenario. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to unique archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains to a less-than-significant level, however, these mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to historical resources below a significant level. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce cumulative impacts caused by the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1 through CUL-7, these cumulative cultural resource impacts would be reduced, but still considered significant and unavoidable. 6.5 Geologic and Mineral Resources The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to geology and soils that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 50 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 6.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to hazards and hazardous materials that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on hydrology and water quality that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.9 Land Use and Agriculture The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on land use and planning that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.10 Noise Significant Effect The proposed program would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Impact 3.10-1). Description of Significant Impact The proposed program would result in a temporary increase in noise levels during construction at the project sites. Noise generated during temporary construction is anticipated, and because of the possibility that certain structural BMP projects may exceed noise levels established by their respective local jurisdictions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 would reduce the proposed program’s construction-related noise levels by requiring the project contractor to locate equipment such that noise is directed away from sensitive receptors and to maintain noise controls on standard construction equipment. In addition, the mitigation measures would require a construction noise coordinator to resolve complaints about noise. However, even with the project’s adherence to all applicable noise requirements and guidelines in addition to implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, it is anticipated that there would be times during the project’s construction activities where the nearest sensitive receptors would be exposed to a perceptible increase in noise levels. Therefore, the project would result in perceptible increases in noise levels during construction and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 51 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, these impacts would still be considered significant and unavoidable. Significant Effect The proposed program would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (Impact 3.10-4). Description of Significant Impact During construction of the distributed, centralized, and regional structural BMPs, temporary or periodic increases in noise levels in and around each structural BMP site would result from the operation of construction equipment. Where a structural BMP site is located within 25 feet of an existing noise-sensitive land use, the resulting construction noise levels at that existing land use could reach as high as 95 dBA Leq during excavation activities, which would result in a substantial noise increase over existing ambient noise levels at that existing land use. Therefore this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The identification of a significant and unavoidable program-level impact in this Program EIR for the proposed program, however, does not preclude the finding of future less-than-significant impacts for individual structural BMP projects. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project in the vicinity of individual projects. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce the project’s construction-related noise levels by requiring the project contractor to locate equipment such that noise is directed away from sensitive receptors and to maintain noise controls on standard construction equipment. In addition, the mitigation measures would require a construction noise coordinator to resolve complaints about noise. However, even with the project’s adherence to all applicable noise requirements and guidelines in addition to implementation of the mitigation measure, it is anticipated that there would be times during the project’s construction activities where the nearest sensitive receptors would be exposed to a perceptible change in noise levels. Therefore, the proposed program would result in perceptible increases in noise levels during construction and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 included, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable during construction. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 52 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact Significant Effect The proposed program would result in significant cumulative construction noise impacts. Description of Significant Impact Noise and vibration are both defined as localized phenomena that significantly reduce in magnitude as distance from the source increases. The structural BMPs associated with the proposed program would be constructed in multiple jurisdictions of Los Angeles County, which aside from the County also includes 46 cities and LACFCD. As such, these structural BMP projects would be generally spread over a large geographic area within the County. These structural BMPs in combination with other current and planned projects in the County would result in an increase in construction-related noise levels, which would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels of the existing noise environment in areas where a construction project would occur. This would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for construction. Finding The proposed program has the potential to result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of applicable standards. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable during construction. Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts related to inappropriate noise levels. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable during construction. 6.11 Population and Housing and Environmental Justice The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on population, housing and environmental justice that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.12 Public Services and Recreation The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on public services and recreation that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.13 Transportation and Circulation The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on transportation and traffic that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 6.14 Utilities and Service Systems The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on utilities that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 53 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact 7.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding program alternatives identified in the EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section 15091(s)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision-makers with information on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a proposed program. When selecting alternatives for evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the basic objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the program’s significant effects. Thus, objectives for the proposed program were considered by this board in evaluating the alternatives. These objectives are:  To collaborate among agencies (Permittee jurisdictions) across the watershed to promote more cost‐effective and multi‐beneficial water quality improvement projects to comply with the MS4 Permit;  To develop watershed-wide EWMPs that will, once implemented, remove or reduce pollutants from dry- and wet-weather urban runoff in a cost-effective manner; and  To reduce the impact of stormwater and non-stormwater on receiving water quality. 7.1 No Program Alternative Under this alternative, the existing land uses on the project site would continue to operate as they do under existing conditions. The existing land uses would continue for an indefinite period and no physical changes within the proposed program area would occur. In addition, existing ancillary structures, such as buildings, roadways and parkways within the project area, would remain in their current capacity. The No Project Alternative would maintain the current zoning and land use designations. Finding This alternative would not meet the first and second objectives to collaborate among agencies across the watershed to prepare EWMPs that promote more cost‐effective and multi‐beneficial water quality improvement projects. However, compliance with the MS4 Permit is still required regardless of implementation of the EWMP. Under the No Project Alternative some water quality projects would be implemented in an effort to achieve compliance with the MS4 permit. This alternative would result in slightly greater impacts to air quality with regards to emissions generated, because the programs would need to be installed rapidly and more BMPs would likely be required as a result of the inefficiencies of multiple boundaries. Hydrology and water quality impacts would also be greater, as an installation grace period would not be granted for BMPs outside of the EWMP, increasing the likelihood of noncompliance with the MS4 Permit. All other impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared with the proposed program. This Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 54 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact alternative would not eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts when associated with the proposed project. 7.2 Non-Structural BMPs Only Project Alternative This alternative would involve implementation of the proposed program and its associated non- structural BMPs only. No structural BMPs would be implemented. Finding This alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed program to collaborate among agencies to promote more cost‐effective and multi‐beneficial water quality improvement projects and to prepare EWMPs to reduce pollutant loading. Non-Structural BMPs are generally implemented individually in each jurisdiction. Since no facilities would be constructed, temporary impacts to the environment would be less than the proposed program for many topic areas. However, impacts to population and housing, land use, and recreation would be greater than the proposed program. This alternative would result in greater impacts to aesthetics, as it would not include green-streets and grassy swales that would improve local aesthetics. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would also be greater under this alternative, as achieving water quality objectives with no structural BMPs would be unlikely. 7.3 Distributed Structural and Non-Structural BMPs Only Program Alternative (No Centralized or Regional) This alternative would involve implementation of the proposed program and only its associated distributed structural BMPs and non-structural BMPs. Finding This alternative would achieve the first and third project objectives to collaborate among agencies to promote more cost-effective and multi-beneficial water quality improvement projects that reduce the impact of stormwater on receiving water quality. However, it would likely require more BMPs to meet the MS4 Permit water quality objectives, as distributed structural BMPs tend to be smaller in nature and are located in a wide distribution throughout the watershed. Therefore, it would not meet the second project objective (developing EWMPS that will remove or reduce pollutants from urban runoff and removal of stormwater and non-stormwater impacts on receiving water quality). Since much of the impacts of program implementation would occur during construction of the large-scale regional and centralized BMPs, this alternative would result in fewer construction impacts than the proposed project and fewer impacts to aesthetics. However, the alternative would result in greater impacts to land use planning/agriculture, as eliminating the use of large open space areas for BMPs would require a more dispersed land use acquisition for small scale BMPs, thereby increasing potential land use compatibility impacts. This alternative would Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 55 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact eliminate the water quality benefit and more likely potential to comply with the MS4 Permit provided by large-scale regional BMPs, and would therefore result in greater hydrology and water quality impacts. All other impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed program. 7.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen significant program impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative of a project other than or the “no project” alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2)). An environmentally superior alternative is an alternative to the project that would reduce and/or eliminate the significant environmental impacts associated with the project without creating other significant impacts and without substantially reducing and/or eliminating the environmental benefits attributable to the project. Finding The Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the proposed program itself. The proposed program would avoid increasing the impacts to hydrology and water quality that would occur under all three of the alternatives. The No Program Alternative would require that individual Permittees design and construct BMPs locally to achieve MS4 Permit compliance. None of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed alternative would be avoided by this alternative. Furthermore, since the ability to achieve compliance with MS4 Permit water quality objectives would be reduced if each Permittee were on their own, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative. The Distributed Structural BMPs Only Alternative would result in construction of an increased number of distributed BMPs This alternative would result in fewer impacts to air quality, cultural resources and noise, and would therefore reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed program. However, since the ability to achieve compliance with MS4 Permit water quality objectives would be reduced without the larger-scale centralized and regional BMPs, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative. The Non-Structural BMPs Only Alternative would avoid all of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction of the structural BMPs. In addition, nearly all of the impacts associated with the proposed alternative would be avoided, including impacts from infiltration to neighboring subsurface structures, mobilization of contaminants, and site-specific impacts to cultural and biological resources. However, since the ability to achieve compliance with MS4 Permit water quality objectives would be substantially reduced, impacts to water quality would be greater under this alternative, and compliance with the MS4 Permit would be unlikely. Even though this alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts of construction and Findings of Fact LA County Flood Control District 56 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Findings of Fact operation of structural BMPs, the failure to meet water quality objectives and achieve MS4 Permit compliance would outweigh the avoidance of the other impacts. Since the proposed alternative would provide the best chance of achieving regional water quality objectives, it is considered the environmentally superior alternative. LA County Flood Control District 1 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision Exhibit B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 For Enhanced Watershed Management Programs Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2014081106) Lead Agency: Los Angeles County Flood Control District The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining to approve the project. The Enhanced Watershed Management Programs (EWMP) would result in some environmental effects that, although mitigated to the extent feasible by the implementation of mitigation measures proposed for the program, would remain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as discussed in the final program environmental impact report (PEIR) and CEQA findings of fact. These impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this statement of overriding considerations is made. Air Quality 1) Impact 3.2-2 (The project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation). Construction of large regional or centralized BMPs associated with the proposed program could result in temporary significant and unavoidable air emissions during peak periods of construction. The exceedance of applicable SCAQMD- recommended air quality thresholds would be generated primarily during the grading phase of proposed projects, when emissions associated with off-road construction equipment and on-road soil hauling activities would occur. Mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce the severity of the emissions during construction by requiring the use of low-emission equipment which meets Tier II emissions standards at a minimum. However, because there are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to prevent violation of air quality standards during construction, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. 2) Impact 3.2-3 (The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)). The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment. The Los Angeles Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which indicates that combined LA County Flood Control District 2 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin, the proposed program could violate an air quality standard. Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the resulting aggregate daily emissions may not be reduced to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds should multiple structural BMP projects be constructed concurrently throughout the Basin. As pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, PM10, and PM2.5) could exceed SCAQMD’s respective thresholds for construction, these pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. Operational emissions for the program would not exceed air quality standards therefore would not be cumulatively considerable; cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant after implementation of structural BMPs. Cultural Resources 3) Impact 3.4-1 (The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5.). The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources in the project area. Historical resources can include not only buildings and structures, but also any object, site area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant, or which is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR. Known archaeological resources, as well as unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources that may be unearthed during construction activities associated with implementation of structural BMPs, could be impacted by individual projects. As program implementation actions move forward, individual projects would undergo additional CEQA review prior to construction to assess impacts to specific cultural resources not addressed in this program-level EIR. Mitigation measures will be implemented to lessen impacts to historical resources through historic built environment surveys, cultural resources inventories, archaeological monitoring, and assessment of findings if applicable during ground-disturbing operations. However, because the degree of impact and the applicability, feasibility, and success of these measures cannot be accurately predicted for each specific project at this time, the program level impact related to archaeological and cultural resources that qualify as historical resources is considered significant and unavoidable. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 4) Cumulative Impact, Cultural Resources (The project would result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources). Development of the proposed project together with simultaneous development of nearby, reasonably foreseeable planned projects in the area would result in significant cumulative cultural resources impacts. The program could cause impacts on cultural and paleontological resources during the construction period or as a result of operation and maintenance or closure and decommissioning activities. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the cultural resources geographic scope of analysis could occur if other existing or proposed projects, in conjunction with the proposed program, had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be significant. While implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to historical resources, the proposed program may ultimately result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources through development activities for which no possible mitigation may be available to maintain historic integrity of an affected resource or its surroundings. Therefore, despite implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7, the program would have cumulatively significant and unavoidable environmental impact to historical resources. LA County Flood Control District 3 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision Noise 5) Impact 3.10-1 (The proposed project would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies). During construction of the proposed program, noise levels would be increased temporarily and intermittently to levels substantially greater than existing ambient noise levels in the area. Mitigation measures would help reduce construction noise impacts, requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with the applicable local noise regulations and standards, the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities, and advance notification to the surrounding noise- sensitive receptors of a structural BMP site about upcoming construction activities and their hours of operation. Certain structural BMP projects may exceed noise levels established by their respective local jurisdictions, though, which would make this impact significant and unavoidable despite implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2. 6) Impact 3.10-4 (The proposed project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project). During construction of the distributed, centralized, and regional structural BMPs, temporary or periodic increases in noise levels in and around each structural BMP site would result from the operation of construction equipment. Under circumstances where structural BMP sites are located immediately adjacent to existing sensitive land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the structural BMPs would remain significant, even with implementation of mitigation measures. Individual project-level assessment in the future, though, may result in a finding of less-than-significant for temporary increases in noise levels. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable for this program. 7) Cumulative Impact, Noise (The project would result in significant cumulative construction noise impacts). Construction of the structural BMPs, in combination with other current and planned projects in the County would result in an increase in construction-related noise levels, which would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels of the existing noise environment in areas where a construction project would occur. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, cumulative impacts for construction would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition to the impacts identified above, the District finds that the following impacts are significant and unavoidable solely because the mitigation proposed to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels is within the control and jurisdiction of other public agencies who will be implementing the EWMPs. Although the District will implement these mitigation measures for projects over which it has jurisdiction, the District cannot ensure that other Implementing Agencies will adopt and implement the proposed mitigation measures for projects over which they have jurisdiction. The District therefore cannot state with certainty that these impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, meaning that they may remain significant and unavoidable. The statement of overriding considerations is therefore also made for the following impacts: Aesthetics 8) Impact 3.1-1(The proposed program could create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista). During construction, equipment and materials required for temporary ground disturbances would LA County Flood Control District 4 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision be visible from public vantage points, but would not affect any scenic vistas past the temporary construction periods. Given the predominantly urban character of potential pump station sites and temporary nature of construction activities, impacts would be considered less than significant. A majority of structural BMPs would be located underground and would not introduce impacts to scenic vistas. Aboveground structures such as pump stations would be located in urbanized areas and would generally be single-story buildings. Such aboveground structures have the potential to impact scenic vistas, but will be required to be designed so as not to contrast existing neighborhood aesthetic features. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure AES-1 that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 9) Impact 3.1-2 (The proposed program could substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway).Parts of the proposed program may be visible from designated scenic highways or other locally designated scenic roadways in the project area. Rock outcroppings and historic buildings would likely not be disturbed by the project as most of the BMPs will be underground and not visible after construction is complete. Construction of the proposed program would involve removal of vegetation from individual project sites. Larger structures may result in significant impacts to scenic resources within state scenic highway. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure AES-1 that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 10) Impact 3.1-3 (The proposed program could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings). Construction activities would visually degrade the project site and its surroundings as a result of the appearance of demolition materials, excavated areas, stockpiles, and other materials. Due to the temporary nature of construction, these adverse effects are considered less than significant. Once constructed, the BMPs would be located predominantly in urban areas and largely underground, which will not have a permanent effect on the visual character or quality of an area. Aboveground structures may degrade existing visual character of project areas as they will add to the visual landscape. Without proper maintenance of BMPs, especially wet ponds or constructed wetlands, there is a potential for substantial degradation of existing visual quality of project sites due to algal growth or public littering. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 that would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 11) Cumulative Impact, Aesthetics (The proposed program would result in a less than significant cumulative aesthetic impact with mitigation). Cumulative projects in the program region have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources if they would result in the removal or substantial adverse change of visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, state scenic highway, or localized area. Given that the BMPs will be located in primarily urbanized areas, introduction of structural BMPs would result in only minor changes to the visual landscape. The cumulative impacts of aboveground structures could have a significant impact to the aesthetic environment due to their potential size and location. Overall, implementation of BMPs is anticipated to have a positive impact on the aesthetic environment through the creation of open space areas and less impervious surfaces in urbanized or residential areas. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 that would reduce cumulative impacts LA County Flood Control District 5 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision associated with aesthetics to a less-than-significant level. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Air Quality 12) Impact 3.2-4 (The proposed program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations). While construction-related traffic on local roadways would occur during construction, the net increase of construction vehicle trips to the existing traffic volumes on local roadways would be relatively small and would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. These construction-related trips would only occur in the short-term, and because trip-generating land uses are not associated with the proposed program, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant. Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only temporarily at each individual structural BMP site, therefore the construction activities associated with each structural BMP project in the EWMP areas would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. During construction of the individual structural BMPs in the project area, sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers would be exposed to significant adverse localized air quality impacts. Operation of structural BMPs would not involve the emission of toxic air contaminants (TAC), and would operate passively without use of mechanical equipment. Project operation would not introduce health risks associated with TAC emissions. Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants from vehicle exhaust and dust. Depending on the size and scope of the individual structural BMPs, a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis may be required to ensure construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to the exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure AIR-3 that would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 13) The proposed program could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Impact 3.2-5). The proposed program does not include any uses typically associated with odor complaints including agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plans, and landfills, among others. During the construction phase, exhaust odors from equipment may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites and would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses. These odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature, so would not be considered a significant environmental impact. Certain BMPs such as restored creeks and estuaries may result in odors from saturated mud or algal blooms when left permanently wet. This may result in a severe nuisance for sensitive receptors near such BMPs, and regular maintenance may be sufficient to reduce odors in some situations. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures AES-2 and AIR-4 that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources 14) Impact 3.3-1 (The proposed program would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Construction of structural BMPs may affect large open space or LA County Flood Control District 6 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision riparian habitats that would have a higher potential to support special-status wildlife species, such as streams, wetlands, and upland scrub or oak woodlands. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 require suitability studies for potential BMP sites for their potential to impact valued habitats, and require impact characterization, minimization and compensation for impacts to highly valued habitats in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. The proposed program will implement BMPs that are designed to retain dry-weather flows, which could reduce wetted area or completely eliminate flows in certain drainages that support sensitive species. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 that would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 15) Impact 3.3-2 (The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS). Significant Ecological Areas (SEA), as identified by the Los Angeles County General Plan, riparian, and other sensitive communities are not expected to occur within the disturbance areas of the BMP projects since the majority of the structural BMPs would occur in developed or disturbed areas. While some regional and centralized structural BMPs could occur within or adjacent to SEAs, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, these types of BMPs would provide multi-beneficial water quality and habitat restoration improvements to the applicable EWMP watershed. Additionally, each development proposed within a designated SEA must undergo a performance review process for compliance with the SEA design compatibility criteria and other standards for approval by the LA County Department of Regional Planning. Future project-level environmental review processes would consider all proposed projects on a case-by-case basis to determine whether an individual project would impact riparian or other sensitive natural communities. Site-specific mitigation measures would be required to minimize and reduce potentially significant impacts to riparian and other sensitive natural communities. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 16) Impact 3.3-3 (The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means). Wetlands occur throughout the EWMP areas, and once project facility locations are determined, exact locations and acreages of jurisdictional areas located within or adjacent to impact areas shall be determined through a formal jurisdictional delineation. For projects impacting native vegetation within jurisdictional drainages, the implementing agency would be required to obtain California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404 compliance from the USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would ensure compliance with state and federal regulations relating to potentially jurisdictional features, including wash habitat vegetation that may fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Any projects impacting native vegetation within jurisdictional drainages would be required to comply with California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404 compliance from the USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. LA County Flood Control District 7 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision 17) Impact 3.3-5 (The proposed program would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance). The proposed program would mainly be constructed within highly urbanized and disturbed areas within existing infrastructure. Any impacts to oak trees within Los Angeles County would be required to comply with the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (or other tree ordinances established by the local city). A tree permit may be required if impacts to oak trees or other protected trees are determined to be necessary. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure BIO-10 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 18) Cumulative Impacts, Biological Resources (The proposed program would result in cumulative biological resource impacts). Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention of stormwater and treatment of pollutants within each watershed, and the reduction of pollutant loading in waterways would substantially benefit the water quality of the region’s aquatic and coastal habitats, as well as the plants and wildlife dependent on them. Implementation of the BMPs would also return the local hydrology to a more natural condition. Although some drainage segments may exhibit reduced riparian habitat or wetlands over time due to the reduced dry- weather flow, the cumulative effect would be offset by increased groundwater recharge and seepage supporting expanded wetland and riparian vegetation supporting local flora and fauna populations. Therefore, the program’s potential contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources is considered less than significant. For regional and centralized BMPs at the larger scale, the Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Cultural Resources 19) Impact 3.4-2 (The proposed program could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources as defined in §15064.5). The program area, which spans most of Los Angeles County, should be considered sensitive for archaeological resources, with degree of sensitivity varying across the program area based on specific environmental factors. Any structural BMP which involves grading, trenching, excavation, vegetation removal, or other forms of ground disturbance could impact archaeological resources. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 20) Impact 3.4-3 (The proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature). The program area is underlain by a number of high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity units, which may contain significant paleontological resources. Significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity, though, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated with structural BMPs could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures CUL-5 and CUL-6 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. LA County Flood Control District 8 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision 21) Impact 3.4-4 (The proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries). There is no indication, either from the archival research results or the archaeological survey, that any particular location in the project area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during project construction activities, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. The proposed program’s potential to uncover buried archaeological deposits including human remains is considered significant. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures CUL-7. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Geologic and Mineral Resources 22) Impact 3.5-3 (The proposed program could be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on-site or off- site non-seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure). Infiltration of water into subsurface soils can increase soil instability and result in saturated soils, soil piping through preferential pathways, breakouts due to infiltrated water finding utility trenches and other preferential pathways, and raising the local groundwater levels such that infrastructure foundations and underground structures could be affected by unstable soils. Structural BMPs could potentially be undermined by unstable soils or impact adjacent infrastructure and buildings. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure GEO-1 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 23) Cumulative Impacts, Geologic and Mineral Resources (Cumulative impacts on geology and soils would have a less than significant impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation). The cumulative effect of multiple infiltration projects could increase the severity of perched or migrating water, which has the potential to inundate underground utilities or structures. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize the cumulative impact to regional infrastructure from perched or migrating water. The management of groundwater pumping among regional managers prevents impacts to structural foundations resulting from groundwater mounding from existing recharge efforts. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce the cumulative effects to soil stability from elevated groundwater levels to a less-than-significant level. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 24) Impact 3.7-2 (The proposed program would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs). Because of their function as water conveyance systems, the entire storm sewer system, as augmented by structural BMPs, would collect and retain sediment and chemicals from urban runoff, along with any accidental or illicit spills of hazardous materials. The introduction of hazardous materials into the storm sewer system could occur in large events as in a catastrophic spill, or could occur in small concentrations as in petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals picked up and carried by stormwater in urban runoff from the streets. Contaminants in the runoff water or as discrete LA County Flood Control District 9 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision concentrated spills could accumulate in the soils and vegetation of structural BMPs. To address the accumulation of contaminants in soil at BMPs, operations and maintenance plans for BMPs that might accumulate constituents in surface soils and media will be developed to include periodic removal and replacement of these potentially impacted surface materials to reduce the potential for long-term loading leading to hazardous concentrations in soils and groundwater. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 25) Impact 3.7-4 (The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment). It is possible that a proposed BMP may be located on a hazardous materials site listed on the Cortese List, which would expose construction workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials during earth-moving activities, introducing a significant impact. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 26) Impact 3.7-5 (For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the proposed program could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area). Some structural BMPs, such as detention basins that store water for a period of time or constructed wetlands that would increase or improve wildlife habitat, could be constructed on or near airports and could result in attracting wildlife. Deer and birds are known wildlife hazards to airports. If the proposed project is at or near an airport, this could increase hazards to aircraft from wildlife. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 27) Cumulative Impacts, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (The proposed program would result in cumulatively significant impacts to hazardous materials). Most of the distributed BMPs would be small in scale and would not result in cumulatively significant impacts due to increased hazards from construction or operation. However, the combination of BMPs throughout the region would change the flow paths of stormwater and urban runoff that currently occurs in the region, resulting in the retention of pollutants generally within the soil of the BMPs that use soil for filtration and retention. Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention and treatment of pollutants within each watershed and the reduction of pollutant loading in waterways will substantially benefit water and sediment quality of the region’s habitats, rivers, and beaches. Therefore, the project’s potential contribution to cumulative effects on hazards and hazardous materials is considered beneficial. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Hydrology and Water Quality 28) Impact 3.8-2 (The proposed program would result in higher groundwater levels and could potentially affect groundwater quality). Regional BMPs would recharge stormwater into the LA County Flood Control District 10 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision groundwater basin and could raise local groundwater levels following major storm events. Distributed infiltration BMPs would typically be too small to have a measureable effect on local groundwater levels. The increased water supplies captured by the infiltration basins through the EWMP areas would be a beneficial impact of the projects. Infiltration BMPs would not be suitable in areas of low permeability, though, and potential locations would need to be evaluated for suitability. Concentrations of contaminants found in stormwater runoff could increase, resulting in contaminated shallow soils and groundwater. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-4 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Noise 29) Impact 3.10-3 (The proposed program would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project). No operational noise levels would be generated by the structural BMPs given their passive manner of operation. However, it is anticipated that some of the centralized and regional structural BMPs would require the use of irrigation pump stations and associated components to divert the collected stormwater. At these structural BMP sites, noise levels generated from the long-term operation of the pumps and associated components could result in increased noise levels in the surrounding noise environment. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Public Services and Recreation 30) Impact 3.12-1 (The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered governmental fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protective services). The structural BMPs are not habitable structures, would not be constructed with flammable materials, and would not require fire protection services. Because of the relative scale of these infrastructure improvements, the construction of the various structural BMPs are not expected to result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. However, construction of new structural BMPs in streets, sidewalks, parkland, or other facilities (these may include public service facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and municipal maintenance yards) within existing high-density urban, commercial, industrial, and transportation areas, as well as associated staging areas, could temporarily disrupt the provision of fire services, resulting in potentially significant impacts. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure PS-1 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation and Circulation 31) Impact 3.13-1 (The proposed program would intermittently and temporarily increase traffic levels and traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways). Vehicle trips would be generated primarily by construction workers commuting to and from the BMP work sites, and by trucks hauling materials and equipment to LA County Flood Control District 11 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision and from the sites. The construction traffic impacts associated with each individual structural BMP project would be short-term in nature and limited to the period of time when construction activity is taking place for that particular project. Although project-related traffic would be temporary, supplemental project-level analysis of potential site-specific impacts could determine that addition of project-generated traffic would be considered substantial in relation to traffic flow conditions on local roadways. For this program-level assessment, this impact is considered potentially significant. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 32) Impact 3.13-4 (The proposed program would contribute to cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation). During construction of the structural BMPs, intermittent and temporary traffic- related impacts in the cumulative context would occur. The proposed program has the potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative construction-related impacts as a result of (1) cumulative projects (such as land development projects) that generate increased traffic at the same time on the same roads as would the proposed program, causing increased congestion and delays; and (2) infrastructure projects in roads that would be used by project construction workers and trucks, which could delay project-generated vehicles past the work zones of those other projects. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Utilities and Service Systems 33) Impact 3.14-3 (The proposed program would require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements or require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects). Construction requiring ground disturbance could encounter buried utilities including water supply infrastructure. Construction of BMPs to detain stormwater and dry-weather flows may reduce flows downstream, thereby reducing access to beneficial uses downstream. Dry-weather flows in coastal streams and foothills are largely fed by groundwater seepage or wastewater discharges. Any detention of dry weather flows or storm flows upstream could substantially reduce flows downstream or significantly impede access to flows. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-3 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 34) Impact 3.14-4 (The proposed program would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed program’s solid waste disposal needs or the proposed program could not comply with federal, state, and local statuses and regulations related to solid waste). Construction activities associated with the structural BMPs would include excavation and demolition of some existing infrastructure, which would produce solid waste requiring disposal in the nearest landfill. Some of the EWMPs are required to implement trash Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDLs) and associated trash removal structural BMPs, which would require the disposal of the trash collected by the BMPs, thereby increase the amount of trash being sent to landfills. The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain operation, which produce debris and trash requiring disposal, which could exceed landfill limits. The new trash collected that is associated with proposed trash removal structural BMPs and non- LA County Flood Control District 12 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision structural BMPs such as street cleaning and landscape management would be accommodated with existing and planned trash disposal facilities. Based on landfill capacity in the Los Angeles region, there appears to be ample availability to receive the expected trash generated by the program. The program would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the Los Angeles County Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and Reuse Program. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 35) Cumulative Impacts, Utilities and Service Systems (The proposed program could result in significant cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems). Structural BMPS constructed to treat, infiltrate, and/or store stormwater and non-stormwater throughout the watershed would not generate wastewater or require wastewater treatment or result in adverse cumulative impacts from operation or construction. Installation of storm drainage facilities identified in the proposed EWMPs would not substantially affect existing storm drain facilities. Impacts to the existing water supplies are anticipated to be beneficial as a result of the stormwater and non-stormwater runoff infiltration and conservation BMPs implemented across the EWMP areas. Construction and operation of the structural BMPs would generate solid waste; however, landfills serving the program area are expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the amount of waste generated. Disposal of the solid waste generated during construction and operation would comply with all pertinent regulations and statutes. All other projects implemented in the area would also be required to comply with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations and statutes. The use of energy anticipated for the proposed program is minor when compared to the County-wide use of electricity. The proposed program would use energy-efficient equipment and would not result in wasteful consumption. The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain operation, which would produce debris and trash for disposal. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-3 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Findings The Los Angeles County Flood Control District finds and determines that it has considered the identified means of lessening or avoiding the project’s significant effects and that to the extent any significant direct or indirect environmental effects, including cumulative project impacts, remain unavoidable or not reduced to below a level of significance after mitigation, such impacts are at an unacceptable level in light of the social, legal, economic, environmental, technological, and other project benefits discussed below, and such benefits override, outweigh, and make “acceptable” any such remaining environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)). The following benefits and considerations outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the findings, the Final PEIR, and the record of proceedings for the project. Each of these benefits and considerations is a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration would occur and justifies project approval, this Commission would otherwise stand by its determination that the remaining benefit(s) or considerations are sufficient to justify and substantiate project approval. LA County Flood Control District 13 ESA / 140474 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Statement of Overriding Considerations Preliminary  Subject to Revision Facts Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of the other benefits, and the District determines that the adverse environmental impacts of the project are “acceptable” if any of these benefits would be realized. The project would provide benefits to the County of Los Angeles as follows: 1) The proposed program would help the District, in partnership with 85 other Permittees, to achieve compliance with the MS4 permit issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB in 2012. 2) The proposed program would result in improved water quality in receiving waters throughout the County including the major rivers, streams, and the ocean through the retention, detention, or treatment of stormwater and dry weather flow. 3) The proposed program would help the District, in partnership with 85 other Permittees, to achieve TMDL water quality objectives identified by the Los Angeles RWQCB. 4) The proposed program would benefit communities within the County in developing multi-benefit facilities. 5) The proposed project would benefit certain communities within the County in augmenting groundwater supplies with captured stormwater. 6) Implementation of the proposed program would help support and be consistent with the State of California Ocean Plan promoting improved ocean water quality for multiple beneficial uses. 7) Implementation of the proposed program would be consistent with the stated goals and policies of the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to California Water Code Section 13240. 8) Implementation of the proposed program would promote and be consistent with the County of Los Angeles 2014 Low Impact Development Standards Manual. LA County Flood Control District 1 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during the implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Programs (EWMPs) (proposed program). LACFCD is the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. This MMRP provides LACFCD with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing all the mitigation measures including the ability to focus on select information such as timing. The MMRP includes the following information for each mitigation measure:  The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be implemented;  The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be monitored;  The enforcement agency; and  The monitoring agency. The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks for each mitigation measure. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 2 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Initial Date Aesthetics AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with neighboring development. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; Operation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant AES-2: Implementing agencies shall develop BMP maintenance plans that are approved concurrently with each structural BMP approval. The maintenance plans must include measures to ensure functionality of the structural BMPs for the life of the BMP. These plans may include general maintenance guidelines that apply to a number of smaller distributed BMPs. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; Operation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Air Quality AIR-1: Implementing agencies shall require for large Regional or Centralized BMPs the use of low-emission equipment meeting Tier II emissions standards at a minimum and Tier III and IV emissions standards where available as CARB-required emissions technologies become readily available to contractors in the region. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; Operation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Significant and unavoidable for construction; less than significant for operations AIR-2: For large construction efforts that may result in significant air emissions, implementing agencies shall encourage contractors to use lower-emission equipment through the bidding process where appropriate. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Significant and unavoidable for construction; less than significant for operations AIR-3: For large construction efforts associated with Regional or Centralized BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a project-specific LST analysis where necessary to determine local health impacts to neighboring land uses. Where it is determined that construction emissions would exceed the applicable LSTs or the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, the structural BMP project shall reduce its daily construction intensity (e.g., reducing the amount of equipment used daily, reducing the amount of soil graded/excavated daily) to a level where the structural BMP project’s construction emissions would no longer exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Final Plans and Specifications During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant AIR-4: During planning of structural BMPs, implementing agencies shall assess the potential for nuisance odors to affect a substantial number of people. BMPs that minimize odors shall be considered the priority when in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Prior to Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 3 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Biological Resources BIO-1: Prior to approving a Regional or Centralized BMP, the Permittee shall conduct an evaluation of the suitability of the BMP location. Appropriate BMP sites should avoid impacting large areas of native habitats including upland woodlands and riparian forests that support sensitive species to the extent feasible. The evaluation shall include an assessment of potential downstream impacts resulting from flow diversions. Prior to Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-2: Prior to ground disturbing activities in areas that could support sensitive biological resources, a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur within affected areas, including areas directly or indirectly impacted by construction or operation of the BMPs. Prior to Ground Disturbing Activities Pre-Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-3: If a special-status wildlife species is determined to be present or potentially present within the limits of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of proposed work zones and within an appropriately sized buffer around each area as determined by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities. Any potential habitat capable of supporting a special-status wildlife species shall be flagged for avoidance if feasible. Prior to Ground Disturbing Activities Pre-Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-4: If avoidance of special-status species or sensitive habitats that could support special-status species (including, but not limited to, critical habitat, riparian habitat, and jurisdictional wetlands/waters) is not feasible, the Permittee shall consult with the appropriate regulating agency (USACE/USFWS or CDFW) to determine a strategy for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and other regulations protecting special-status species and sensitive habitats. The Permittee shall identify appropriate impact minimization measures and compensation for permanent impacts to sensitive habitats and species in consultation with regulatory agencies. Construction of the project will not begin until the appropriate permits from the regulatory agencies are approved. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-5: If construction and vegetation removal is proposed between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for breeding and nesting birds and raptors within 500-feet of the construction limits to determine and map the location and extent of breeding birds that could be affected by the project. Active nest sites located during the pre-construction surveys shall be avoided until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. Pre-Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-6: All construction areas, staging areas, and right-of-ways shall be staked, flagged, fenced, or otherwise clearly delineated to restrict the limits of construction to the minimum necessary near areas that may support special-status wildlife species as determined by a qualified biologist. Pre-Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 4 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance BIO-7: Prior to construction in areas that could support special status plants, a qualified botanist shall conduct a pre-construction floristic inventory and focused rare plant survey of project areas to determine and map the location and extent of special-status plant species populations within disturbance areas. This survey shall occur during the typical blooming periods of special-status plants with the potential to occur. The plant survey shall follow the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (November 24, 2009). Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-8: If temporary construction-related impacts to special-status plant populations are identified within a disturbance area, the implementing agencies shall prepare and implement a special-status species salvage and replanting plan. The salvage and replanting plan shall include measures to salvage, replant, and monitor the disturbance area until native vegetation is re-established under the direction of CDFW and USFWS. Pre-Construction During Construction; Operation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-9: Prior to construction, a qualified wetland delineator shall be retained to conduct a formal wetland delineation in areas where potential jurisdictional resources (i.e., wetlands or drainages) subject to the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, may be affected by the project. If jurisdictional resources are identified in the EWMP area and would be directly or indirectly impacted by individual projects, the qualified wetland delineator shall prepare a jurisdictional delineation report suitable for submittal to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW for purposes of obtaining the appropriate permits. Habitat mitigation and compensation requirements shall be implemented prior to construction in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant BIO-10: Oak trees and other protected trees shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If trees may be impacted by project construction, a certified arborist shall conduct a tree inventory of the construction impact area. If any oak trees or other protected trees will be impacted by BMP construction, the implementing agency shall obtain any required County or City permits. Pre-Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Cultural Resources CUL-1: For individual EWMP projects that could impact buildings or structures (including infrastructure) 45 years old or older, implementing agencies shall ensure that a historic built environment survey is conducted or supervised by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. Historic built environment resources shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR or local register prior to the implementing agency’s approval of project plans. If eligible resources that would be considered historical resources under CEQA are identified, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources shall be avoided. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the implementing agency shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not be Final Plans and Specifications During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 5 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance limited to, photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the implementing agency for review and approval prior to implementation. CUL-2: Implementing agencies shall ensure that individual EWMP projects that require ground disturbance shall be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project-specific basis prior to the implementing agency’s approval of project plans. The study shall be conducted or supervised by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the local Native American representatives expressing interest. The cultural resources inventory shall include a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist; and formal recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and significance evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report following the guidelines in Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format, Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State of California, 1990. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the implementing agency shall require that the resources are evaluated by the qualified archaeologist for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the appropriate Native American groups for prehistoric resources. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re-design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. Final Plans and Specifications During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant CUL-3: The implementing agency shall retain archaeological monitors during ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the implementing During Ground-Disturbing Activities During Ground-Disturbing Activities Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 6 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in the project. Native American monitors shall be retained for projects that have a high potential to impact sensitive Native American resources, as determined by the implementing agency in coordination with the qualified archaeologist. CUL-4: During project-level construction, should subsurface archaeological resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re-design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 During Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant CUL-5: For individual structural BMP projects that require ground disturbance, the implementing agency shall evaluate the sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the project and provide recommendations regarding additional work, potentially including testing or construction monitoring. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant CUL-6: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during construction, the implementing agency shall notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will evaluate the potential resource, assess the significance of the find, and recommend further actions to protect the resource. During Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant CUL-7: The implementing agency shall require that, if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then During Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 7 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance designate a Most Likely Descendant of the deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. Geological and Mineral Resources GEO-1: Prior to approval of infiltration BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of each infiltration BMP site to evaluate infiltration suitability. If infiltration rates are sufficient to accommodate an infiltration BMP, the geotechnical investigation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent excessive lateral spreading that could destabilize neighboring structures. Implementing agencies shall implement these measures in project designs Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant GEO-2: Prior to installing BMPs designed to recharge local groundwater supplies, the Implementing Agency shall notify local groundwater managers including the Upper Los Angeles River Area Water Master, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, or the San Gabriel Water Master as well as local water producers such as local municipalities and water companies. The Implementing Agency shall coordinate BMP siting efforts with groundwater managers and producers to mitigate high groundwater levels while increasing local water supplies. Final Plans and Specifications; prior to BMP Installation Final Plans and Specification; prior to BMP Installation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Implementing agencies shall prepare and implement maintenance practices that include periodic removal and replacement of surface soils and media that may accumulate constituents that could result in further migration of constituents to sub-soils and groundwater. A BMP Maintenance Plan shall be prepared by Implementing Agencies upon approval of the individual BMP projects that identifies the frequency and procedures for removal and/or replacement of accumulated debris, surface soils and/or media (to depth where constituent concentrations do not represent a hazardous conditions and/or have the potential to migrate further and impact groundwater) to avoid accumulation of hazardous concentrations and the potential to migrate further to sub-soils and groundwater. The Maintenance Plan shall include vector control requirements. The BMP Maintenance Plan may consist of a general maintenance guideline that applies to several types of smaller distributed BMPs. For smaller distributed BMPs on private property, these plans may consist of a maintenance covenant that includes requirements to avoid the accumulation of hazardous concentrations in these BMPs that may impact underlying sub-soils and groundwater. Structural BMPs shall be designed to prevent migration of constituents that may impact groundwater. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; Operation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant HAZ-2: Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground-disturbing activities in areas where hazardous material use or management may have occurred, the implementing agencies shall complete a Phase I Environmental Prior to Construction Prior to Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 8 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-13 for each construction site. Any recommended follow up sampling (Phase II activities) set forth in the Phase I ESA shall be implemented prior to construction. The results of Phase II studies, if necessary, shall be submitted to the local overseeing agency and any required remediation or further delineation of identified contamination shall be completed prior to commencement of construction. HAZ-3: Implementing Agencies shall require that those BMPs that are within an airport land use plan area are compatible with criteria specified in FAA Advisory Circular No: 150/5200-33B (FAA, 2007). If the proposed BMP is within the minimum separation criteria, the Implementing Agency shall consult with the airport and collaboratively evaluate whether the potential increase in wildlife hazards can be mitigated. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Hydrology and Water Quality HYDRO-1: Prior to approving an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall conduct an evaluation of the suitability of the BMP location. Appropriate infiltration BMP sites should avoid areas with low permeability where recharge could adversely affect neighboring subsurface infrastructure. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant HYDRO-2: Prior to approving an infiltration BMP, the Permitee shall identify pre-treatment technologies, type, and depth of filtration media; depth to groundwater; and other design considerations necessary to prevent contaminants from impacting groundwater quality. The design shall consider stormwater quality data within the BMP’s collection area to assess the need and type of treatment and filtration controls. Local design manuals and ordinances requiring minimum separation distance to groundwater shall also be met as part of the design. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant HYDRO-3: Prior to the installation of an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall conduct a regulatory database review for contaminated groundwater sites within a quarter mile of the proposed infiltration facility. The review shall include locations of on-site wastewater treatment systems that could be affected by the BMP. The Permittee shall identify whether any contaminated groundwater plumes or leach fields are present within close proximity to the BMP location that could be affected by infiltrated water and whether coordination with the local and state environmental protection overseeing agency and responsible party is warranted prior to final design of infiltration facility. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant HYDRO-4: Prior to approving a structural BMP, the implementing agencies shall conduct an evaluation of the potential hydromodification impacts of the project. The evaluation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent or minimize any identified impacts, including flooding, erosion and/or scour. Design measures could include velocity dissipaters and bank re-enforcement components. Implementing agencies shall include these measures in project designs. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 9 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Noise NOISE-1: The implementing agencies shall implement the following measures during construction as needed::  Include design measures necessary to reduce the construction noise levels where feasible. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.  Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) as far as possible from the nearest noise-sensitive land uses.  Locate stationary construction noise sources as far from adjacent noise-sensitive receptors as possible.  If construction is to occur near a school, the construction contractor shall coordinate the with school administration in order to limit disturbance to the campus. Efforts to limit construction activities to non-school days shall be encouraged.  For the centralized and regional BMP projects located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses, identify a liaison for these off-site sensitive receptors, such as residents and property owners, to contact with concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison’s telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. For the centralized and regional BMP projects located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses, notify in writing all landowners and occupants of properties adjacent to the construction area of the anticipated construction schedule at least 2 weeks prior to groundbreaking. During Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Significant and unavoidable for construction, less than significant for operations (threshold 3.10-1); less than significant (threshold 3.10-3); significant and unavoidable (threshold 3.10-4); NOISE-2: All structural BMPs that employ mechanized stationary equipment that generate noise levels shall comply with the applicable noise standards established by the implementing agency with jurisdiction over the structural BMP site. The equipment shall be designed with noise-attenuating features (e.g., enclosures) and/or located at areas (e.g., belowground) where nearby noise-sensitive land uses would not be exposed to a perceptible noise increase in their noise environment. Final Plans and Specifications, Operation Final Plans and Specifications; Operation Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Significant and unavoidable for construction, less than significant for operations (threshold 3.10-1); less than significant (threshold 3.10-3) Public Services and Recreation PS-1: The Permittee implementing the EWMP project shall provide reasonable advance notification to the service providers such as fire, police, local businesses, home owners and residents of adjacent to and within areas potentially affected by the proposed EWMP project about the nature, extent and duration of construction activities. Interim updates should be provided to inform them of the status of the construction activities. Pre-Construction; During Construction Pre-Construction; During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LA County Flood Control District 10 ESA / 140379 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Phase Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Level of Significance After Mitigation Verification of Compliance Transportation and Circulation TRAF-1: For projects that may affect traffic, implementing agencies shall require that contractors prepare a construction traffic control plan. Elements of the plan should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. Use haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible.  To the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow, schedule truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours.  Install traffic control devices as specified in Caltrans’ Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones where needed to maintain safe driving conditions. Use flaggers and/or signage to safely direct traffic through construction work zones.  Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to the facility owner or operator of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities. Final Plans and Specifications; During Construction Final Plans and Specifications; During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Utilities and Service Systems UTIL-1: Prior to implementation of BMPs, the implementing agency shall conduct a search for local utilities above and below ground that could be affected by the project. The implementing agencies shall contact each utility potentially affected to address relocation of the utility if necessary to ensure access and services are maintained. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications; During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant UTIL-2: Prior to approval of BMPs, implementing agencies shall evaluate the potential for impacts to downstream beneficial uses including surface water rights. Implementing agencies shall not approve BMPs that result in preventing access to previously appropriated surface water downstream. Final Plans and Specifications Final Plans and Specifications Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant UTIL-3: Implementing agencies shall encourage construction contractors to recycle construction materials and divert inert solids (asphalt, brick, concrete, dirt, fines, rock, sand, soil, and stone) from disposal in a landfill where feasible. Implementing agencies shall incentivize construction contractors with waste minimization goals in bid specifications where feasible. Final Plans and Specifications; During Construction During Construction Los Angeles County Flood Control District or Implementing Agency Less than significant Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0504 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 DISCUSSION OF PROHIBITING SINGLE-USE CARRY-OUT BAGS (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: Staff recommend City Council: 1.Receive and file this report; 2.Direct staff on whether to develop an ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach prohibiting single-use carryout bags; and 3.Recommend the appropriation of $18,515 from the General Fund’s fund balance to prepare an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (AEIR). Background: On May 11, 2015 staff initiated a discussion with City Council on developing an ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach prohibiting single-use carryout bags. Staff noted that plastic bag ordinances are an effective, first-step for pollution abatement and ocean protection since plastic grocery bags were one of the most prevalent types of pollution found during beach clean-up events and in trash capture devices. City Council requested staff to return with more information and address specific questions raised by Councilmembers. Answers to many of these questions are addressed in SB 270 (Padilla, et al.) (Attachment 1) and the 109 adopted ordinances covering 138 cities or counties in California (Attachment 2), and are reiterated herein. SB 270 will pre-empt local ordinances adopted after September 1, 2014. If SB 270 is repealed, the local ordinance can include alternative requirements such as the types and size of businesses the ordinance extends to. The intended impacts of this ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach include: (1) Reduction in the number of bags that are used and discard after one use; (2) Increase in the use of reusable bags to reduce the need for new bags; (3) Increase recycling of bags when they can no longer be used; and (4) Reduction in incorrectly disposed bags entering stormdrains and Santa Monica Bay. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0504 Analysis: 1.What are the issues for and against SB 270 Support. This bill is supported by numerous environmental groups, local governments, labor organizations and the State Lands Commission, all of which cite the environmental benefits and removal cost savings associated with switching to reusable bags. This bill is also supported by major retail stores who are burdened by different requirements throughout California's jurisdictions and prefer a statewide standard, even if it is only going forward. Opposition. This bill is opposed by several paper and plastic bag manufacturers and some local governments. Manufacturers argue this bill will create detrimental economic situations and job loss. Opposition is also concerned that this bill includes recycled paper bags in the fee provisions, without cause. Others contend this bill is a partial plastic bag ban that actually encourages the use of heavy duty plastic bags without providing specific recycling programs. 2. Who does the ban extend to? Square foot, establishment type? SB 270 and similar ordinances adopted by a number of local jurisdictions including the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Manhattan Beach as well as the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County extend to a retail establishment that meets any of the following requirements: (1) A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000) or more that sells a line of dry groceries, canned goods, or nonfood items, and some perishable items. (2) Has at least 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) and has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. (3) Is a convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity that is engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods, generally including milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, and that holds a Type 20 or Type 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (4) Is a convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity that is engaged in the retail sale of goods intended to be consumed off the premises, and that holds a Type 20 or Type 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (5) Is not otherwise listed in 1-4, if the retail establishment voluntarily agrees to comply with the requirements imposed upon a store pursuant to this chapter, irrevocably notifies the department of its intent to comply with the requirements imposed upon a store pursuant to this chapter, and complies with the requirements established pursuant to Section 42284. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0504 A local ordinance could expand this list of business types and size that must comply with the ordinance. 3.Do we charge for paper bags? SB 270 and similar ordinances adopted by a number of local jurisdictions requires stores to charge not less than $0.10 for both paper bags and reusable bags. Some local ordinances, for example, Los Angeles County, allow the money generated by bag purchases and retained by stores to be used only for the stores' costs of compliance, actual costs of providing recyclable paper carryout bags, or costs for educational materials/campaigns encouraging the use of reusable bags. The City of Manhattan Beach is currently revising their ordinance to include a $0.10 fee for paper bags that was not previously included. 4. What effect will this have on the landfill? Staff recommend that the ordinance encourage the use of reusable bags in preference to paper bags acknowledging that paper bags can create more waste during their production and transport, compared to plastic bags. The comparative environmental impacts of each material on the landfill is summarized briefly here, however, a more thorough discussion would include an assessment of life cycle stages of each product. Plastic bags require less volume than paper in landfills. Plastics generate a large proportion of trash in general, however, they can be compressed to a much smaller volume. Although plastics do not biodegrade, modern landfills are not optimized for the biodegradation of most waste, including paper, to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination and air pollution. It is also important to recognize that although a large percentage of bags end up in landfills, not all of them do. Single-use carry-out bag ordinances are effective at minimizing the impacts of incorrectly disposed plastic bags, which can end up in the ocean and have deleterious effects on marine life. Stray plastic bags are caught in trash capture devices can also lead to stagnant, standing water and associated health hazards. 5. Why did Huntington Beach repeal the ban? On January 20, 2015, City of Huntington Beach Councilmember Mike Posey submitted a recommendation to direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to take the necessary steps to repeal Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.95 "Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. On April 20, 2015, City Council approved to repeal of Municipal Code Section 5.95 regulating the use of plastic carryout bags and recyclable paper carryout bags, and certify an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2011-002 analyzing the action to repeal the Municipal Code section 5.95 Staff reviewed the video from April 20, 2015 where Councilmember Mike Posey discussed his reasons for submitting the recommendation to repeal the ordinance on January 20, 2015. He stated that it’s not about the environmental impacts rather “it is about freedom and freedom of choice, and Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0504 not having government ban a legal product, and not having the government impart or impose a consumer price on a legal product. We are already charging 10 cents and Santa Cruz is charging 25 cents. Where do we stop? Do we start/ stop with plastic bags and go to diapers, plastic bottles? We are all adults and know how to dispose of plastic bags and recycle them…I’ve modified my behavior”. 6. What about the trees (Impact of more paper bag usage post plastic ban)? Staff recommend to encourage the use of reusable bags, not paper bags, which is the intent of SB 270 and similar local ordinances adopted by a number of local jurisdictions. The environmental impacts from the extraction of timber and processing it for paper bags depend on whether the timber was obtained from a sustainably managed forest - most industrial timber products in the U.S. come from plantations - and the environmental management of the paper processing plant. 7. What do Ralphs/ Vons think about this? SB 270 is supported by major retail stores who are burdened by different requirements throughout California's jurisdictions and prefer a statewide standard, even if it is only going forward. The California Grocers Association (CGA), who represents Ralphs and Vons, is supportive of the $0.10 fee since it is consistent with the CGA's regional uniform model. Staff contacted Laura Peralta, Director of Southern California Local Government Relations for CGA and she expressed support for this ordinance and recommended adopting the City of Los Angeles model that includes a $0.10 paper bag fee (Attachment 3). 8. What are some creative approaches to encourage reusable bags? There are numerous creative approaches currently employed by local business to encourage the use of recyclable bags. For example, Wholefoods and Sprouts offer customers a discount on their purchase, typically $0.10, paid for by the store, which benefits these retailers since they go through fewer bags. Previously, Wholefoods customers who bring their own shopping bags were able to donate their $0.10 bag refund to a local charity of choice or the Whole Planet Foundation through a program known as Donate Your Dime. Other incentives include offering as small gift such as retailer Ten Thousand Villages, Bites for Bags program. Customers can choose to get a bite from a selection of fair trade chocolate in lieu of a bag. Some Trader Joe’s locations encourage customers to use their own bags by handing out raffle tickets to win a $25 Trader Joe’s gift card each time they use their own bag instead of disposables. Locally, most retailers sell reusable bags since they offer an inexpensive way to create brand awareness and provide advertising. 9. Do we have to do an EIR- cost, staff-time? Staff met with staff from the City Attorney’s Office and discussed two approaches to complete the required environmental compliance documentation: (1) Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (AEIR), and (2) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Staff was advised to contact Sapphos Environmental, Inc. for further information and request a quote Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0504 on the two options (Attachment 4)\. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. prepared the EIR for the ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the County of Los Angeles The County EIR was prepared to allow cities to tier off the document, using an Addendum to the EIR. This strategy has been successfully employed by a number of cities, including the City of Pasadena, the City of West Hollywood, and the City of Burbank. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. strongly encouraged the City to pursue the Addendum to the EIR, as it is less expensive, requires less time to prepare, and has greater legal defensibility as it is not subject to the “fair argument” standard. On November 16, 2010, the County Board of Supervisors certified the EIR for the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the County of Los Angeles and approved an ordinance to ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags and place a 10-cent charge on the issuance of paper carryout bags at certain stores in the unincorporated areas of the County. The EIR was designed to allow any of the 88 cities in the County to prepare an Addendum to the EIR for a similar ordinance by tiering off the County’s EIR. The originality, transferability, quality, and comprehensiveness of the EIR led the document to be selected to receive the 2011 Environmental Award for the Los Angeles section from the American Planning Association. Fiscal Implications: Staff requests the appropriation of $18,515 from the General Fund's fund balance to prepare an AEIR. Attachments: 1.SB 270 2.Single-Use Bag Ordinances in CA (updated December 31, 2014) 3.Letter from Laura Peralta, Director of Southern California Local Government Relations for California Grocers Association 4.Letter of Support from Surfrider Foundation 5.Quote from Sapphos Environmental Inc. Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Senate Bill No. 270 CHAPTER 850 An act to add Chapter 5.3 (commencing with Section 42280) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to solid waste, and making an appropriation therefor. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2014. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2014.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 270, Padilla. Solid waste: single-use carryout bags. (1) Existing law, until 2020, requires an operator of a store, as defined, to establish an at-store recycling program that provides to customers the opportunity to return clean plastic carryout bags to that store. This bill, as of July 1, 2015, would prohibit stores that have a specified amount of sales in dollars or retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer, with specified exceptions. The bill would also prohibit those stores from selling or distributing a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the store makes that bag available for purchase for not less than $0.10. The bill would also allow those stores, on or after July 1, 2015, to distribute compostable bags at the point of sale only in jurisdictions that meet specified requirements and at a cost of not less than $0.10. The bill would require these stores to meet other specified requirements on and after July 1, 2015, regarding providing reusable grocery bags to customers, including distributing those bags only at a cost of not less than $0.10. The bill would require all moneys collected pursuant to these provisions to be retained by the store and be used only for specified purposes. The bill, on and after July 1, 2016, would additionally impose these prohibitions and requirements on convenience food stores, foodmarts, and entities engaged in the sale of a limited line of goods, or goods intended to be consumed off premises, and that hold a specified license with regard to alcoholic beverages. The bill would allow a retail establishment to voluntarily comply with these requirements, if the retail establishment provides the department with irrevocable written notice. The bill would require the department to post on its Internet Web site, organized by county, the name and physical location of each retail establishment that has elected to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the operator of a store that has a specified amount of sales in dollars or retail floor space and a retail establishment that voluntarily complies with the requirements of this bill to comply with the existing at-store recycling program requirements. 92 The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2015, a reusable grocery bag sold by certain stores to a customer at the point of sale to be made by a certified reusable grocery bag producer and to meet specified requirements with regard to the bag’s durability, material, labeling, heavy metal content, and, with regard to reusable grocery bags made from plastic film on and after January 1, 2016, recycled material content. The bill would impose these requirements as of July 1, 2016, on the stores that are otherwise subject to the bill’s requirements. The bill would prohibit a producer of reusable grocery bags made from plastic film from selling or distributing those bags on and after July 1, 2015, unless the producer is certified by a 3rd-party certification entity, as specified. The bill would require a reusable grocery bag producer to provide proof of certification to the department. The bill would require the department to provide a system to receive proofs of certification online. The department would be required to publish on its Internet Web site a list of reusable grocery bag producers that have submitted the required certification and their reusable grocery bags. The bill would require the department to establish an administrative certification fee schedule, which would require a reusable grocery bag producer providing proof to the department of certification or recertification to pay a fee. The bill would require that all moneys submitted to the department pursuant to these fee provisions be deposited into the Reusable Grocery Bag Fund, which would be established by the bill, and continuously appropriated for purposes of implementing these proof of certification and Internet Web site provisions, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would also require a reusable grocery bag producer to submit applicable certified test results to the department. The bill would authorize a person to object to a certification of a reusable grocery bag producer by filing an action for review of that certification in the superior court of a county that has jurisdiction over the reusable grocery bag producer. The bill would require the court to determine if the reusable grocery bag producer is in compliance with the provisions of the bill and, based on the court’s determination, would require the court to direct the department to either remove or retain the reusable grocery bag producer on its published Internet Web site list. The bill would allow a city, county, or city and county, or the state to impose civil penalties on a person or entity that knows or reasonably should have known it is in violation of the bill’s requirements. The bill would require these civil penalties to be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the action, and would allow the penalties collected by the Attorney General to be expended by the Attorney General, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce the bill’s provisions. The bill would declare that it occupies the whole field of the regulation of reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, and recycled paper bags provided by a store and would prohibit a local public agency from enforcing or implementing an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule, or any 92 — 2 —Ch. 850 amendment thereto, adopted on or after September 1, 2014, relating to those bags, against a store, except as provided. (2) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 creates the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account and continuously appropriates the funds deposited in the subaccount to the department for making loans for the purposes of the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Program. Existing law makes the provisions regarding the loan program, the creation of the subaccount, and expenditures from the subaccount inoperative on July 1, 2021, and repeals them as of January 1, 2022. This bill would appropriate $2,000,000 from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account to the department for the purposes of providing loans for the creation and retention of jobs and economic activity in California for the manufacture and recycling of plastic reusable grocery bags that use recycled content. The bill would require a recipient of a loan to agree, as a condition of receiving the loan, to take specified actions. (3) The bill would require the department, no later than March 1, 2018, to provide a status report to the Legislature on the implementation of the bill’s provisions. Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.3 (commencing with Section 42280) is added to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, to read: Chapter 5.3. Single-Use Carryout Bags Article 1. Definitions 42280. (a) “Department” means the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (b) “Postconsumer recycled material” means a material that would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having completed its intended end use and product life cycle. Postconsumer recycled material does not include materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing and fabrication process. (c) “Recycled paper bag” means a paper carryout bag provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale that meets all of the following requirements: (1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), contains a minimum of 40 percent postconsumer recycled materials. (B) An eight pound or smaller recycled paper bag shall contain a minimum of 20 percent postconsumer recycled material. (2) Is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in a majority of households that have access to curbside recycling programs in the state. 92 Ch. 850— 3 — (3) Has printed on the bag the name of the manufacturer, the country where the bag was manufactured, and the minimum percentage of postconsumer content. (d) “Reusable grocery bag” means a bag that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale that meets the requirements of Section 42281. (e) (1) “Reusable grocery bag producer” means a person or entity that does any of the following: (A) Manufactures reusable grocery bags for sale or distribution to a store. (B) Imports reusable grocery bags into this state, for sale or distribution to a store. (C) Sells or distributes reusable bags to a store. (2) “Reusable grocery bag producer” does not include a store, with regard to a reusable grocery bag for which there is a manufacturer or importer, as specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1). (f) (1) “Single-use carryout bag” means a bag made of plastic, paper, or other material that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale and that is not a recycled paper bag or a reusable grocery bag that meets the requirements of Section 42281. (2) A single-use carryout bag does not include either of the following: (A) A bag provided by a pharmacy pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code to a customer purchasing a prescription medication. (B) A nonhandled bag used to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items when placed in a recycled paper bag, a reusable grocery bag, or a compostable plastic bag. (C) A bag provided to contain an unwrapped food item. (D) A nonhandled bag that is designed to be placed over articles of clothing on a hanger. (g) “Store” means a retail establishment that meets any of the following requirements: (1) A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000) or more that sells a line of dry groceries, canned goods, or nonfood items, and some perishable items. (2) Has at least 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) and has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. (3) Is a convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity that is engaged in the retail sale of a limited line of goods, generally including milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, and that holds a Type 20 or Type 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (4) Is a convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity that is engaged in the retail sale of goods intended to be consumed off the premises, and that holds a Type 20 or Type 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 92 — 4 —Ch. 850 (5) Is not otherwise subject to paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if the retail establishment voluntarily agrees to comply with the requirements imposed upon a store pursuant to this chapter, irrevocably notifies the department of its intent to comply with the requirements imposed upon a store pursuant to this chapter, and complies with the requirements established pursuant to Section 42284. Article 2. Reusable Grocery Bags 42281. (a) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, may sell or distribute a reusable grocery bag to a customer at the point of sale only if the reusable bag is made by a producer certified pursuant to this article to meet all of the following requirements: (1) Has a handle and is designed for at least 125 uses, as provided in this article. (2) Has a volume capacity of at least 15 liters. (3) Is machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned and disinfected. (4) Has printed on the bag, or on a tag attached to the bag that is not intended to be removed, and in a manner visible to the consumer, all of the following information: (A) The name of the manufacturer. (B) The country where the bag was manufactured. (C) A statement that the bag is a reusable bag and designed for at least 125 uses. (D) If the bag is eligible for recycling in the state, instructions to return the bag to the store for recycling or to another appropriate recycling location. If recyclable in the state, the bag shall include the chasing arrows recycling symbol or the term “recyclable,” consistent with the Federal Trade Commission guidelines use of that term, as updated. (5) Does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other toxic material that may pose a threat to public health. A reusable bag manufacturer may demonstrate compliance with this requirement by obtaining a no objection letter from the federal Food and Drug Administration. This requirement shall not affect any authority of the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Article 14 (commencing with Section 25251) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code and, notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 25257.1 of the Health and Safety Code, the reusable grocery bag shall not be considered as a product category already regulated or subject to regulation. (6) Complies with Section 260.12 of Part 260 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations related to recyclable claims if the reusable grocery bag producer makes a claim that the reusable grocery bag is recyclable. 92 Ch. 850— 5 — (b) (1) In addition to the requirements in subdivision (a), a reusable grocery bag made from plastic film shall meet all of the following requirements: (A) On and after January 1, 2016, it shall be made from a minimum of 20 percent postconsumer recycled material. (B) On and after January 1, 2020, it shall be made from a minimum of 40 percent postconsumer recycled material. (C) It shall be recyclable in this state, and accepted for return at stores subject to the at-store recycling program (Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 42250)) for recycling. (D) It shall have, in addition to the information required to be printed on the bag or on a tag, pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), a statement that the bag is made partly or wholly from postconsumer recycled material and stating the postconsumer recycled material content percentage, as applicable. (E) It shall be capable of carrying 22 pounds over a distance of 175 feet for a minimum of 125 uses and be at least 2.25 mils thick, measured according to the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6988-13. (2) A reusable grocery bag made from plastic film that meets the specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400, as updated, is not required to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), but shall be labeled in accordance with the applicable state law regarding compostable plastics. (c) In addition to the requirements of subdivision (a), a reusable grocery bag that is not made of plastic film and that is made from any other natural or synthetic fabric, including, but not limited to, woven or nonwoven nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene-terephthalate, or Tyvek, shall satisfy all of the following: (1) It shall be sewn. (2) It shall be capable of carrying 22 pounds over a distance of 175 feet for a minimum of 125 uses. (3) It shall have a minimum fabric weight of at least 80 grams per square meter. (d) On and after July 1, 2016, a store as defined in paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall comply with the requirements of this section. 42281.5. On and after July 1, 2015, a producer of reusable grocery bags made from plastic film shall not sell or distribute a reusable grocery bag in this state unless the producer is certified by a third-party certification entity pursuant to Section 42282. A producer shall provide proof of certification to the department demonstrating that the reusable grocery bags produced by the producer comply with the provisions of this article. The proof of certification shall include all of the following: 92 — 6 —Ch. 850 (a) Names, locations, and contact information of all sources of postconsumer recycled material and suppliers of postconsumer recycled material. (b) Quantity and dates of postconsumer recycled material purchases by the reusable grocery bag producer. (c) How the postconsumer recycled material is obtained. (d) Information demonstrating that the postconsumer recycled material is cleaned using appropriate washing equipment. 42282. (a) Commencing on or before July 1, 2015, the department shall accept from a reusable grocery bag producer proof of certification conducted by a third-party certification entity, submitted under penalty of perjury, for each type of reusable grocery bag that is manufactured, imported, sold, or distributed in the state and provided to a store for sale or distribution, at the point of sale, that meets all the applicable requirements of this article. The proof of certification shall be accompanied by a certification fee, established pursuant to Section 42282.1. (b) A reusable grocery bag producer shall resubmit to the department proof of certification as described in subdivision (a) on a biennial basis. A reusable grocery bag producer shall provide the department with an updated proof of certification conducted by a third-party certification entity if any modification that is not solely aesthetic is made to a previously certified reusable bag. Failure to comply with this subdivision shall result in removal of the relevant information posted on the department’s Internet Web site pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (e) for each reusable bag that lacks an updated proof of certification conducted by a third-party certification entity. (c) A third-party certification entity shall be an independent, accredited (ISO/IEC 17025) laboratory. A third-party certification entity shall certify that the producer’s reusable grocery bags meet the requirements of Section 44281. (d) The department shall provide a system to receive proofs of certification online. (e) On and after July 1, 2015, the department shall publish a list on its Internet Web site that includes all of the following: (1) The name, location, and appropriate contact information of certified reusable grocery bag producers. (2) The reusable grocery bags of producers that have provided the required certification. (f) A reusable grocery bag producer shall submit applicable certified test results to the department confirming that the reusable grocery bag meets the requirements of this article for each type of reusable grocery bag that is manufactured, imported, sold, or distributed in the state and provided to a store for sale or distribution. (1) A person may object to the certification of a reusable grocery bag producer pursuant to this section by filing an action for review of that certification in the superior court of a county that has jurisdiction over the 92 Ch. 850— 7 — reusable grocery bag producer. The court shall determine if the reusable grocery bag producer is in compliance with the requirements of this article. (2) A reusable grocery bag producer whose certification is being objected to pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deemed in compliance with this article pending a determination by the court. (3) Based on its determination, the court shall direct the department to remove the reusable grocery bag producer from, or retain the reusable grocery bag producer on, its list published pursuant to subdivision (e). (4) If the court directs the department to remove a reusable grocery bag producer from its published list, the reusable grocery bag producer shall remain off of the published list for a period of one year from the date of the court’s determination. 42282.1. (a) A reusable grocery bag producer shall submit the fee established pursuant to subdivision (b) to the department when providing proof of certification or recertification pursuant to Sections 42281.5 and 42282. (b) The department shall establish an administrative certification fee schedule that will generate fee revenues sufficient to cover, but not exceed, the department’s reasonable costs to implement this article. The department shall deposit all moneys submitted pursuant to this section into the Reusable Grocery Bag Fund, which is hereby established in the State Treasury. Notwithstanding Section 11340 of the Government Code, moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal year, to the department for the purpose of implementing this article. Article 3. Single-Use Carryout Bags 42283. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (e), on and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall not provide a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale. (b) (1) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall not sell or distribute a reusable grocery bag at the point of sale except as provided in this subdivision. (2) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, may make available for purchase at the point of sale a reusable grocery bag that meets the requirements of Section 42281. (3) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, that makes reusable grocery bags available for purchase pursuant to paragraph (2) shall not sell the reusable grocery bag for less than ten cents ($0.10) in order to ensure that the cost of providing a reusable grocery bag is not subsidized by a customer who does not require that bag. 92 — 8 —Ch. 850 (c) (1) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall not sell or distribute a recycled paper bag except as provided in this subdivision. (2) A store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, may make available for purchase a recycled paper bag. On and after July 1, 2015, the store shall not sell a recycled paper bag for less than ten cents ($0.10) in order to ensure that the cost of providing a recycled paper bag is not subsidized by a consumer who does not require that bag. (d) Notwithstanding any other law, on and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, that makes reusable grocery bags or recycled paper bags available for purchase at the point of sale shall provide a reusable grocery bag or a recycled paper bag at no cost at the point of sale to a customer using a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code or an electronic benefit transfer card issued pursuant to Section 10072 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (e) On and after July 1, 2015, a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, may distribute a compostable bag at the point of sale, if the compostable bag is provided to the consumer at the cost specified pursuant to paragraph (2), the compostable bag, at a minimum, meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400, as updated, and in the jurisdiction where the compostable bag is sold and in the jurisdiction where the store is located, both of the following requirements are met: (1) A majority of the residential households in the jurisdiction have access to curbside collection of foodwaste for composting. (2) The governing authority for the jurisdiction has voted to allow stores in the jurisdiction to sell to consumers at the point of sale a compostable bag at a cost not less than the actual cost of the bag, which the Legislature hereby finds to be not less than ten cents ($0.10) per bag. (f) A store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall not require a customer to use, purchase, or accept a single-use carryout bag, recycled paper bag, compostable bag, or reusable grocery bag as a condition of sale of any product. 42283.5. On and after July 1, 2016, a store, as defined in paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall comply with the same requirements of Section 42283 that are imposed upon a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280. 42283.6. (a) The operator of a store, as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 42280 that makes recycled paper or reusable grocery bags available at the point of sale, shall be subject to the provisions of the at-store recycling program (Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 42250)). (b) A store that voluntarily agrees to comply with the provisions of this article pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 42280, shall also comply with 92 Ch. 850— 9 — the provisions of the at-store recycling program (Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 42250)). 42283.7. All moneys collected pursuant to this article shall be retained by the store and may be used only for the following purposes: (a) Costs associated with complying with the requirements of this article. (b) Actual costs of providing recycled paper bags or reusable grocery bags. (c) Costs associated with a store’s educational materials or educational campaign encouraging the use of reusable grocery bags. 42284. (a) A retail establishment not specifically required to comply with the requirements of this chapter is encouraged to reduce its distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags. (b) Pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 42280, any retail establishment that is not a “store,” that provides the department with the irrevocable written notice as specified in subdivision (c), shall be regulated as a “store” for the purposes of this chapter. (c) The irrevocable written notice shall be dated and signed by an authorized representative of the retail establishment, and shall include the name and physical address of all retail locations covered by the notice. The department shall acknowledge receipt of the notice in writing and shall specify the date the retail establishment will be regulated as a “store,” which shall not be less than 30 days after the date of the department’s acknowledgment. The department shall post on its Internet Web site, organized by county, the name and physical location or locations of each retail establishment that has elected to be regulated as a “store.” Article 4. Enforcement 42285. (a) A city, a county, a city and county, or the state may impose civil liability on a person or entity that knowingly violated this chapter, or reasonably should have known that it violated this chapter, in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for the first violation of this chapter, two thousand dollars ($2,000) per day for the second violation, and five thousand dollars ($5,000) per day for the third and subsequent violations. (b) Any civil penalties collected pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be paid to the office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the action. The penalties collected pursuant to this section by the Attorney General may be expended by the Attorney General, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to enforce this chapter. Article 5. Preemption 42287. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), this chapter is a matter of statewide interest and concern and is applicable uniformly throughout the state. Accordingly, this chapter occupies the whole field of regulation 92 — 10 —Ch. 850 of reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, and recycled paper bags, as defined in this chapter, provided by a store, as defined in this chapter. (b) On and after January 1, 2015, a city, county, or other local public agency shall not enforce, or otherwise implement, an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule, or any amendment thereto, adopted on or after September 1, 2014, relating to reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, or recycled paper bags, against a store, as defined in this chapter, unless expressly authorized by this chapter. (c) (1) A city, county, or other local public agency that has adopted, before September 1, 2014, an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule relating to reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout bags, or recycled paper bags may continue to enforce and implement that ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule that was in effect before that date. Any amendments to that ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule on or after January 1, 2015, shall be subject to subdivision (b), except the city, county, or other local public agency may adopt or amend an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule to increase the amount that a store shall charge with regard to a recycled paper bag, compostable bag, or reusable grocery bag to no less than the amount specified in Section 42283. (2) A city, county, or other local public agency not covered by paragraph (1) that, before September 1, 2014, has passed a first reading of an ordinance or resolution expressing the intent to restrict single-use carryout bags and, before January 1, 2015, adopts an ordinance to restrict single-use carryout bags, may continue to enforce and implement the ordinance that was in effect before January 1, 2015. Article 6. Financial Provisions 42288. (a) Notwithstanding Section 42023.2, the sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount in the Integrated Waste Management Account to the department for the purposes of providing loans for the creation and retention of jobs and economic activity in this state for the manufacture and recycling of plastic reusable grocery bags that use recycled content, including postconsumer recycled material. (b) The department may expend, if there are applicants eligible for funding from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount, the funds appropriated pursuant to this section to provide loans for both of the following: (1) Development and conversion of machinery and facilities for the manufacture of single-use plastic bags into machinery and facilities for the manufacturer of durable reusable grocery bags that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 42281. (2) Development of equipment for the manufacture of reusable grocery bags, that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 42281. 92 Ch. 850— 11 — (c) A recipient of a loan authorized by this section shall agree, as a condition of receiving the loan, to retain and retrain existing employees for the manufacturing of reusable grocery bags that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 42281. (d) Any moneys appropriated pursuant to this section not expended by the end of the 2015–16 fiscal year shall revert to the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan Subaccount for expenditure pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 42010) of Chapter 1. (e) Applicants for funding under this section may also apply for funding or benefits from other economic development programs for which they may be eligible, including, but not limited to, both of the following: (1) An income tax credit, as described in Sections 17059.2 and 23689 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (2) A tax exemption pursuant to Section 6377.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SEC. 2. No later than March 1, 2018, the department, as a part of its reporting requirement pursuant to Section 40507 of the Public Resources Code, shall provide a status report on the implementation of Chapter 5.3 (commencing with Section 42280) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code. O 92 — 12 —Ch. 850 921 11th Street, Suite 420, Sacramento, CA 95814 ● (916) 443-5422 ● www.cawrecycles.org Single-Use Bag Ordinances in CA (updated December 31, 2014) 109 adopted ordinances covering 138 cities or counties Local Jurisdiction Brief Description Effective Year CEQA/Strategy Key Elements and Notes San Francisco plastic ban, 10 c for paper /reusable 2012 (amended from ‘07 ban) Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants, no price requirement on bags for restaurant leftovers, allows compostable bags Fairfax plastic ban 2008 Voter Initiative Covers all retail Malibu plastic ban 2008/2009 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Manhattan Beach plastic ban 2012 Neg Dec Covers all retail and restaurants Palo Alto plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2013 (amended from ’09 ban) EIR Covers all retail and restaurants Los Angeles County plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2011/2012 EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores San Jose plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012 EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Marin County plastic ban, 5 c for paper 2012 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Santa Monica plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2011/2011 EIR Covers all retail and farmer’s markets Calabasas plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2011/2012 used LAC EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Santa Clara County plastic ban, 15 c for paper 2012 Neg Dec Covers all retail except nonprofit Long Beach plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2011/2012 used LAC EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores, farmer’s markets Santa Cruz County plastic ban, 25 c for paper 2012/2013 Mit Neg Dec Covers all retail and restaurants Pasadena plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012/2012 used LAC EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores, free paper bags for farmer’s markets and city events Monterey plastic ban, 25 c for paper 2012 Neg Dec Covers all retail except nonprofit Sunnyvale plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012/2013 EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit SLO County & 7 Cities plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores in unincorporated County and incorporated Cities Alameda County & 14 Cities plastic ban, 10 for paper/reusable 2013 EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores in unincorporated County and incorporated Cities Millbrae plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012 Neg Dec Covers all retail except nonprofit/drycleaner Laguna Beach plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2013 Neg Dec Covers all retail and farmer’s markets Dana Point plastic ban, voluntary charge for paper 2013/2013 Neg Dec Covers all retail Carpinteria plastic ban, paper ban for large stores 2012/2013 Exemption Covers all retail Ojai plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012 Neg Dec Covers all retail Ukiah plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012/2013 EIR Covers all retail Watsonville plastic ban, 25 c for paper 2012 Santa Cruz Co Neg Dec Covers all retail Solana Beach plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012/2013 Neg Dec Covers all retail Fort Bragg plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2012/2013 EIR Covers all retail Mendocino County plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2013/2013 EIR Covers all retail and restaurants Carmel plastic ban 2012 Neg Dec Covers all retail except nonprofit Santa Cruz City plastic ban, 25 c for paper 2013 Neg Dec Covers all retail West Hollywood plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2013/2013 used LAC EIR Covers all retail San Mateo County plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 EIR Covers all retail Pacifica plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Mountain View plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit South San Francisco plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Foster City plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Belmont plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Colma plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Capitola plastic ban, 25 c for paper 2013 Neg Dec Covers all retail Daly City plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Menlo Park plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Glendale plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2013/2014 used LAC EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores, farmer’s markets San Bruno plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Portola Valley plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Cupertino plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Half Moon Bay plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit San Carlos plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Los Altos plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Burlingame plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Brisbane plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Redwood City plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Huntington Beach plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2013 EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores, farmer’s markets East Palo Alto plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit 921 11th Street, Suite 420, Sacramento, CA 95814 ● (916) 443-5422 ● www.cawrecycles.org Local Jurisdiction Brief Description Effective Year CEQA/Strategy Key Elements and Notes San Mateo City plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2013 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Culver City plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2013 used LAC EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Los Angeles City plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014 EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Richmond plastic ban, 5/10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used RecycleMore EIR Covers all retail Campbell plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit Los Gatos plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used San Mateo EIR Covers all retail except nonprofit El Cerrito plastic ban, 5/10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used RecycleMore EIR Covers all retail Morgan Hill plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 Exemption Covers all retail San Pablo plastic ban, 5/10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used RecycleMore EIR Covers all retail South Lake Tahoe plastic ban 2014 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Santa Barbara plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used BEACON EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Pittsburg plastic ban, 10/15/25 c for paper/reusable 2014 Neg Dec Covers all retail Mill Valley plastic ban, 5 c for paper/reusable 2014 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Davis plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Truckee plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 Exemption Covers all retail Arcata plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014 Neg Dec Covers all retail Santa Rosa plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014 EIR Covers all retail Sonoma County & 8 Cities plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014 EIR Covers all retail San Rafael plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Novato plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014/2015 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Sausalito plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Walnut Creek plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants and nonprofit stores Desert Hot Springs plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014/2015 Exemption Covers all retail Palm Springs plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014/2015 Exemption Covers all retail Larkspur plastic ban/10 c for paper/5 c reusable 2014 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores South Pasadena plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014/2014 used LAC EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores, farmer’s markets Palm Desert plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015/2015 Exemption Covers all retail Indio plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2014/2015 Exemption Covers all retail Chico plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015/2016 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Belvedere plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015/2015 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores San Anselmo plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Martinez plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 used Marin JPA EIR Covers all retail and restaurants Nevada City plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Monrovia plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Gonzales plastic ban, 25 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Pleasant Hill plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Calistoga plastic ban, charge for paper/reusable* 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Napa plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Greenfield plastic ban, 25 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Marina plastic ban, 10/25 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Pacific Grove plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Grass Valley plastic ban 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Seaside plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Monterey County plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail St Helena plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Salinas plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Tiburon plastic ban 2014 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores King City plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail Hercules plastic ban, 5/10 c for paper/reusable 2015 used RecycleMore EIR Covers all retail Encinitas plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and farmer’s markets Ross plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015/2015 used Marin JPA EIR Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Santa Clara City plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2014 Neg Dec Covers all retail Soledad plastic ban, 10 c for paper/reusable 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and farmer’s markets Pico Rivera plastic ban, 10 c for paper 2016/2017 Exemption Covers grocery, drug, convenience stores Lafayette plastic ban, 10 c for paper (charge for grocery/drug/convenience stores only) 2015 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants Danville plastic ban 2016 Exemption Covers all retail and restaurants *to be set by council resolution January 2015 Ordinance language can be downloaded at http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/plastic_bags/local CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION | 1020 N. Lake Street | Burbank, CA 91502 | T: (818) 841-8640 | F: 916.448.2793 | www.cagrocers.com June 5, 2015 The Honorable Peter Tucker Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Dear Mayor Tucker: On behalf of the California Grocers Association, I write to encourage the City of Hermosa Beach to consider regulating the use of single-use carryout bags by using a ban/charge model that has proven successful in over 100 jurisdictions in California. Grocery industry experience has shown that this type of carryout bag ordinance maximizes environmental gain and minimizes impacts to businesses. The California Grocers Association is a non-profit, statewide trade association representing the food industry since 1898. CGA represents approximately 500 retail member companies operating over 6,000 food stores in California and Nevada, and approximately 300 grocery supplier companies. Retail membership includes chain and independent supermarkets, convenience stores and mass merchandisers. CGA members include numerous grocery companies operating throughout Burbank. The model of banning single-use plastic bags and allowing recyclable paper bags for a charge has shown to encourage reusable bag use, provide consumers no-cost and low-cost carryout options, and minimize operational and financial impacts to retailers. Over 110 California jurisdictions have passed this type of ordinance successfully including Long Beach, the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles. By banning single-use plastic bags and placing a charge on single-use paper bags consumers are encouraged to use reusable bags while still retaining a choice at checkout. Since passing a similar ordinance in 2010, Los Angeles County has seen all single-use bag consumption reduced by more than 90 percent. They also found that consumers quickly adapted and businesses felt minimal impact. Experience has shown after implementation of an ordinance which bans single-use plastic bags and places a charge on single-use paper bags few consumers choose to pay for a single-use paper bag. Grocery industry experience shows the use of reusable bags or no bag at all by consumers increases from less than 15% before ordinance implementation to over 75% immediately after implementation. Within the first year the rate of reusable bag use by consumers rises above 90%. In jurisdictions which chose to partially regulate carryout bags by only banning single-use plastic bags grocers have experienced dramatic cost increases. Without regulating all single-use carryout bags consumers are not encouraged to use reusable bags and instead simply switch from one type of single-use bag to another single-use bag which provides no environmental benefit and increases operational costs for retailers. CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION | 1020 N. Lake Street | Burbank, CA 91502 | T: (818) 841-8640 | F: 916.448.2793 | www.cagrocers.com Page 2 June 5, 2015 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance It is important to recognize the significant price differential between plastic bags ($0.01) and paper bags ($0.06 to over $0.012). When San Francisco chose to only regulate single-use plastic bags consumers switched to using single-use paper bags. This consumer reaction cost an average San Francisco grocery store $80,000 dollars per store per year. As an industry which averages a 1% profit margin an unnecessary regulatory cost increase in the tens of thousands of dollars can determine the success of a store. It is important to note that the City of San Francisco, along with other jurisdictions, have amended their original ordinances which only banned single-use plastic bags to now include a charge on single-use paper bags. We believe it is critical neighboring jurisdictions adopt similar carryout bag ordinances in order avoid a patchwork of regulation. Industry experience has shown inconsistent regulation confuses consumers and creates competitive disadvantages for retailers operating near neighboring jurisdictions, as well as for retailers with multiple store locations in different jurisdictions. Again, we applaud the city council in Hermosa Beach for considering this important issue and we urge you to move forward with the recommended ban/charge approach to regulate carryout bags. Thank you for your consideration and please consider CGA a partner as you encourage reusable bag use. Sincerely, LAURA PERALTA Director, Local Government Relations cc: Councilmembers, City of Hermosa Beach Tom Bakaly, City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst, City of Hermosa Beach SURFRIDER-SOUTHBAY.ORG • PO BOX 3825 • MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 June 4, 2015 Hermosa Beach City CouncilCity of Hermosa Beach1315 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA 90254Attn: Kristy Morris, PhD, Environmental AnalystVia email: kmorris@hermosabch.org RE: Strong Support for the Development of Ordinance Prohibiting Single-Use Carry-Out Bags Dear Mayor Tucker, Mayor Pro Tem Barragan, Councilmember DiVirgilio, Councilmember Fangary, and Councilmember Petty: On behalf of the Surfrider Foundation, Surfrider’s South Bay Chapter, and over 30,000 members and supporters in the state of California, I am writing to urge the Hermosa Beach City Council to proceed with the development of a proposed ordinance to prohibit single-use carry-out bags in the City of Hermosa Beach. Surfrider Foundation is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the worlds oceans, waves, and beaches through a powerful activist network. Founded in 1984 by a handful of visionary surfers in Malibu, California, Surfrider now maintains over 250,000 supporters, activists, and members worldwide. I am writing to urge you to support the development of a proposed single use plastic bag ban ordinance to reduce plastic pollution and waste by restricting single-use plastic and paper carry-out bags. We support legislation which will address both plastic and paper bags (e.g., ban plastic bags (less than 2.5 mils thick), and place a (minimum) ten-cent fee on all other (including reusable) plastic and paper single-use bags at retail and grocery stores, and establish criteria for the sale of paper and reusable bags. Plastic bags are a costly, environmentally damaging, and easily preventable source of litter and pollution. Light and aerodynamic, plastic bags are uniquely litter-prone even when properly disposed of, they litter our urban landscape, and they pose a serious threat to the riparian and marine environment and wildlife. Even when they are no longer visible to the naked eye, plastic bags degrade into tiny particles that adsorb toxins and contaminate our food chain and water and soil quality. There is no free bag. Single use plastic bags are costly to us as consumers and as taxpayers – the costs of these one-time use products are passed on in the form of higher prices and increased taxes. As revealed in a new report produced on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council by Kier Associates, 95 California cities, towns, and tax payers (communities ranging in size from just over 700 residents to over 4 million), are shouldering nearly $500 million dollars per year in costs to stop litter from becoming pollution (http://docs.nrdc.org/oceans/oce_13082701.asp). That’s money down the drain that could otherwise be invested in public services like schools, firefighters, police, or improving public parks and other open spaces. It has been proven that bans work: Washington D.C.’s 2009 bag tax reduced usage by as much as 60% and part of the revenue helps clean up the Anacostia River. Large stores covered by Los Angeles County’s 2010 ten-cent single-use bag charge reduced plastic bag usage by 95% and paper bag usage by 30%. Since 2012, the City of San Jose has reduced plastic bag litter by 89% in the storm drain system, 60% in the creeks and rivers, and 59% in City streets and neighborhoods with a ten-cent per bag charge (in addition, the average number of single-use bags used per customer decreased from 3 bags to 0.3 bags per visit). Clearly, cities understand that plastic bag bans are good for economic development and save money: the number of bans in California has increased to now cover nearly 140 municipalities. The City of Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, San Francisco, and your neighbor, Manhattan Beach, have already adopted bans on plastic bags. The results from these existing policies demonstrate both environmental and economic success, and public support. Don’t leave Hermosa Beach behind. A ban makes economic and environmental sense. We urge your support for a strong recommendation for the development of a ban ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Craig W. CadwalladerChair, Surfrider Foundation South Bay Chapter June 4, 2015 Proposal Number: P1814-001 Proposal to Provide Environmental Compliance Documentation Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in Support of a Proposed Ordinance to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the City of Hermosa Beach Ms. Kristy Morris, PhD Environmental Analyst City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 SUBJECT: Proposal to Provide Environmental Compliance Documentation, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in Support of a Proposed Ordinance to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags, in the City of Hermosa Beach, California Dear Ms. Morris: Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal to provide environmental compliance documentation, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in support of a proposed ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags in the City of Hermosa Beach (City), California. As requested by the City, this proposal includes two approaches to complete the required environmental compliance documentation: (1) Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and (2) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. prepared the EIR for the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the County of Los Angeles. The County EIR was prepared to allow cities to tier off the document, using an Addendum to the EIR. This strategy has been successfully employed by a number of cities, including the City of Pasadena, the City of West Hollywood, and the City of Burbank. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. strongly encourages the City to pursue the Addendum to the EIR, as it is less expensive, requires less time to prepare, and has greater legal defensibility as it is not subject to the “fair argument” standard. On November 16, 2010, the County Board of Supervisors certified the EIR for the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the County of Los Angeles and approved an ordinance to ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags and place a 10-cent charge on the issuance of paper carryout bags at certain stores in the unincorporated areas of the County. The EIR was designed to allow any of the 88 cities in the County to prepare an Addendum to the EIR for a similar ordinance by tiering off the County’s EIR. The originality, transferability, quality, and comprehensiveness of the EIR led the document to be selected to receive the 2011 Environmental Award for the Los Angeles section from the American Planning Association. Ms. Kristy Morris Ordinance to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the City of Hermosa Beach June 4, 2015 Page 2 M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\COVER LETTER.DOC The litigation history surrounding plastic bag ordinances has prompted municipalities to prepare comprehensive CEQA documentation to fully apprise the public and decision makers of the environmental impacts and benefits of such ordinances. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. has extensive experience in preparing environmental documents for public-sector clients across the five Supervisorial Districts of the County. The debate and issues surrounding the management of plastic carryout bags and other materials that contribute to the reduced lifespan of landfills, increased litter that blights public spaces, and potential adverse effects on water quality and biological resources have made ordinances to ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags in California controversial. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. is highly qualified to prepare documentation for plastic bag ordinances, having successfully completed the County EIR on which the City’s environmental document would be based. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. has extensive experience with a variety of controversial environmental projects and policy actions and has developed an effective public participation process and format. The firm’s public outreach process facilitated compilation of input from the public that substantiated the legal defensibility of the environmental documentation and the administrative record for the EIR for the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County. Sapphos Environmental, Inc.’s public outreach uncovered the range of issues, controversy, and questions surrounding these types of ordinances, a valuable set of knowledge that will be used to complete the City’s Addendum to the EIR. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. has also prepared a scope of services for a Mitigated Negative Declaration if the City determines a preference to pursue this option. The superiority of the firm’s qualifications to prepare environmental compliance documentation is best demonstrated by the fact that, of the hundreds of documents prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., only 12 projects (14 cases) have been subject to litigation. Furthermore, in each instance involving litigation, the firm’s client prevailed. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. has prepared a scope of services that provides for two options (1) preparation of an Addendum to the EIR for the City that would tier off the County’s EIR, and (2) preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Enclosure 1, Scope of Services). The cost for preparation of the Addendum to the EIR is $18,514.65 (Enclosure 2, Estimated Cost). The cost for preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is $49,320.85 (Enclosure 1). It is anticipated that, based on a June 8, 2015, authorization to proceed, the Addendum to the EIR would be completed August 2015 (Enclosure 3, Schedule). It is anticipated that, based on the same authorization to proceed, the MND would be completed November 2015 (Enclosure 3, Schedule). Ms. Kristy Morris Ordinance to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in the City of Hermosa Beach June 4, 2015 Page 3 M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\COVER LETTER.DOC Sapphos Environmental, Inc. is ready to commence the work efforts as described in Enclosures 1, 2, and 3 upon written authorization to proceed. Should the contents of this proposal be acceptable, please indicate authorization to proceed by signing below as indicated and returning one signed copy to Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Please retain a second signed copy for the record. Should there be any questions regarding the contents of this proposal or should additional information be required, please contact Ms. Victoria Hsu, Environmental Compliance Specialist, at (626) 683-3547. Respectfully submitted, SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Marie Campbell _________________________ ____________ President Authorization to Proceed Date Enclosures: 1. Scope of Services 2. Estimated Cost 3. Schedule SLL/vhh June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-1 ENCLOSURE 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Sapphos Environmental, Inc. understands that the City of Hermosa Beach (City) requires the services of an environmental consulting firm to prepare an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in support of the proposed ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags within the City (proposed ordinance). SCOPE OF WORK ADDENDUM TO THE EIR TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND COORDINATION Work Efforts Upon receipt of written authorization to proceed, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will participate in a project initiation teleconference with the City. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will work with the City to discuss and establish assumptions and parameters for preparation of the Addendum to the EIR, including a description of the proposed ordinance, cumulative impacts, and direct and indirect impacts. The objective of the teleconference will be to review and confirm Sapphos Environmental, Inc.’s proposed scope of work and to finalize the schedule. During this meeting, the City would be expected to provide Sapphos Environmental, Inc. with any relevant material and reports previously prepared for the proposed ordinance. After the meeting, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) that summarizes the meeting and the details of the proposed ordinance as discussed in the project initiation teleconference. To ensure the performance of work efforts within the schedule and budget established for the scope of work, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will provide the City with weekly status emails and monthly status reports (with the monthly invoice) to define completed and upcoming work efforts and any significant issues and action items throughout the preparation of the Addendum to the EIR. These practices will assist in the completion of the Addendum to the EIR on schedule and within budget by ensuring agreement among all parties regarding the project needs. Work Products  Project Initiation Meeting MFR  Up to seven (7) weekly e-mail status reports  Up to three (3) monthly status reports and invoices (June 2015–August 2015) June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-2 TASK 2 ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Work Efforts The City will be responsible for providing a copy of the proposed ordinance to Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. maintains a database of over 200 references used to substantiate the analysis in the EIR for the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County (certified EIR). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will use existing references and data as substantial evidence to demonstrate consistency of the proposed ordinance with the certified EIR. The Addendum to the EIR will include the proposed ordinance title, lead agency name and address, contact person and phone number, location for the proposed ordinance, name and address of the project sponsor, general plan designation, zoning, description of the ordinance, surrounding land uses and setting, and a list of agencies whose approval is required. The analysis will be tailored to suit the existing conditions within the City and will include a review of relevant policies and objectives in the City General Plan. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will compile substantial evidence based on the Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Addendum to the EIR will include an environmental checklist and responses to all checklist questions, with more detailed analysis and data to be provided in support of the checklist responses for the five issue areas that were carried forward for analysis in the certified EIR:  Air quality  Biological resources  Greenhouse gas emissions  Hydrology and water quality  Utilities and service systems The environmental analysis will explain why each checklist category was selected for further study. Upon completion of the Addendum to the EIR, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will submit one (1) electronic copy in Portable Document Format (PDF) and one (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word format of the Screen Check Addendum to the EIR to the City for review and comment. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will respond to one (1) composite set of comments from the City on the Screen Check Addendum to the EIR. Based on Sapphos Environmental, Inc.’s experience with comparable projects, it is anticipated that the Addendum to the EIR will demonstrate that the proposed project refinements will not result in new potentially significant impacts or substantially more adverse impacts than those previously addressed in the certified EIR, thus supporting the determination that no additional public review is required. The Addendum to the EIR will consist of the Environmental Checklist for each of the 17 CEQA environmental issue areas, supporting substantial evidence, and a declaration that the standards set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have not been met and thus justifying that preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not warranted. The City will have the opportunity to review the final document to verify that its comments on the Screen Check Addendum to the EIR have been adequately addressed. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will provide the City with one (1) electronic copy in PDF and up to five (5) hard copies of the Addendum to the EIR. As required pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum to the EIR will be attached to the previously certified EIR as part of the administrative record. The Addendum to the EIR is not required to be circulated for public review. One (1) Sapphos Environmental, Inc. staff member will attend up to one (1) City Council meeting regarding the Addendum to the EIR. It June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-3 is assumed that the Sapphos Environmental, Inc. project manager will be available to attend the City Council meeting and answer questions related to the environmental analysis. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare and transmit copies of the Notice of Determination (NOD) to the County Clerk and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and will provide a copy of the NOD to the City. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will obtain a determination of no effect from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to exempt the proposed ordinance from paying CDFW fees when filing the NOD with the County Clerk. The Addendum to the EIR will contain the following information:  Project description, comparative impact analysis, and substantial evidence used as the basis of analysis  Statement supported by substantial evidence showing no new significant impacts  A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines Work Products  One (1) electronic copy in PDF format and one (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word format of the Screen Check Addendum to the EIR  One (1) electronic copy of the Addendum to the EIR in Microsoft Word format with track changes, demonstrating incorporation of the City’s comments  One (1) electronic copy in PDF format and up to five (5) hard copies of the Addendum to the EIR  Three (3) hard copies of the NOD for transmittal to the City, the County Clerk, and OPR June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND COORDINATION Work Efforts Upon receipt of written authorization to proceed, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will participate in a project initiation teleconference with the City. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will work with the City to discuss and establish assumptions and parameters for preparation of the MND, including a description of the proposed ordinance and potential impacts that would be reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures. The objective of the teleconference will be to review and confirm Sapphos Environmental, Inc.’s proposed scope of work and to finalize the schedule. During this meeting, the City would be expected to provide Sapphos Environmental, Inc. with any relevant material and reports previously prepared for the proposed ordinance. After the meeting, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) that summarizes the meeting and the details of the proposed ordinance as discussed in the project initiation teleconference. To ensure the performance of work efforts within the schedule and budget established for the scope of work, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will provide the City with weekly status emails and monthly status reports (with the monthly invoice) to define completed and upcoming work efforts and any significant issues and action items throughout the preparation of the MND. These practices will assist in the completion of the MND on schedule and within budget by ensuring agreement among all parties regarding the project needs. Work Products  One (1) electronic copy in portable document format (PDF) of the MFR summarizing the project initiation meeting to the City  Weekly status emails  Up to six (6) monthly status reports and invoices to the City TASK 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Efforts Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will work with City staff and applicants to prepare a project description to describe the proposed ordinance. The project description will include location, project background, and project goals and objectives. Work Products  One (1) electronic copy in PDF of Draft Project Description to the City June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-5 TASK 3 1ST AND 2ND SCREEN CHECK MND Work Efforts Sapphos Environmental, Inc. maintains a database of over 200 references used to substantiate the analysis in the EIR for the Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County (certified EIR). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will use existing references and data as the basis of analysis for this MND. The analysis will be tailored to suit the existing conditions within the City and will include a review of relevant policies and objectives in the City General Plan. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will compile substantial evidence based on the Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. MND Every impact conclusion made in the environmental checklist must be supported by substantial evidence that will withstand scrutiny by regulatory oversight agencies, special interest groups, property owners, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. All references will be cited in footnotes and listed in a references section. It is anticipated that implementation of mitigation measures would be proposed to reduce the potential impacts to below the level of significance. It is assumed that no technical reports would be included as part of this scope. A description of the regulatory framework and the affected environment will introduce each of the CEQA issue areas within the MND. The MND will address the following 17 areas identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: Aesthetics. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, damage scenic resources within a designated scenic highway corridor, change the visual character of the area, or adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area through increase in light and glare. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will review the baseline conditions, the City General Plan, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) list of existing and proposed scenic highways, the Los Angeles County General Plan, City zoning regulations, the City municipal code, and other regulations that may apply to determine effects related to aesthetics. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and Williamson Act preserves. Baseline conditions will be reviewed along with any relevant regulations specific to the City and Los Angeles County to determine the potential for significant impacts resulting from the proposed ordinance. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Air Quality. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or contribute to violations of state or federal air quality standards, concentrations of air pollutants, and impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis will follow the methods and procedures outlined by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and focus on the potential for the proposed ordinance to result in air emissions that exceed thresholds for significance established by the AQMD. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will review baseline June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-6 conditions and policies for air quality within the City and the surrounding area along with the adopted AQMP. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Biological Resources. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on existing habitat, regulatory jurisdiction, wildlife issues, and relevant plans and policies. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will review the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to identify any special status species that may be present within the study area. All biological resources, including waters potentially subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, will be evaluated for impacts due to new construction, new roads with regular traffic, and increased human presence. Further, baseline conditions will be reviewed along with any relevant regulations specific to the City and Los Angeles County to determine the potential for significant impacts resulting from the proposed ordinance. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Cultural Resources. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on archaeological, historic, and paleontological resources, human remains, and Native American sacred sites. Further, baseline conditions will be reviewed along with any relevant regulations specific to the City and Los Angeles County to determine the potential for significant impacts resulting from the proposed ordinance. Geology and Soils. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to create significant hazards relating to geology and soils. The analysis will assess baseline conditions and the potential for the project to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects resulting from the rupture of an earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides; result in substantial soil erosion; be located on unstable or expansive soils; and have soils incapable of supporting waste water. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to result in GHG emissions that directly or indirectly may have a significant effect on the environment or have potential conflicts with existing plans, policies, or regulations that reduce such emissions. GHG emissions will be compared to the applicable AQMD significance thresholds. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to result in the exposure of hazardous materials to the public or the environment. The evaluation will be consistent with Section 15125 and Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The results of the evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials will include the characterization of existing conditions and the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed ordinance. Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to conflict with water quality standards or discharge requirements, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, stormwater runoff, FEMA 100-year flood zones, and exposure of people or structures to flooding. Baseline conditions will be reviewed along with any relevant regulations specific to the City, Los Angeles County, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine the potential for June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-7 significant impacts resulting from the proposed ordinance. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts to hydrology and water quality, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Land Use and Planning. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on land use and planning in accordance with the City General Plan, including relevant area-wide or community plan elements, and any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will evaluate the proposed ordinance to ensure that it is consistent with the City General Plan and other City ordinances and regulations. Mineral Resources. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of statewide or local importance through ground disturbance that would be associated with implementation of the proposed ordinance. Noise. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to result in significant noise impacts in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The assessment will focus on the potential for the proposed ordinance to exceed the standards for noise established in the County of Los Angeles and City General Plan Noise Control Ordinance or result in: the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive ground-borne vibration; a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; a substantial temporary increases in noise levels; or exposure to excessive noise from public or private airports for people residing or working in new structures. The analysis will also discuss the potential for the proposed ordinance to have noise-related impacts on sensitive receptors such as patients, visitors, or schools on or surrounding the proposed ordinance site. Population and Housing. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on population and housing in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Population and housing conditions will be determined according to local data and forecasts for population and housing and the proximity of the proposed ordinance to existing and planned utility infrastructure. The impact levels of significance of the proposed ordinance on population and housing in the study area will be evaluated in relation to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the Housing Element of the City General Plan. Public Services. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to result in impacts to public services in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines and guidelines established by the City. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will review the City General Plan and consult with the surrounding cities and Los Angeles County public service providers to determine if the proposed ordinance may have impacts on fire protection, police protection, and schools. Recreation. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on recreation. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will review the City General Plan and consult relevant maps and aerial photographs to determine the closest neighborhood and regional parks that may be affected as a result of the proposed ordinance. Transportation/Traffic. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to cause an increase in the existing traffic load and street system capacity, exceed the level of service thresholds established by the City General Plan, result in a change in air traffic patterns, substantially increase traffic hazards due to a design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Baseline conditions will be reviewed along with any relevant regulations specific to the City, June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-8 Los Angeles County, and Caltrans to determine the potential for significant impacts resulting from the proposed ordinance. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed ordinance will be assessed for the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste, and landfill capacity. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will determine the proposed ordinance’s potential to result in exceeding wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB; result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities; potential potable water usage needs for the project; increase wastewater treatment needs; or increase solid waste disposal needs. If it is determined that there are potential significant impacts to utilities and service systems, feasible mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with any relevant or applicable standards to reduce impacts to below the level of significance. Mandatory Findings of Significance. The MND will also address mandatory findings of significance pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will provide the City with two (2) hard copies and two (2) electronic copies on CD in PDF and Microsoft Word of the 1st Screen Check MND. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. anticipates receiving one (1) compiled set of comments on the 1st Screen Check MND from the City. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will respond to comments and provide the City with two (2) hard copies and two (2) electronic copies on CD in PDF and Microsoft Word of the 2nd Screen Check MND. Notice of Intent Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare a Screen Check NOI that meets the requirements of Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will provide the City with two (2) hard copies and two (2) electronic copies on CD in PDF of the Screen Check NOI to allow the City the opportunity to review the environmental analysis and provide comments. The City will provide Sapphos Environmental, Inc. with one (1) composite set of comments on the Screen Check NOI. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will respond to comments and prepare the final NOI for submittal concurrently with the MND. Distribution List Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will work with the City to compile a distribution list for any interested parties, including, but not limited to, property owners adjacent to the proposed ordinance, the local libraries, responsible agencies, and the State Clearinghouse. The distribution list will be attached to the MND and reviewed concurrently. Work Products  Two (2) electronic copies in PDF and Microsoft Word on CD and two (2) hard copies of the 1st Screen Check MND to the City for review and comment  Two (2) electronic copies in PDF and Microsoft Word on CD and two (2) hard copies of the 2nd Screen Check MND to the City for review and comment  Two (2) electronic copies in PDF on CD and two (2) hard copies of the Screen Check NOI to the City for review and comment  One (1) electronic copy of the Distribution List to the City for review and comment June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-9 TASK 4 GALLEY PROOF Sapphos Environmental, Inc. anticipates receiving one (1) compiled set of comments from the City on the 2nd Screen Check MND. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will respond to comments and submit one (1) electronic copy in PDF of the Proposed MND in preparation for the Galley Proof. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will host a Galley Proof meeting on the Proposed MND for final review to ensure that all of the City’s comments have been adequately addressed prior to finalizing the Proposed MND for production. The City will be able to attend the Galley Proof meeting at Sapphos Environmental, Inc.’s Pasadena office, or online via Go-to-Meeting. Based on input received during the galley proof meeting, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare the Proposed MND for distribution for public review. Work Products  One (1) electronic copy in PDF of the Galley Proof Proposed MND to the City  One (1) Galley Proof meeting TASK 5 CIRCULATION OF PROPOSED MND Pursuant to Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will conduct a public review of the Proposed MND. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare the NOI to be sent as a direct mailing flyer and will draft letters to those on the distribution list as described below. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. recommends that all forms of noticing pursuant to CEQA be conducted, where optional forms of notice are cited. Therefore, the NOI will be posted at City Hall and public libraries, published in a local newspaper of greatest circulation, and posted at the County Clerk and with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The noticing will occur in the following numbers and forms: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare up to one hundred (100) hard copies of the NOI to be mailed to appropriate agencies and interested parties (local community groups, local agencies, adjacent parcel owners [within 500 feet], and surrounding jurisdictions) via certified mail. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will prepare one (1) copy of the NOI suitable for publication in a local newspaper during the CEQA-mandated public review period, and will produce one (1) mounted hard copy of the NOI to be posted at City Hall. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will also prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) and executive summary of the MND using the State Clearinghouse online forms. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will produce and mail up to one hundred (100) electronic copies on CD of the Proposed MND to be distributed with the NOI. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will also provide up to ten (10) hard copies of the Proposed MND to the City and local libraries. Work Products  Up to ten (10) hard copies of the Proposed MND to the City and local libraries  Up to one hundred (100) hard copies of the NOI to be distributed to stakeholders and interested parties  Up to one hundred (100) electronic copies on CD of the Proposed MND to be distributed with the NOI  One (1) electronic copy of the NOI suitable for publication in a local newspaper June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.DOC PAGE 1-10  One (1) mounted hard copy of the NOI to be posted at City Hall  One (1) hard copy of the NOC, fifteen (15) hard copies of the NOI, fifteen (15) electronic copies on CD of the Proposed MND, and fifteen (15) hard copies of Document Submittal Form to the State Clearinghouse TASK 6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Work Efforts Sapphos Environmental, Inc. understands that it is the City’s policy to provide a detailed and comprehensive Response to Comments document for the MND following the receipt of written comments on the Proposed MND. This document will be separate from the MND. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will review all comments and prepare written responses to comments that raise environmental issues. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will work closely with City staff to ensure all comments are addressed in a manner that meets the high expectations of the surrounding community. It is assumed that no more than fifty (50) comments will need to be addressed with regard to environmental issues. A Screen Check Response to Comments document will be submitted to the City for review and comment. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will respond to one (1) compiled set of comments on the Screen Check Response to Comments. Following the incorporation of City comments, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. will finalize and mail the Response to Comments to public agencies and the City. Work Products  Two (2) hard copies and two (2) PDF copies on CD of the Screen Check Response to Comments to the City  One (1) hard copy of final Response to Comments to commenting public agencies  Two (2) hard copies and two (2) PDF copies on CD of the final Response to Comments to the City TASK 7 OPTIONAL – ADDITIONAL PROJECT MEETINGS Work Efforts Sapphos Environmental, Inc. understands that additional meetings may be required over the length of the project to discuss project details and any unforeseen issues. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. personnel (project director and project manager) will attend up to two (2) additional 2-hour in- person meetings with the City, or up to 10 hours of meetings via conference call. Work Products  Up to two (2) 2-hour in-person meetings with the City or up to 10 hours of meetings via conference call June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 2 ESTIMATED COST.DOC PAGE 2-1 ENCLOSURE 2 ESTIMATED COST ADDENDUM EIR This cost estimate has been prepared based on the following assumptions:  Assumption 1: The ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags in the City of Hermosa Beach (City) will be comparable to the ordinance adopted by the County of Los Angeles on November 16, 2010. The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report will evaluate one proposed ordinance.  Assumption 2: Additional alternatives to the proposed ordinance and/or significant alterations to the content of the proposed ordinance (compared to the ordinance adopted by the County of Los Angeles on November 16, 2010) that would require additional analysis or a different type of analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act would require a contract amendment.  Assumption 3: All coordination between Sapphos Environmental, Inc. and the City will be conducted by email or teleconference. This proposal assumes that one (1) Sapphos Environmental, Inc. staff member will attend up to one (1) meeting with the City with a maximum duration of three (3) hours. Total estimated cost is as follows: TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND COORDINATION $4,019.50 TASK 2 ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT $12,812.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR $16,831.50 SUBTOTAL DIRECT COST $1,683.15 TOTAL COST: $18,514.65 Billings will be submitted monthly for the services completed during each month. Payment terms are net thirty (30) days. Invoices not paid within the agreed payment schedule are subject to a monthly interest charge as indicated in the Standard Schedule of Fees. The Client agrees to pay reasonable costs and fees in the event that legal proceedings are required to collect past-due accounts. The terms of this proposal shall remain valid for sixty (60) days. June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 2 ESTIMATED COST.DOC PAGE 2-2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This cost estimate has been prepared based on the following assumptions:  Assumption 1: The ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags in the City of Hermosa Beach (City) will be comparable to the ordinance adopted by the County of Los Angeles on November 16, 2010. The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report will evaluate one proposed ordinance.  Assumption 2: Additional alternatives to the proposed ordinance and/or significant alterations to the content of the proposed ordinance (compared to the ordinance adopted by the County of Los Angeles on November 16, 2010) that would require additional analysis or a different type of analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act would require a contract amendment. Total estimated cost is as follows: TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND COORDINATION $6,210.00 TASK 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION $1,169.00 TASK 3 1ST AND 2ND SCREEN CHECK MND $23,773.50 TASK 4 GALLEY PROOF $5,246.00 TASK 5 CIRCULATION OF PROPOSED MND $1,104.00 TASK 6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS $2,047.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR $39,549.50 SUBTOTAL DIRECT COST $3,954.95 SUBTOTAL OTHER COSTS $4,030.00 Cultural Records Search $300.00 Paleontological Records Search $150.00 Printing $1,680.00 Postage $400.00 Newspaper posting $1,500.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $47,534.45 TASK 7 OPTIONAL – ADDITIONAL PROJECT MEETINGS $1,786.40 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST WITH OPTIONAL TASK: $49,320.85 Billings will be submitted monthly for the services completed during each month. Payment terms are net 30 days. Invoices not paid within the agreed payment schedule are subject to a monthly interest charge as indicated in the Standard Schedule of Fees. The Client agrees to pay reasonable costs and fees in the event legal proceedings are required to collect past-due accounts. The terms of this proposal shall remain valid for sixty (60) days. June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 3 SCHEDULE.DOC PAGE 3-1 ENCLOSURE 3 SCHEDULE ADDENDUM EIR Milestone Date Authorization to proceed June 8, 2015 TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND COORDINATION Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to submit weekly status emails June–August 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to submit monthly status reports June–August 2015 TASK 2 ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to provide the City of Hermosa Beach (City) with the Screen Check Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) July 8, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to receive comments from the City on the Screen Check Addendum to the EIR July 20, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to respond to City’s comments on the Screen Check Addendum to the EIR and prepare final version July 27, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to submit final Addendum to the EIR to the City August 11, 2015 City Council hearing regarding the Addendum to the EIR August 2015 June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 3 SCHEDULE.DOC PAGE 3-2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Milestone Date Authorization to proceed June 8, 2015 TASK 1 PROJECT INITIATION AND COORDINATION Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to attend Project Kickoff Meeting June 15, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Kickoff Meeting Memorandum for the Record (MFR) June 16, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Monthly Status Reports June 2015–November 2015 TASK 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Draft Project Description July 20, 2015 TASK 3 1ST AND 2ND SCREEN CHECK MND Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare 1st Screen Check MND August 5, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare 2nd Screen Check MND August 19, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Screen Check Notice of Intent (NOI) August 19, 2015 TASK 4 GALLEY PROOF Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Galley Proof MND August 26, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to attend Galley Proof Meeting August 31, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Proposed MND for distribution September 7, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare final NOI for distribution September 7, 2015 TASK 5 CIRCULATION OF PROPOSED MND Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to distribute NOI and Proposed MND September 14, 2015 June 4, 2015 SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. M:\PROPOSALS\P1814\P1814-001\ENC 3 SCHEDULE.DOC PAGE 3-3 TASK 6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Screen Check Response to Comments September 30, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to prepare Final Response to Comments October 16, 2015 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to submit final MND November 6, 2015 City Council Hearing regarding the MND November 2015 TASK 7 OPTIONAL – ADDITIONAL PROJECT MEETINGS Sapphos Environmental, Inc. to attend/host meetings or conference calls as needed June 2015–November 2015 ORDINANCES TO BAN PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2009111104) VOLUME III Prepared For: County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division 900 South Fremont Avenue, 3rd Floor Alhambra, California 91803 Prepared By: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 430 North Halstead Street Pasadena, California 91107 October 28, 2010 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I SECTION PAGE ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Existing Conditions...................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Proposed Project ......................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Areas of Known Controversy........................................................................ ES-1 ES.4 Issues to be Resolved................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Ordinances....................................... ES-3 ES.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinances ..................................................... ES-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of the EIR ........................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Intent of CEQA ..................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Environmental Review Process ..........................................................1-2 1.2 Organization and Content .............................................................................1-4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Proposed Project Location .............................................................................2-1 2.2 Background...................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Contribution of Plastic Carryout Bags to Litter Stream.........................2-1 2.2.2 County Motion ..................................................................................2-2 2.2.2.1 The County’s Solid Waste Management Function in the Unincorporated County Area ...........................................2-3 2.2.2.2 The County’s Solid Waste Management Function Countywide .....................................................................2-3 2.2.2.3 Key Findings of the LACDPW Report ...............................2-4 2.2.3 Definitions.........................................................................................2-4 2.2.4 Single Use Bag Bans and Fees............................................................2-5 2.2.5 Litigation History...............................................................................2-8 2.3 Existing Conditions......................................................................................2-12 2.3.1 Plastic Carryout Bags .......................................................................2-12 2.3.2 Paper Bags.......................................................................................2-14 2.3.3 Reusable Bags..................................................................................2-14 2.3.4 Voluntary Single Use Bag Reduction and Recycling Program...........2-15 2.3.5 General Plan Land Use Designation.................................................2-17 2.3.6 Zoning.............................................................................................2-17 2.3.6.1 Unincorporated Territories of the County of Los Angeles .....2-17 2.3.6.2 Incorporated Cities of the County of Los Angeles.................2-17 2.4 Statement of Objectives...............................................................................2-17 2.4.1 Program Goals.................................................................................2-17 2.4.2 Countywide Objectives ...................................................................2-18 2.4.3 City Objectives................................................................................2-18 2.5 Proposed Project .........................................................................................2-18 2.5.1 Transition Period Assumption..........................................................2-19 2.6 Intended Uses of the EIR..............................................................................2-19 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page ii 2.7 Ordinance Alternatives................................................................................2-20 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, MITIGATION, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION...............................................3-1 3.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1 Regulatory Framework..............................................................3.1-2 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................3.1-6 3.1.3 Significance Thresholds.............................................................3.1-9 3.1.4 Impact Analysis.......................................................................3.1-11 3.1.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................3.1-31 3.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation.......................................3.1-31 3.2 Biological Resources...................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.1 Regulatory Framework..............................................................3.2-3 3.2.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................3.2-7 3.2.3 Significance Thresholds...........................................................3.2-17 3.2.4 Impact Analysis.......................................................................3.2-18 3.2.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................3.2-22 3.2.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation.......................................3.2-23 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Greenhouse Gases and Effects...................................................3.3-2 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework..............................................................3.3-4 3.3.3 Existing Conditions .................................................................3.3-12 3.3.4 Significance Thresholds...........................................................3.3-14 3.3.5 Impact Analysis.......................................................................3.3-15 3.3.6 Mitigation Measures................................................................3.3-39 3.3.7 Level of Significance after Mitigation.......................................3.3-39 3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Regulatory Framework..............................................................3.4-1 3.4.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................3.4-7 3.4.3 Significance Thresholds...........................................................3.4-11 3.4.4 Impact Analysis.......................................................................3.4-12 3.4.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................3.4-20 3.4.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation.......................................3.4-20 3.5 Utilities and Service Systems.......................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Regulatory Framework..............................................................3.5-1 3.5.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................3.5-4 3.5.3 Significance Thresholds.............................................................3.5-7 3.5.4 Impact Analysis.........................................................................3.5-7 3.5.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................3.5-25 3.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation.......................................3.5-25 4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES................................................4-1 4.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................4-2 4.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project...............................................................4-4 4.2.1 No Project Alternative..................................................................4-4 4.2.1.1 Alternative Components.............................................4-4 4.2.1.2 Objectives and Feasibility...........................................4-4 4.2.1.3 Comparative Impacts..................................................4-4 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page iii 4.2.2 Alternative 1: Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County.........................................................4-6 4.2.2.1 Alternative Components.............................................4-6 4.2.2.2 Objectives and Feasibility...........................................4-7 4.2.2.3 Comparative Impacts..................................................4-8 4.2.3 Alternative 2: Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County ...................4-13 4.2.3.1 Alternative Components...........................................4-13 4.2.3.2 Objectives and Feasibility.........................................4-13 4.2.3.3 Comparative Impacts................................................4-13 4.2.4 Alternative 3: Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County .........................4-19 4.2.4.1 Alternative Components...........................................4-19 4.2.4.2 Objectives and Feasibility.........................................4-20 4.2.4.3 Comparative Impacts................................................4-20 4.2.5 Alternative 4: Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County...........................................................................4-45 4.2.5.1 Alternative Components...........................................4-45 4.2.5.2 Objectives and Feasibility.........................................4-46 4.2.5.3 Comparative Impacts................................................4-47 4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative..........................................................4-56 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS........................................................................................5-1 6.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................6-1 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS..............................................................................7-1 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ....................................................8-1 8.1 Public Agencies ......................................................................................8-1 8.1.1 Federal.........................................................................................8-1 8.1.2 State.............................................................................................8-1 8.1.3 Regional.......................................................................................8-1 8.1.4 County of Los Angeles..................................................................8-1 8.1.5 Cities............................................................................................8-2 8.2 Private Organizations..............................................................................8-2 9.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ......................................................................9-1 9.1 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works......................................9-1 9.2 County Counsel.............................................................................................9-1 9.3 County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office................................................9-1 9.4 Sapphos Environmental, Inc...........................................................................9-1 9.5 Subconsultants...............................................................................................9-2 10.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................10-1 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page iv 11.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST...............................................................................................11-1 11.1 Client ..........................................................................................................11-1 11.2 Public Agencies...........................................................................................11-1 11.2.1 State Agencies...............................................................................11-1 11.2.2 Regional Agencies ........................................................................11-3 11.2.3 County Agencies...........................................................................11-3 11.2.3.1 Supervisorial Districts .....................................................11-3 11.2.3.2 Public Service Agencies..................................................11-4 11.3 Private Organizations ..................................................................................11-5 11.4 Stakeholders................................................................................................11-5 FIGURE FOLLOWS PAGE 2.1-1 Project Location Map................................................................................................2-1 3.1.1-1 Air Quality Management Districts within the County of Los Angeles.......................3.1-2 3.1.4-1 Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Ecobilan LCA ............................................................................................3.1-18 3.1.4-2 Percentage of NOx Emissions Attributed to Each Process within the Boustead LCA............................................................................................3.1-21 3.3.1-1 California 1990 GHG Emissions.............................................................................3.3-3 3.3.1-2 California 2004 GHG Emissions.............................................................................3.3-3 3.3.3-1 California Business-as-usual Emissions and Targets ...............................................3.3-13 3.4.2-1 Northern Portion of the County Storm Drain System...............................................3.4-9 3.4.2-2 Southern Portion of the County Storm Drain System...............................................3.4-9 TABLES PAGE ES.5-1 Summary of Impacts................................................................................................ ES-4 3.1.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards...............................................................................3.1-3 3.1.2-1 Summary of 2006–2008 Ambient Air Quality Data in the SCAQMD Portion of the County........................................................................................................3.1-8 3.1.2-2 Summary of 2007–2009 Ambient Air Quality Data in the AVAQMD Portion of the County........................................................................................................3.1-9 3.1.3-1 Daily Operational Emission Thresholds of Significance.........................................3.1-11 3.1.4-1 Vehicle Fleet Mix .................................................................................................3.1-13 3.1.4-2 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Due to Plastic Carryout Bag LCA Based on Ecobilan Data (Existing Conditions) .........................................................................3.1-16 3.1.4-3 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Due to Paper Carryout Bag LCA Based on Ecobilan Data..........................................................................................................3.1-16 3.1.4-4 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..............................3.1-18 3.1.4-5 Estimated Daily Emissions Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .......................................3.1-19 3.1.4-6 Estimated Daily Emissions Due to Reusable Bags Used Four Times Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................................3.1-20 3.1.4-7 Plastic Carryout Bag LCA Criteria Pollutant Emissions Based on Boustead Data (Existing Conditions) .........................................................................3.1-21 3.1.4-8 Paper Carryout Bag LCA Criteria Pollutant Emissions Based on Boustead Data .....3.1-21 3.1.4-9 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data........................................3.1-23 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page v 3.4.1-10 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data........................................3.1-23 3.1.4-11 Estimated NOx Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data.....3.1-26 3.1.4-12 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Delivery Truck Trips.....................3.1-29 3.2.2-1 Listed Species with the Potential to Occur in the County........................................3.2-9 3.2.2-2 Endangered and Threatened Species under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS with the Potential to Occur off the Coast of the County...........................................3.2-12 3.2.2-3 Marine Species of Concern under the Jurisdiction of the NMFS with the Potential to Occur off the Coast of the County...........................................3.2-13 3.2.2-4 Endangered and Threatened Species under the Jurisdiction of the USFWS and/or the CDFG.......................................................................................3.2-14 3.2.2-5 Species of Special Concern under the Jurisdiction of the CDFG............................3.2-15 3.3-1 Plastic and Paper Bag Production from 1980 to 2007 .............................................3.3-1 3.3.2-1 California Business-as-usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Targets.......................3.3-7 3.3.3-1 Characterization of Business-as-Usual and Target GHG Emissions for the County......................................................................................................3.3-14 3.3.5-1 Vehicle Fleet Mix .................................................................................................3.3-17 3.3.5-2 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ...................................................................3.3-21 3.3.5-3 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ...................................................................3.3-22 3.3.5-4 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags.....................................3.3-23 3.3.5-5 GHG Emissions Based on Boustead Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ...................................................................3.3-24 3.3.5-6 GHG Emissions Based on Boustead Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ...................................................................3.3-25 3.3.5-7 GHG Emissions Based on ExcelPlas Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ...................................................................3.3-26 3.3.5-8 GHG Emissions Based on ExcelPlas Data Using 100-Percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags ...................................................................3.3-26 3.3.5-9 GHG Emissions Due to 85- and 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Various Studies....................................................3.3-28 3.3.5-10 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data...3.3-30 3.3.5-11 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Boustead Data..3.3-31 3.3.5-12 Potential Increases in Delivery Truck Trips as a Result of the Proposed Ordinances ...............................................................................................3.3-36 3.3.5-13 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 100-percent Conversion Scenario .............................................................3.3-37 3.4.4-1 Eutrophication Due to Use of Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................................3.4-15 3.4.4-2 Eutrophication Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..............................3.4-16 3.5.2-1 Class III Landfill Capacity........................................................................................3.5-6 3.5.4-1 Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..............................................................................................3.5-9 3.5.4-2 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.....................3.5-11 3.5.4-3 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..........................................................................................................3.5-13 3.5.4-4 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data...........................................................................................3.5-15 3.5.4-5 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.....................3.5-16 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page vi 3.5.4-6 Solid Waste Generation Due to Disposal of Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data and Adjusted for 2007 Recycling Rates................3.5-18 3.5.4-7 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data...........................................................................................3.5-19 3.5.4-8 Solid Waste Due to Reusable Based Based on Ecobilan Data................................3.5-21 3.5.4-9 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.............................................................................3.5-22 3.5.4-10 Total Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data......................................................................................3.5-24 3.5.4-11 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data............................................................................................3.5-25 4-1 Ability of the Proposed Ordinances and Alternatives to Attain County Objectives......4-2 4.2.4.3-1 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data...........................................4-21 4.2.4.3-2 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data...........................................4-22 4.2.4.3-3 Estimated NOx Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data........4-24 4.2.4.3-4 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions....................................................................4-25 4.2.4.3-5 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags......................................................................4-27 4.2.4.3-6 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags......................................................................4-28 4.2.4.3-7 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data......4-30 4.2.4.3-8 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data......4-31 4.2.4.3-9 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags .......................4-33 4.2.4.3-10 Eutrophication Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data......4-34 4.2.4.3-11 Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..............................................................................................4-37 4.2.4.3-12 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..............................................................................................4-38 4.2.4.3-13 Water Consumption Due Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data.............................................................................................4-39 4.2.4.3-14 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ...4-40 4.2.4.3-15 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data ...4-41 4.2.4.3-16 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data...............................................................................4-43 4.2.4.3-17 Total Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data.............................................................................................4-44 4.2.5.3-1 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Four Times Based on Ecobilan Data.........................................................................................4-48 4.2.5.3-2 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to Reusable Bags Used Three Times Based on Data from Ecobilan.................................................................................4-50 4.2.5.3-3 Eutrophication Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.................................4-51 4.2.5.3-4 Wastewater Generation Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data...................4-53 4.2.5.3-5 Water Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data........................4-54 4.2.5.3-6 Solid Waste Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.....................................4-55 4.2.5.3-7 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Reusable Bags Based on Ecobilan Data..............................................................................................4-56 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page vii VOLUME II A Bag Usage Data Collection Study B Biodegradable and Compostable Bags Fact Sheet C Calculation Data D Initial Study and Comment Letters E Key Personnel Résumés VOLUME III SECTION PAGE 12.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .....................................................................12-1 12.1 Note to Reader.............................................................................................12-1 12.2 Clarifications and Revisions..........................................................................12-1 13.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.........................................................13-1 13.1 Summary Distribution List/Respondents.......................................................13-1 13.1.1 Federal Agencies .................................................................................13-1 13.1.2 State Agencies ......................................................................................13-2 13.1.3 Regional Agencies................................................................................13-2 13.1.4 County Agencies ..................................................................................13-2 13.1.5 Local Agencies ....................................................................................13-2 13.1.6 Private Organizations and Individuals...................................................13-2 13.1.7 Public Meetings....................................................................................13-3 13.2 Letters of Comment and Responses..............................................................13-3 13.2.1 Federal Agencies .................................................................................13-4 13.2.2 State Agencies ......................................................................................13-5 13.2.3 Regional Agencies................................................................................13-7 13.2.4 County Agencies ..................................................................................13-8 13.2.5 Local Agencies ..................................................................................13-10 13.2.6 Private Organizations and Individuals.................................................13-13 13.2.7 Public Meetings................................................................................13-145 FIGURE FOLLOWS PAGE 13-1 Catch Basin Photographs...........................................................................................13-108 TABLES* PAGE R3.3.5-5A** Relative Environmental Impacts of Various Types of Bags................................12-21 R4.2.6.3-1 Estimated Daily Emission Changes Due to 50-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data........................12-41 R4.2.6.3-2 Estimated NOX Emission Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data......................................................................................12-44 R4.2.6.3-3 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions from Increased Truck Trips..................12-45 Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Environmental Impact Report October 28, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\PROJECTS\1012\1012-035\Documents\Final EIR\Table Of Contents.Doc Page viii R4.2.6.3-4 GHG Emissions Based on Ecobilan Data Using 50-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags..............................................................12-48 R4.2.6.3-5 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Ecobilan Data......................................................................................12-50 R4.2.6.3-6 Estimated GHG Emissions Increases Due to End of Life Based on Data from Boustead.............................................................................12-52 R4.2.6.3-7 Relative Environmental Impacts of Various Types of Bags................................12-54 R4.2.6.3-8 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Due to Increased Vehicle Trips from 50-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags .................12-55 R4.2.6.3-9 Eutrophication Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data.......................................................................12-58 R4.2.6.3-10 Wastewater Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ......................................................................12-60 R4.2.6.3-11 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ......................................................................12-61 R4.2.6.3-12 Water Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data .......................................................................12-62 R4.2.6.3-13 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ......................................................................12-64 R4.2.6.3-14 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data......................................................................12-65 R4.2.6.3-15 Non-renewable Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ......................................................................12-66 R4.2.6.3-16 Total Energy Consumption Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Based on Boustead Data......................................................................12-67 13-1 Entanglements Due to Plastic Bags...................................................................13-55 13-2 Relative Environmental Impacts of Various Types of Bags................................13-75 13-3 Increase in GHG Emissions Due to 100-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .......................13-88 13-4 Increase in GHG Emissions Due to 85-percent Conversion from Plastic to Paper Carryout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .......................13-88 Notes: *An “R” in front of the table number indicates that the corresponding table contained within the Draft EIR has been revised by way of Section 12.2, Clarifications and Revisions. ** This table has been added to the Draft EIR by way of Section 12.2, Clarifications and Revisions. The letter “A” has been added after the table number to differentiate this new table from the original Table 3.3.5-5 in the Draft EIR. This was done for clarity and to keep all subsequent table numbers consistent between the Draft EIR and Final EIR even with addition of this new table. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Page ES-1 SECTION ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County (proposed ordinances). The proposed ordinances would be implemented for certain stores within the County of Los Angeles (County), California. The proposed ordinances consist of an ordinance that would prohibit certain stores and retail establishments from issuing plastic carryout bags in the unincorporated territory of the County, as well as the County’s encouragement of the adoption of comparable ordinances by each of the 88 incorporated cities within the County. ES.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances currently offer a combination of paper carryout bags, plastic carryout bags, and reusable bags to consumers. Based on a survey of bag usage in the County in 2009, 18 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that do not make plastic carryout bags readily available were reusable bags; however only 2 percent of the total number of bags used in stores that do make plastic carryout bags readily available were reusable bags (Appendix A, Bag Usage Data Collection Study). ES.2 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed ordinances would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags by any retail establishment, defined herein, that is located in the unincorporated territory or incorporated cities of the County. The retail establishments that would be subject to the proposed ordinances include any that (1) meet the definition of a “supermarket” as found in the California Public Resources Code, Section 14526.5; (2) are buildings that have over 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. ES.3 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY 1 The proposed ordinances involve several areas of known controversy. Several public comments were received during the scoping period for Initial Study for the proposed ordinances that can be grouped into four broad categories: socioeconomic impacts, impacts of compostable bags, impacts to public health, and impacts of plastic carryout bags versus impacts of paper carryout bags. Socioeconomic Impacts During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances, members of the public (including representatives from the plastic bag industry) indicated concern about the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed ordinances upon the plastic bag manufacturing industry, stores that would be affected by the proposed ordinances, and retail customers. The County will 1 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 1 December 2009. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Initial Study. Prepared for: County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Pasadena, CA. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Page ES-2 prepare an economic impact analysis of the proposed ordinances for consideration during the decision-making process for the EIR. The economic impact analysis will model various scenarios of impacts to illustrate the potential range of costs that may be caused as an indirect impact of the proposed ordinances. Compostable Bags During the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances, certain members of the public suggested that the County should consider requiring stores to provide compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags as an alternative to offering just plastic or paper carryout bags. However, the proposed ordinances include a ban on the issuance of compostable and biodegradable bags due to the lack of commercial composting facilities in the County that would be needed to process compostable or biodegradable plastic carryout bags.1 This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 4.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinances, of this EIR. Public Health Impacts Several public comments were received during the scoping period for the Initial Study for the proposed ordinances that indicated concern about the public health impacts of the use of reusable bags. However, as is the case for any reusable household item that comes into contact with food items, such as chopping boards, tableware, or table linens, reusable bags do not pose a serious public health risk if consumers care for the bags accordingly and/or clean the bags regularly. Similarly, carts, shelves, and conveyor belts at food stores must be kept clean to avoid health risks. Reusable bags that are made of cloth or fabric, by the definition established by the proposed ordinances, must be machine washable. Reusable bags made of durable plastic are not machine washable, but can be rinsed or wiped clean. Commentators do note that the health risks, if any, from reusable bags can be minimized if the consumer takes appropriate steps, such as washing and disinfecting the bags, using them only for groceries and using separate bags for raw meat products, being careful with where they are stored, and allowing bags to dry before folding and storing.2 A representative of the County Department of Public Health has stated that the public health risks of reusable bags are minimal.3 Impacts of Plastic Carryout Bags versus Impacts of Paper Carryout Bags Several public comments (including those from representatives of the plastic bag industry) were received during the scoping period for Initial Study for the proposed ordinances that indicated concern that the proposed ordinances would cause an increase in the number of paper carryout bags used in the County, which would cause corresponding impacts to the environment. As a result of these public comments, impacts of paper carryout bags on air quality pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, wastewater generation, water consumption, energy consumption, eutrophication, solid waste generation, and water quality have been addressed throughout Section 3.0, Existing Conditions, Impacts, Mitigation, and Level of Significance after Mitigation, of this EIR. 1 County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division. August 2007. An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Alhambra, CA. Available at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08-2007.pdf 2 Dragan, James, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA. 17 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. E-mail correspondence with Nilda Gemeniano, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. 3 Dragan, James, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA. 17 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. E-mail correspondence with Nilda Gemeniano, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Page ES-3 During the scoping period for the Initial Study, public comments were received that indicated concern that an increase in paper carryout bags would lead to increased numbers of delivery trucks required to transport paper carryout bags to stores. However, as detailed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, and Section 3.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the number of delivery trucks required as a potential indirect impact of the proposed ordinances would be minimal, and therefore would not be expected to result in significant impacts upon traffic and transportation. During the scoping period for the Initial Study, public comments were received about the potential impacts of plastic carryout bags with regard to aesthetics, particularly at litter hotspots in the County. As the proposed ordinances aim to reduce the amount of plastic carryout bags in litter in the County, the proposed ordinances would not be expected to cause indirect adverse impacts to aesthetics, and no further analysis is warranted. During the scoping period for the Initial Study, public comments were received about the potential impacts of plastic carryout bags with regard to depletion of fossil fuel resources. As the proposed ordinances aim to decrease the number of plastic carryout bags used throughout the County, there would be no expected adverse impacts upon fossil fuel reserves, and no further analysis is warranted. ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The analysis undertaken in support of this EIR determined that there are several environmental issue areas related to CEQA that are not expected to have significant impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. These issue areas are agriculture and forest resources, aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic. These issue areas, therefore, were not carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIR. Certain plastic bag industry representatives have postulated that the banning of plastic carryout bags could potentially result in the increased manufacture of paper carryout bags, which may lead to potentially significant environmental impacts; therefore, the County has decided to carry forward five environmental issues for more detailed analysis in this EIR: air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems. ES.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES The analysis undertaken in support of this EIR evaluated whether implementation of the proposed ordinances would cause significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems. Table ES.5-1, Summary of Impacts, summarizes the impacts related to each issue area analyzed that might result or can be reasonably expected to result from implementation of the proposed ordinances. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Page ES-4 TABLE ES.5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Impact Level of Significance Air Quality The proposed ordinances may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags, which may subsequently result in increased criteria pollutant emissions from the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of paper carryout bags, which would be offset to some degree by the anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bags and increase in reusable bags. The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that impacts related to air quality that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Biological Resources The proposed ordinances would be expected to result in beneficial impacts to biological resources. The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that no significant adverse impacts related to biological resources would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed ordinances may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags. The increase in demand for paper carryout bags may result in increased greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of paper carryout bags, which would be offset to some degree by the anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bags and increase in reusable bags. The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that direct impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. However, because there are no local, regional, State, or federal regulations establishing significance on a cumulative level, and because certain representatives of the plastic bag industry have claimed that paper bags are significantly worse for the environment from a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions perspective, on this basis, and specific to this project only, and because the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts of the project from a very conservative worst-case scenario, it can be determined that the impacts may have the potential to be cumulatively significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for these cumulative impacts, so the consideration of alternatives is required. However, GHG emissions from any paper carryout bag manufacturing facilities or landfills affected by the proposed ordinances will be controlled by the owners of the facilities in accordance with any applicable regional, State, and federal regulations pertaining to GHG emissions. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Page ES-5 TABLE ES.5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, Continued Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags. The increase in demand for paper carryout bags may result in increased eutrophication impacts during the manufacture of paper carryout bags, which would be offset, to some degree, by positive impacts to surface water quality caused by anticipated reductions in the use of plastic carryout bags. The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that impacts related to hydrology and water quality that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project may indirectly result in an increased demand for paper carryout bags. The increased demand for paper carryout bags may result in increased water consumption, energy consumption, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation due to the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of paper carryout bags, which would be offset, to some degree, by the anticipated reduction in plastic carryout bags. The analysis undertaken for this EIR determined that impacts related to utilities and service systems that would be expected to arise from implementation of the proposed ordinances would be below the level of significance. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. ES.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES As a result of the formulation process for the proposed ordinances, the County explored alternatives to the proposed ordinances to assess their ability to meet most of the objectives of the proposed ordinances and provide additional beneficial impacts to the environment. Alternative ordinances were recommended during the scoping process and were evaluated in relation to the objectives of the proposed ordinances and the ability of the alternatives to result in additional beneficial impacts to the environment (Section 4.0). Five alternatives to the proposed ordinances required under CEQA have been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR: No Project Alternative Alternative 1, Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 2, Ban Plastic Carryout Bags and Impose a Fee on Paper Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Alternative 3, Ban Plastic Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Alternative 4, Ban Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags for All Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Pharmacies, and Drug Stores in Los Angeles County Although the No Project Alternative would reduce potential impacts to air quality and GHG emissions compared with the proposed ordinances, impacts to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems would be exacerbated, rather than avoided or reduced. In addition, the No Project Alternative is incapable of meeting any of the basic objectives of the proposed ordinances established by the County. As with the proposed ordinances, and when considering that the County is attempting to evaluate the impacts resulting from paper carryout bags from a conservative worst-case scenario, Alternatives 2 and 3 may have the potential Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Draft Environmental Impact Report June 2, 2010 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. W:\Projects\1012\1012-035\Documents\Draft Eir\0.1 Executive Summary.Doc Page ES-6 to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions. However, Alternative 2 would be expected to reduce consumption of paper carryout bags through implementation of a fee. Alternative 3 would result in additional benefits to biological resources as a result of reduced consumption of plastic carryout bags and would still meet all of the objectives identified by the County. Unlike the proposed ordinances, Alternatives 1 and 4 would not be expected to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to GHG emissions and would be expected to result in additional beneficial impacts, while still meeting all of the objectives identified by the County. Alternative 4 is anticipated to result in the greatest reduction in use of both plastic and paper carryout bags, and is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0537 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 CALLING, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION, AND CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR HOLDING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 2015 (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached three Resolutions pertaining to the November 3, 2015 General Municipal Election: (1) call and give notice of said election for the election of certain officers; (2) request consolidation with the County; and (3) provide for the conduct of a special runoff election for elective offices in the event of a tie vote. Background: The City will be conducting a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, for two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk and a City Treasurer, all for full four-year terms ending November 2019. Along with the resolutions presented this evening for Council adoption prior to the required legal noticing and the July 13 opening date of the nominating period, also attached is a preliminary election calendar identifying important deadline dates. A resolution adopting regulations for candidate statements is presented for adoption separately this evening as a consent calendar item. Resolutions for Adoption: 1.RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES 2.RESOLUTION NO. 15- Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0537 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015, WITH THE UDEL AND/OR SCHOOL ELECTION TO HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3.RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 2015 This resolution is optional but, if adopted, must be adopted before Election Day. It has been adopted for previous elections. If not adopted, in the event to or more persons received an equal number of votes and are tied for an elective office, the Council shall determine the tie by lot, pursuant to State law. Attachments: 1. Resolution Calling Election 2. Resolution Requesting Consolidation 3. Resolution Providing for Runoff Election 4. Preliminary Election Calendar Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 2 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 15-xxxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 3, 2015, for the election of Municipal Officers. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing two Members of the City Council for the full term of four years, a City Clerk for the full term of four years, and a City Treasurer for the full term of four years. SECTION 2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to coordinate with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 4. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10242, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Page 2 of 2 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 7. That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon presentation of a properly submitted bill. SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015. _________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Page 1 of 2 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 15-xxxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015, WITH THE UDEL AND/OR SCHOOL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City Council to full four-year terms, a City Clerk to a full four- year term, and a City Treasurer to a full four-year term; and WHEREAS,it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the UDEL and/or School Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Election Department of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election, and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the UDEL/School Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk and a City Treasurer to full four-year terms ending November 2019. SECTION 2. That the County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. Page 2 of 2 15-xxxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election. SECTION 4. That the City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Election Department of the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015. ________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 2015 WHEREAS, Section 15651(b) of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to require the conduct of a Special Runoff Election to resolve a tie vote involving those candidates who received an equal number of votes and the highest number of votes for an elective office. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 15651(b) of the Elections Code of the State of California, if any two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes for an office to be voted for within the City, there shall be held within the City a Special Runoff Election to resolve the tie vote. A Special Runoff Election shall be called and held on a Tuesday not less than 40 days nor more than 125 days after the administrative or judicial certification of the election which resulted in a tie vote. SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2015 and shall then be repealed. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on the 23rd day of June, 2015. _________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney PRELIMINARY ELECTION CALENDAR FOR HERMOSA BEACH GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 2015 June 23 (Tu)- Council to adopt resolutions prepared by City Clerk establishing regulations for candidate statements, calling the election, etc. July 9 (Th)- City Clerk deadline to publish notice of election for offices July 13 - Aug. 7 (M-F)- Filing period for nomination papers (unless extended) (Incumbents may pull nomination papers only during this time) July 28 (Tu)- Last regular meeting for Council to place measure(s) on the ballot July 31 (F)- Deadline for campaign committees to file semi-annual statements (for period of Jan. 1 – June 30, 2015) Aug. 7 (F) [5 p.m.]- Deadline to file nomination papers (unless extended) Aug. 8–17 (Sat-M)- If filing period closed Aug. 7, public examination period of candidate names, ballot designations and candidate statements Aug. 12 (W) [5 p.m.]- Extended deadline to file nomination papers (only offices for which an incumbent did not file by Aug. 7) Aug. 13-22 (Th-Sat)- If filing period was extended, public examination period of candidate names, ballot designations and candidate statements for only the office(s) subject to the extension Aug. 13 (Th) [11 a.m.]- Secretary of State does randomized alphabet drawing to determine order of names on ballot Sept. 7 - Oct. 20 (M-Tu)- Filing period for write-in candidates Sept. 24 (Th)- Deadline for 1 st pre-election campaign expenditure statements (for Period of July 1 – Sept. 19, 2015) Sept 24 - Oct 13 (Th-Tu)- County to mail official sample ballot booklets to each voter Oct. 5 - Oct. 27 (M-Tu)- Voters may request vote-by-mail ballots from County Oct. 19 (M)- Last day to register to vote Oct. 22 (Th)- Deadline for City Clerk to publish certified list of nominees - Deadline for 2 nd pre-election campaign expenditure statements (for period of Sept. 20 – Oct. 17, 2015) Nov. 3 (Tu) [7 a.m. - 8 p.m.] - Election Day Nov. 24 (Tu)- Tentative date for County’s official certification of election results - Council to adopt resolution declaring election results - Elected officials sworn in by City Clerk and seated Feb. 1, 2016 (M)- Deadline for filing year-end campaign expenditure statements (for period of Oct. 18 – Dec. 31, 2015) Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0516 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE 2015 SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR FROM AUGUST THROUGH DECEMBER (Senior Recreation Supervisor Kelly Orta) Recommended Action: Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council: 1.Approve the 2015 special events calendar for events from August to December. Background: As you know,Hermosa Beach receives numerous special event applications each year.In 2013, staff worked with the Parks and Recreation Commission to revamp how special events were being permitted in order to increase efficiency and streamline the permit process,while continuing to provide a high level of service.After extensive public discussion at four Commission meetings,and with the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval,the Community Resources Department changed the special event review and approval policy as follows: ·Event applications are now accepted biannually on a six (6)month cycle.(Previously they were accepted once a year for an entire year in advance.) ·Small events (less than 500 people)are reviewed and issued permits at the department/staff level. ·Larger events (more than 500 people)are reviewed in public at a Commission meeting prior to being issued a permit. ·Stricter enforcement of existing rules regarding non-profit status,fee payments and general oversight commenced. At the regular City Council meeting on February 10,Council approved the special event calendar through July 2015.Additionally,the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission was directed to review current special event policies and procedures prior to approval of the remaining events scheduled from August to December,2015.While the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s Special Event Subcommittee has been reviewing and making progress on researching these policies, there has not been enough time to fully analyze and create recommended policy changes. Therefore,a policy update recommendation is not available for this evening’s discussion of the remaining event calendar. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0516 Analysis: Special Events Approval In 2014-15,the City Council held two study sessions and a joint meeting to clarify special event policy and the desire to create a new event approval method (if necessary).At the January 13,2015 session,a majority of Council directed that staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission continue to manage event approvals using the existing system,and bringing new,problematic or unusual events to the Council for review. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 12.28.010 leaves the implementation of special event permitting to the Community Resources Director,and states that “the Community Resources Director may issue a special events permit upon finding that the special event ....is included in the annual special event calendar approved by the City Council.” Parks and Recreation Commission Review The Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing regarding the 2015 calendar on December 2,2014.Please note that the following information details only those events from August to December, 2015, which is recommended for approval this evening. The proposed five-month calendar includes over 36 events with one-third being small to medium sized volleyball tournaments.The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed and approved this calendar at their regular June 6 meeting.Please note the following changes made to the calendar since the Commission meeting: ·Navy Days LA Concert - Saturday, August 8 o Free naval band concert by The Destroyers ·Summer Concert Series o Dates moved up one week to August 2, 9, 16, & 23 Events estimated at over 500 attendees (category II - IV) include: ·NVL RIZE/Hermosa Beach Championships (August 12-16) ·Snow Fest (December 6) Both are returning events and staff does not see any concerns with hosting them again this year. Event applications can be found at the following link: <http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=807> . Please note that the applications for Movies in the Park (August 22) and Pumpkins in the Park (October 17) are pending and are not available at this time due to recent developments in event planning by Friends of the Parks. Applications for both events will be put online (at the link above) as soon as they are available. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0516 Attached is the full 2015 special event calendar, although only the events from August through December should be considered this evening as the earlier events have already been approved. Additionally attached are one-page summaries. of each event highlighting the main components and important information to assist in your review alongside the updated special event matrix. Fiscal Implications: None Attachments: 2015 Event Calendar August through December One-Page Event Information 2015 Event Information Matrix HBMC Section 12.28.010 - Special Events Permits Respectfully Submitted by: Kelly Orta, Senior Recreation Supervisor Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach - Community Resources Department 710 Pier Avenue ● Hermosa Beach, CA ● 90254 | Telephone: 310-318-0280 | Fax: 310-372-4333 TENTATIVE CALENDAR OF EVENTS 2015 Visit our website at www.hermosabch.org for updates! JANUARY Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 17 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X SA 31 USAV Jr. Beach Tour Premiere Winter Series North of Pier X FEBRUARY Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 14 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X SA 28 USAV Jr. Beach Tour Premiere Winter Series North of Pier X MARCH Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 7 Mira Costa Girls Beach Volleyball Tournament North of Pier X SA 14 HB St. Patrick’s Day Community Parade Downtown X SU 15 USAV Beach High Performance Tryouts North of Pier X SA 21 Hearts of Hermosa Community Center X SU 22 CBVA North of Pier X SA 28 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X SA-SU 28-29 West Coast Beach Tennis Beach Tennis Courts X SU 29 USC Football Pep Rally (Pier Plaza Promo) Pier Plaza X APRIL Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 4 AAU North of Pier X SA 4 Surfer’s Walk of Fame Ceremony Pier X SA 4 Spyder Surf Fest Plaza X SA 4 Hope Chapel Easter Egg Hunt Valley Park X SU 5 USAV Beach High Performance Tryouts North of Pier X SU 5 Easter Sunrise Mass South of Pier X SA-SU 11-12 USAV Collegiate Beach Challenge North of Pier X SA 18 CBVA North of Pier X SU 19 Walk for Water Strand X F 24 Skate for the Schools Skatepark X SA 25 USAV Beach High Performance Tryouts North of Pier X SA 25 Richstone Pier to Pier Walk Strand X MAY Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm F 1 Pass the Love Pier Plaza X SA 2 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X SA 2 Endless Summer Classic Car Show Plaza X SA 9 USAV Beach High Performance Tryouts North of Pier X SA-SU 9-10 West Coast Beach Tennis Beach Tennis Courts X Revised:6/18/2015 at 2:42:13 PM Page 2 of 3 SU 10 USAV Jr. Beach Tour HB Open North of Pier X W 13 Tone it Up Workout and Meeting & Greet South of Pier X SA 16 Special Olympics Hands Project Community Center X SA 16 Night at the Ballpark Clark Field X SA 16 Surf Legends Memorial Groundbreaking Ceremony Community Center X SU 17 USAV Jr. Beach Tour HB Open North of Pier X SA-SU 23-24 CBVA Tournament North of Pier X SA-M 23-25 Fiesta Hermosa Downtown X M 25 Beachsport.org SUP Contest S. of Pier X SA 30 AAU North of Pier X SA 30 Hermosa Beach FitFest Downtown X SA 30 Special Olympics Hands Project Community Center X JUNE Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA-SU 6-7 HB Fine Arts Festival (Art Walk) Comm. Center X SA 6 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X SA 13 USAV Jr. Beach Tour HB Open North of Pier X SA 13 Special Olympics Hands Project NEW Community Center X SU 14 AAU North of Pier X SA 20 Summer SHAPE Up Beach/N Pier & Plaza X TU 23 USAV NORCECA Qualifier North of Pier X SU 28 Hermosa Beach Murals Project Unveiling NEW The Underground Pub X JULY Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm M-TH 6-9 Jr. Volleyball Association (JVA) – BVCA National Beach Championships North of Pier X SA-SU 11-12 AAU North/South of Pier X M-F, SU 13-17, 19 USA Volleyball HP Championship North of Pier X W-TH 15-16 Shakespeare By the Sea Valley Park X SA 18 Smackfest Coed 4’s Tournament South of Pier X TU-W 21-22 Film Permit TBD Beach/Pier X TU-F 21-24 Special Olympics World Games Host Town Activities Torch Run (July 21 – Strand and Plaza) Meet the Athletes (July 22 – Valley Park) Parade (July 23 – Redondo Pier) Downtown & Various Locations X TH-SU 23-26 AAU North/South of Pier X W 29 USA Volleyball NORCECA Qualifiers NEW DATE North of Pier X TH-F 30 – 31 International Surf Festival Beach/Pier X AUGUST Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA-SU 1-2 International Surf Festival Beach/Pier SA-SU 1-2 CBVA North of Pier X SU 2 Summer Concert #1 South of Pier Revised:6/18/2015 at 2:42:13 PM Page 3 of 3 W-SA 5-8 HB Championships/NVL RIZE West Coast Championships North of Pier X SA 8 Navy Days – LA Concert South of Pier X SU 9 Summer Concert #2 South of Pier SA 15 USAV Junior Beach Tour North of Pier X SU 16 Summer Concert #3 South of Pier SA-SU 22-23 CBVA North of Pier X SA-SU 22-23 West Coast Beach Tennis Beach Tennis Courts X SA 22 Movies in the Park Valley Park X SU 23 Summer Concert #4 (tentative) South of Pier SA 29 CBVA North of Pier X SEPTEMBER Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm W 2 USAV NORCECA Playoffs North of Pier X SA-M 5-7 Fiesta Hermosa Downtown X SA-SU 5-6 CBVA North of Pier X SA 12 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X SA 19 Coastal Cleanup Day North of Pier X SA 19 Board Short Mile South of Pier X SA-SU 19-20 West Coast Beach Tennis Beach Tennis Courts X SA 26 USAV Junior Beach Tour North of Pier X SA 26 Rat Beach Bike Tour Strand (pass-through) X OCTOBER Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 3 Longboard Contest South of Pier X SA 17 USAV Junior Beach Tour North of Pier X SA 17 Pumpkins in the Park Edith Rodaway X SA-SU 24-25 West Coast Beach Tennis Beach Tennis Courts X SA 31 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X NOVEMBER Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 7 Pier 2 Pier Run/Walk Beach X SA-SU 7-8 & 14-15 Hermosa Beach Junior Satellite Tennis Tournament Community Center Tennis Courts X W 11 Veterans Commemoration Ceremony Vets Memorial X SA 14 USAV Junior Beach Tour North of Pier X SU 15 Brain Tumor Walk Pier Plaza & Strand X SA 21 Volleyball Ventures Tournament North of Pier X DECEMBER Day Date Name Location CR Dept HB Co- Sponsor Non- Profit Comm SA 5 Sand Snowman Contest Beach/ N. Pier X SU 6 Spyder Snowfest Downtown X SA 12 USAV Junior Beach Tour North of Pier X 2015 Proposed Special Events Title (Alphabetical Order)Event Description Dates Location Set Up Time Tear Down Time Is Alcohol Allowed? Estimated Attendees Throughout Event AAU Beach Volleyball Tournaments These youth beach volleyball tournaments are now in their twentieth year in Hermosa Beach, hosting several tournaments for youth of all ages. 4/4, 5/30, 6/14, 7/11-12 & 7/23- 26 Beach VB Courts 6:00 AM 7:00 PM No 300 Beachsports.org SUP Contest This event includes stand up and prone paddleboards racing around the Hermosa Beach Pier in four different competitions, including a stand-up paddleboard surf exhibition. 5/25 Beach 7:00 AM 5:00 PM No 150 Board Short Mile This event is a non-competitive one-mile smile on a course marked by buoys placed by LA County Lifeguards. The start and finish of the race are held south of the Pier. 9/19 South of Pier 7:00am 12:30pm No 55 CBVA Volleyball Tournaments This is a grassroots beach volleyball tournament for youth and adults. These tournaments have been taking place in Hermosa Beach for over fifty years and allow novice to AAA-level players to participate. 4/18, 5/23-24, 8/1-2, 8/22-23, 8/29, & 9/5-6 Beach VB Courts 7:00 AM 5:00pm No 150 Endless Summer Classic Car Show This one-day event takes place on Pier Plaza and showcases classic cars from all over Southern California. 5/2 Pier Plaza 9:00 AM 3:00 PM No 350 Fiesta Hermosa This biannual event takes place in downtown Hermosa Beach across the Memorial Day and Labor Day holiday weekends. Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, this event includes various vendors, food, beverages, kids’ activities, and a beer garden. May 23-25 , September 5-7 Downtown and Pier Plaza 5/23 at 6:00 AM 5/25 at 11:00 PM Yes 20,000 Fine Arts Festival The Fine Arts Festival includes 75 artists displaying their art on the north and east lawns of the Community Center.Other activities include a steel drummer,youth dancers from “You Can Dance Studio”,and acoustic music.They are also requesting a VIP wine tent. 6/6 & 6/7 Comm Center 6/6 at 9:00 AM 6/7 at 5:00 PM Yes 460 FitFest This event is Leadership Hermosa Beach Class of 2015’s class project and will feature health & fitness activities to introduce and educate the local community. 5/30 Downtown and various locations 7:00am 7:00pm No 500 GI Joe Pier to Pier Walk/Run Starting at the Hermosa Beach Pier, participants run or walk to the Manhattan Beach Pier and back. Prizes and giveaways are given to participants ranging from youth to adult. 3/7, 7/11, & 11/7 Beach 6:00 AM 10:00am No 150 Hearts of Hermosa This is a repeat one-day event for the City.This is a food and wine event with auction,music and dancing.This event takes place under a tent in the Community Center parking lot and is the largest fundraiser for the Hermosa Beach Education Foundation. 3/21 Comm Ctr 3/20 at 8am 3/22 at 5pm Yes 625 Hermosa Beach Championships/NVL RIZE West Coast Championships This professional-level event is for participants ages 12-40 and will take place north of the Pier. August 5-8 Beach 8/4 at 8:00am 8/9 at 5:00pm No 1500 Hermosa Beach Junior Satellite Tennis Tournament Youth tennis tournament on the Community Center tennis courts. November 7-8 & 14-15 Community Center 8:00am 6:00pm No 200 International Surf Festival This is a repeat event for the City presented in coordination with the cities of Torrance, Redondo and Manhattan Beach. The International Surf Festival (ISF) was formed in 1962 to organize and combine a beach festival for the beach cities. Hermosa is host to the LA County Lifeguard Championships, Surfing Championships, two mile beach run, Pier to Pier Swim, Dory races, paddleboard race and the CBVA Volleyball tournament added in 2012. July 30-August 2 Beach 7/30 at 7:30 AM 8/3 at 7:30 AM No 2000 Junior Volleyball Association (JVA) hosting the BVCA National Beach Championships This three-day championship event is for junior beach clubs who will be traveling across the country in various tournaments. 150 teams will compete for the best junior beach volleyball team in the nation north of the Pier. July 6-9 Beach north of Pier 7/6 at 8:30am 7/9 at 5:00pm No 460 HBLL Night in the Ballpark This fundraising effort, hosted by the Hermosa Beach Little League, is an overnight camp-out on the baseball fields at Clark Stadium. The event includes a baseball game, food, drinks, and an outdoor movie. 5/16 Clark Stadium 1:00 PM 4/26 at 9:00am No 200 Hope Chapel/Beach Cities Easter Egg Hunt Community Easter egg hunt with kids activities and game booths. 4/4 Valley Park 7:30 AM 1:30 PM No 500 Longboard Contest local longboard contest uniting the local surf community in celebration of the rich local history 10/3 South of Pier 6:00am 6:00pm No 150 Movies in the Park Annual fundraiser for Friends of the Parks showing a movie at Valley Park. Family-friendly activities are also available for attendees prior to the movie. 8/22 Valley Park Pending Pending No Pending Mira Costa Girls Beach Volleyball Tournament Doubles tournament where teams from neighboring High Schools will compete. 3/7 South of Pier 7:00am 6:00pm No 150 Navy Days - LA Concert Free naval band performance by "The Destroyers"8/8 South of Pier No Pier to Pier Walk/Run Walk/run from Hermosa Beach to Manhattan Beach and back in the sand. 11/14 north of Pier 6:00am 12:00pm No 150 Pumpkins in the Park annual fundraiser for Friends of the Parks. Activities include pumpkin decorating, face painting, and a marionette show. 10/17 Edith Rodaway Park Pending Pending No Pending Richstone Pier to Pier Walk This is a repeat one-day pass through event for the City benefitting the Richstone Family Center for preventing and treating child abuse and violence. The walk begins at Manhattan Beach Pier and continues to the Hermosa Pier, then back to the Manhattan Pier. 4/25 Strand N/A - Pass Through N/A - Pass Through No 1000 Samburu Walk for Water In its fifth year in Hermosa Beach, this event includes a walk on the Strand to raise awareness and funding for the Samburu Project’s clean water initiative in Kenya. The event celebrates World Water Day. 4/19 Strand N/A - Pass Through N/A - Pass Through No 300 Shakespeare By the Sea In its 18th year in Hermosa Beach, Shakespeare By the Sea provides two live performances of popular Shakespeare plays in the Valley Park amphitheater each summer. This free event is organized through efforts of the Shakespeare By the Sea organization. 7/15 & 7/16 Valley Park 5:00 PM 10:30pm No 600 Skate for Schools Sebastian Kuhr, a Hermosa Valley student and professional skateboarder, skates for two hours and may have friends join him to skate. 100% of money pledged is given to the Hermosa Beach School District. 4/24 Skate Park N/A N/A No 100 Smackfest Volleyball Tournaments This is a returning volleyball event where participants dress up in costumes and play beach volleyball. In the past, there were issues with excessive drinking and trash on the beach, but those activities were curtailed in 2013. The last two Smackfest tournaments have run well with additional staff oversight just south of the Pier 7/18 Beach VB Courts 7/17 at 8:00pm 7/18 at 9:00pm No 1600 Snow Fest This is a repeat one day event produced by Spyder Surfboards held on Pier Avenue between Monterey and Hermosa Avenue.The event includes a downhill snow slope on Pier Avenue and multiple vendors have booths with giveaways. 12/6 Pier Ave 4:00 AM 9:00 PM No 2000 St. Patrick’s Day Community Parade The annual St.Patrick’s Day Parade begins on Valley Drive,runs down Pier Avenue ending on Hermosa Avenue at 10th Street.Parade includes dignitaries,floats,community groups,classic cars, youth groups and entertainers. 3/14 Valley and Pier Ave to Hermosa 3/14 at 7:00 AM 2:00 PM No 10,000 Summer Beach Concert Series This annual concert series,hosted by Allen Sanford and St.Rocke,includes live musical performances on a stage on the south side of the Pier. August 2, 9, 16, & 23 Beach, Lot B and Pier Plaza 9:00 AM 8:00 PM No 5000 Summer SHAPE UP This is repeat one-day event for the City.The Shape Magazine Summer Beach Tour is also held in Miami and Santa Monica offering fitness, nutrition and fashion advice to women.Attendees can hear directly from health and fitness experts while participating in games and exercise classes led by Equinox trainers. 6/20 Beach North of Pier and Pier Plaza 6/18 at 7:00am 6/20 at 9:00pm No 3000 Surf Fest This is a repeat one-day event held on Pier Plaza on the same date as the Surfers Walk of Fame ceremony.The event,hosted by Spyder Surfboards,hosts a stage with live music,and multiple vendors have booths with giveaways. 4/4 Pier Plaza 6:00 AM 8:00 PM No 2000 USA Volleyball Beach NORCECA and FIVB Qualifiers Small tournament used to determine which professional atheltes travel internationally to NORCECA and FIVB events to represent the USA.These qualifiers are either 4 or 8 teams per gender and are some of the top teams in the country,having a huge impact on Olympic qualifying. 9/2 Beach VB Courts 6:00am 6:00pm No 200 USAV Collegiate Beach Challenge This tournament hosts multiple collegiate beach volleyball teams from California and Hawaii. The goal of the event is to support the emerging collegiate sport of sand volleyball. 4/11 & 12 Beach VB Courts 4/10 at 11:00am 4/12 at 6:00pm No 450 USAV High Performance Championships This is a repeat event,bringing players ages 12- 25 from around the country who have tried out or been nominated to compete at a high performance level of play. July 13-17, & 19 Beach VB Courts 7/12 at 11:00am 7/19 at 5:00pm No 700 USA Volleyball High Performance Tryouts Tryouts are held north of the Pier and are used to find athletes to play on the Beach National Team and represent the USA internationally. March 15, April 5 & 25, and May 9 Beach VB Courts 6:00am 6:00pm No 200 USA Volleyball Junior Beach Tour Hermosa Beach Open These events are tournaments for youth ages 8-18 of any skill level. This is a one-day tournament meant for beginners and seasoned club players.This event is held north of the Pier. May 10 & June 13 Beach VB Courts 6:00 AM 6:00 PM No 400 USA Volleyball Jr.Beach Tour Premiere Winter Series These events are tournaments for youth ages 8- 18 of any skill level. This is a one-day tournament meant for beginners and seasoned club players. This event is held north of the Pier. January 31, February 28, & March 21, August 15, September 26, October 17, November 14, & December 12 Beach VB Courts 6:00 AM 6:00 PM No 400 Volleyball Ventures Tournaments These are coed 4’s volleyball tournaments with primarily amateur players that also participate in Hermosa Beach volleyball classes leagues. While this is the first year these tournaments will be in Hermosa Beach, they have taken place in Manhattan Beach for several years. These tournaments will take place north of the Pier. 1/17, 2/14, 3/28, 5/2, 6/6, 9/12, 10/31, & 11/21 Beach VB Courts 8:00am 7:00pm No 250 West Coast Beach Tennis Tournaments Taking place on the beach tennis courts at 15th Street, these tournaments allow game-play for beginning through advanced players. March 28-29, May 9-10, August 22-23, September 19- 20, & October 24-25 Beach Tennis Courts 8:00am 7:30pm No 60 World Games Special Olympics This is a 3-day program that takes place prior to the Opening Ceremony of the Special Olympics World Games, which is taking place in Los Angeles. Delegations of athletes from around the world will be welcomed and celebrated. The schedule of events will include getting to know community members, taking part in cultural activities unique to each area, and practicing and resting for The Games. July 21-24 various locations throughout the City varies varies No 200 : City Produced and Co-Produced Events (No Applications on File) Coastal Cleanup Day Supported by Heal the Bay and sponsored by the City of Hermosa Beach,this one-day event includes a beach cleanup on the north side of the Pier.Participants are given all the supplies they need to help beautify and clean the beach in tandem with hundreds of locations in the country. 9/19 Beach 8:00 AM 12:00 PM No 200 Sand Snowman Contest This annual event hosted by the City of Hermosa Beach allows families to take part in a Hermosa tradition of building snowmen out of sand just north of the Pier.Prizes are given for the funniest, best dressed,Hermosa Beach favorite,most unique, and most traditional. 12/5 Beach 7:00 AM 12:00 PM No 150 Surfer’s Walk of Fame Ceremony This annual event, hosted and organized by the City of Hermosa Beach, honors those inducted into the Surfer’s Walk of Fame on the Pier. 4/4 Pier Head 7:00 AM 12:00 PM No 150 Veteran’s Day Commemoration Ceremony Hosted by the City of Hermosa Beach and sponsored by the Veteran’s Memorial Committee, this twilight commemoration ceremony includes a candlelight vigil to honor all Veterans,past and present. 11/11 Comm Ctr 2:00 PM 8:00 PM No 200 LA Brain Tumor Walk Fundraising walk to raise awareness and collect funds for the brain tumor community. Funds to towards brain tumor research and specific programs. The goal is to improve the lives of all those affected by brain tumors. 11/15 Pier Plaza and Strand 8:00AM 4:00PM No 1500 USC Football Pep Rally This event includes a 15 minute performance by USC band and song girls, a speech by USC Coach Steve Sarkisian and foot ball players, followed by a meet and greet with fans. 3/29 Pier Plaza 2:00pm 5:00pm No 250 Commercial Pier Plaza Promotions HBMC Section 12.28.010 Special event permits. A. For purposes of this Section, a "special event" shall mean any organized event, activity, celebration or function involving the use of City property, rights-of-way, or parkland at which twenty-five (25) or more persons are to be assembled, or use of the beach at which two hundred (200) or more persons are to be assembled. The activities described in Sections 12.28.060 through 12.28.090 and 12.28.110 are "special events" within the meaning of this Section regardless of anticipated or actual attendance. B. No person shall organize or conduct a special event without first obtaining a permit to do so as prescribed by this Section. C. Application for a special event permit shall be made on forms provided for that purpose by the Community Resources Department, and shall contain the following information: 1. Name, address, telephone number and other identification information about the person or organization responsible for organizing the event, including its commercial/nonprofit status. 2. The proposed dates and hours of operation of the event, including the period required for set-up and break-down/clean-up. 3. The estimated daily and total attendance at the event (including organizers, participants, spectators, volunteers and others), with an explanation as to the factual basis for the estimate. 4. A description of all organized activities proposed to take place during the event, and whether admission is to be charged. 5. A description or diagram showing the proposed location of the event, including all temporary facilities/structures/signage/equipment to be erected, ingress and egress, number and type of vehicles and whether existing structures/facilities are to be relocated or modified. 6. A parking plan showing the number of public parking spaces to be occupied by the event organizers, the location of satellite parking lots to be used for attendee parking, arrangements for shuttle bus transportation, and plans for publicizing the availability of off-site public parking. 7. Such other information determined by the Director of Community Resources to be necessary to evaluate the proposed event. 8. A permit fee in any amount determined by resolution of the City Council. 9. A dated signature of the organizer or its authorized agent attesting to the truth, completeness and accuracy of the contents of the application. D. The Community Resources Director may issue a special events permit upon finding that: 1. The special event, if it falls within Sections 12,28.060 through 12.28.090 and 12.28.110, is included in the annual special event calendar approved by the City Council. 2. The applicant reimburses the City for all costs incurred by the City in connection with the event, including public safety, traffic control and monitoring. 3. The number of estimated attendees can be accommodated at the proposed location and surrounding area. 4. The applicant is capable and qualified to manage the event in a competent, professional manner in accordance with all conditions of approval. 5. Adequate provision as been made for satellite parking, shuttle transportation and traffic control. 6. Adequate provision has been made for security, crowd control, ingress and egress, and clean-up. 7. The total number of days required for the event shall not exceed sixteen (16) days. 8. The applicant provides required insurance, deposits, bonding and indemnification of the City. E. The Community Resources Director may impose such conditions and operational rules and regulations on the special event permit as are necessary to minimize its impact on the community and to assure that it will not be a detriment to public health and safety. Such conditions include, but are not limited to: 1. Monetary deposits, bonds and other security as may be necessary to guarantee performance of all required conditions, clean-up and repair of any City property or facilities damaged as a result of the event. 2. Procurement of liability and other insurance policies to protect the applicant and attendees, naming the City and its officials and employees as additional insureds. 3. Limitations on the hours of operation and volume of public address systems and/or amplified music. F. Any person may appeal a decision of the Community Resources Director as regards a special event permit application by filing an appeal in writing to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision. The appeal shall set forth the grounds upon which the appellant believes the decision is in error or contrary to applicable law. The City Council shall consider and take action on the appeal at its next regular meeting following receipt of the appeal, provided that it may continue its deliberations to a date certain with the consent of the applicant. The decision of the City Council shall be final. (Or. 03-1230 §1, June 2003) Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0534 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES REGARDING AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATION OF COUNCIL MEETINGS (City Attorney Mike Jenkins) Recommended Action: The City Council adopt the two Resolutions attached to this report consistent with Council direction at its May 12, 2015 meeting. Background: On May 12,2015,following receipt of an initial report for consideration of City Council procedures and protocols regarding descriptions of agenda items and location of City Council meetings,Council directed the following modifications be made to City Council procedural resolutions: Ø Clarify that aside from public comment on the closed session agenda,no other business will be conducted prior to a closed session unless a previous meeting has been adjourned to that time or a special meeting has been called. Ø Clarify that all open and public meetings of the City Council be cablecast and webcast live or video-recorded for later airing. Ø Enhance the descriptions of closed session agenda items. The language incorporating these modifications is described below and in the attached resolutions. In addition,language has been added indicating that closed sessions will be conducted in the location identified in the agenda and that the Council Comment portion of the agenda is the time for Councilmembers to report on meeting attendance. The specific changes are as follows: 1.Resolution No. 08-6607 be amended to read as follows: That pursuant to Section 2-1 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code,the regular meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council shall commence at 6:00 p.m..Only closed sessions (and public comment associated therewith)and study sessions may be held between 6:00 p.m.and 7:00 p.m.(and no other public agenda items)unless a regular meeting is adjourned to or a special meeting called for that time.No closed session or study session will be held during that hour unless the posted agenda of that evening’s regular meeting indicates that such session will take place;in the absence of such notification in the agenda,the regular meeting Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0534 session will take place;in the absence of such notification in the agenda,the regular meeting shall commence at the hour of 7:00 p.m. 2.Sections 2.1,4.1 and 5.1(m)of Resolution No.12-6787 be amended and a new Section 2.7 be added to read as follows: 2.1 Regular Meetings.Pursuant to the authority set forth in Municipal Code section 2.04.010,the City Council shall conduct its regular meetings on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month.The regular meetings of the City Council shall commence at 6:00 p.m.Only closed sessions (and public comment associated therewith)and study sessions may be held between 6:00 p.m.and 7:00 p.m.(and no other public agenda items)unless a regular meeting is adjourned to or a special meeting called for that time.No closed session or study session will be held during that hour unless the posted agenda of that evening’s regular meeting indicates that such session will take place;in the absence of such notification in the agenda,the regular meeting shall commence at the hour of 7:00 p.m.Regular meetings shall be conducted in the location set forth in Municipal Code section 2.04.020.Closed sessions shall be conducted in the location identified in the agenda. 2.7 Recording of Meetings.All open and public meetings of the City Council shall be cablecast and webcast live or videorecorded for airing on the City’s government channel and viewing on the City’s website.In that event that technical difficulties beyond the City’s control prevent the cablecasting,webcasting and/or recording of a meeting,the City Council may in its discretion decide whether or not to proceed with the meeting. 4.1 Description of Matters.All items of business to be discussed at a meeting of the City Council shall be briefly described on the agenda.The description should contain sufficient detail so that a person otherwise unaware could determine the general nature or subject matter of the item by reading the agenda.Closed session agenda items shall be described with particularity to the extent feasible without compromising the confidentiality of the closed session. m.COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS This portion of the meeting shall be set aside for general comments,reports of meeting attendance,requests of staff,and/or other issues of concern from members of the City Council,and brief responses to audience comments.No extensive discussion of these comments is permitted. The above modifications are reflected in the attached resolutions;should Council adopt the Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0534 resolutions, the redlining will be deleted from the official resolutions. Attachments: 1.Redline of Resolution No. 08-6607 2.Redline of Resolution No. 12-6787 Respectfully Submitted by: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Noted: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ 08-66071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE TIME FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Section 2-1 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code authorized the City Council to fix by Resolution the time for holding its regular meetings; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to clarify that closed sessions commencing at 6:00 p.m. may be preceded by public comment NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 2-1 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the regular meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council shall commence at 6:00 p.m.. Only closed sessions (and public comment associated therewith) and study sessions may be held between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (and no other public agenda items) unless a regular meeting is adjourned to or a special meeting called for that time. No closed session or study session will be held during that hour unless the posted agenda of that evening’s regular meeting indicates that such session will take place; in the absence of such notification in the agenda, the regular meeting shall commence at the hour of 7:00 p.m. SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall take effect June __, 2015. Resolution No. 08- 6607 is hereby rescinded. 08-66072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting in which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2008. ________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following rules of order and decorum for the conduct of City Council meetings are hereby adopted: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1. SCOPE 3 SECTION 2. MEETINGS 3 2.1 Regular meetings 3 2.2 Special meetings 3 2.3 Special emergency meetings 3 2.4 Closed sessions 3 2.5 Quorum 4 2.6 Adjourned meetings 4 SECTION 3. POSTING OF NOTICE AND AGENDA 3.1 Posting of notice and agenda 4 3.2 Location of posting 4 3.3 Posting for regular meetings 4 3.4 Posting for Special meetings 4 3.5 Affidavit of Posting 4 SECTION 4. AGENDA - CONTENTS 4.1 Description of matters 5 4.2 Availability of Agenda 5 4.3 Limitations of actions by agenda 5 4.4 Submittal of Written Materials by the Public 5 SECTION 5. ORDER OF BUSINESS 5.1 Commencement of Meeting 5 5.2 Order of Business 6 a.Call to order 6 b.Pledge of Allegiance 6 c.Roll Call 6 d.Report of Closed Session 6 e.Announcements 6 f. Presentations 6 g.Public Participation 6 h.Consent Calendar 6 i.Public Hearings 6 Resolution No. Page 2 j. Excluded Consent Calendar 6 k.Municipal Matters 7 l.City Manager’s Report 7 m. Councilmember Comments 7 n.Other Matters from City Council 7 o.Adjournment 7 SECTION 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 6.1 Public Comment 7 6.2 Limitations 7 6.3 Procedure 7 6.4 Written Communications to Council 7 SECTION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8 7.1 Time for consideration 8 7.2 Continuance of Hearings 8 7.3 Conduct of Hearings 8 7.4 Evidence 9 7.5 Definition of “Ex Parte” Communication 9 SECTION 8. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF MEETINGS 9 8.1 Robert's Rules 9 8.2 Motions 9 8.3 Voting 10 8.4 Adjournment 10 SECTION 9. DECORUM 10 9.1 Rules for City Councilmembers 10 a.Role of the presiding officer 10 b.Communication with Councilmembers 10 9.2 Communication with members of the Public 10 addressing the Council 9.3 Rules for City Staff 11 a.Decorum 11 b.Roles of the City Manager 11 9.4 Rules for the Public 11 a.Members of the audience 11 b.Persons addressing the City Council 11 9.5 Enforcement 11 Resolution No. Page 3 SECTION 1. SCOPE. 1.1 This resolution shall establish the procedures for the conduct of all meetings of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. The purpose of this resolution is to provide that the City Council's meeting procedures will be consistent with the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) and establish procedures that will be convenient for the public and contribute to the orderly conduct of the City's business. The procedures herein are in addition to, and not in place of, applicable ordinances and statutes, and in the event of conflict between this resolution and applicable ordinances or statutes, the latter shall govern. SECTION 2. MEETINGS. 2.1 Regular Meetings. Pursuant to the authority set forth in Municipal Code section 2.04.010, the City Council shall conduct its regular meetings on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month. The regular meetings of the City Council shall commence at 6:00 p.m. Only closed sessions (and public comment associated therewith) and study sessions may be held between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (and no other public agenda items) unless a regular meeting is adjourned to or a special meeting called for that time. No closed session or study session will be held during that hour unless the posted agenda of that evening’s regular meeting indicates that such session will take place; in the absence of such notification in the agenda, the regular meeting shall commence at the hour of 7:00 p.m. Regular meetings shall be conducted in the location set forth in Municipal Code section 2.04.020. Closed sessions shall be conducted in the location identified in the agenda. 2.2 Special Meetings. A special meeting may be caIIed at any time by the Presiding Officer or by any three members of the City Council. Written notice of any such meeting must be given to all members of the City Council and to all newspapers, radio and television stations, or other public media of general Hermosa Beach coverage who have submitted a written request to the City Clerk for such notification. Such notice may be given either personally or by mail, but must be received at least 24 hours before the time set for the special meeting. The call andnotice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. Such notice is not necessary for any member who submits a written waiver of notice to the City Clerk at or before the time set for the meeting or for any member who is actually present at the special meeting. 2.3 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the Presiding Officer or by a majority of the City Council where there exists: a.a work stoppage, crippling disaster or other activity which severely impairs public health, safety or both, as determined by the City Council; or b.such other circumstances specified by State law as authorizing the conduct of an emergency meeting. Any special emergency meeting shall be called, noticed and conducted in accordance with procedure set forth in State law. 2.4 Closed Sessions. The City Council may hold closed sessions during a regular or special meeting, or at any time otherwise authorized by law, to consider or hear any matter which it is authorized by State law to hear or consider in closed session. During closed session, the City Council may exclude any person or persons which it is authorized by State law to exclude from a closed session. The City Manager shall keep a record of action taken and the Resolution No. Page 4 vote thereon. The City Attorney shall make such reports as are required by the Brown Act. 2.5 Quorum. Three members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum and shall be sufficient to transact business. If less than three Council members appear at a regular meeting, any member, or if all members are absent, the City Clerk, shall adjourn the meeting to a stated day and hour. All Council actions require the affirmative votes of a majority of the quorum, with the exception of those actions required by State law to have a specific minimum number of votes. 2.6 Adjourned Meetings. The City Council may adjourn any regular, adjourned regularly, special or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. If a quorum is not present, less than a quorum may so adjourn. If all Members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting, the City Clerk may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place and shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be delivered personally to each Council member. A copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting was held, within twenty- four (24) hours after the time of adjournment. When a regular or adjourned regular is adjourned as provided herein, the resulting adjourned regular meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings. 2.7 Recording of Meetings. All open and public meetings of the City Council shall be cablecast and webcast live or videorecorded for airing on the City’s government channel and viewing on the City’s website. In that event that technical difficulties beyond the City’s control prevent the cablecasting, webcasting and/or recording of a meeting, the City Council may in its discretion decide whether or not to proceed with the meeting. SECTION 3. POSTING NOTICE AND AGENDA. 3.1 Posting of Notice and Agenda. For every regular meeting, the City Clerk or designee shall post an agenda containing a brief description of all of the items of business to be discussed at the meeting. For every special meeting, the City Clerk or designee shall post a notice of the meeting, specifying the time and place at which the meeting will be held, and an agenda containing a brief description of all the items of business to be discussed at the meeting. The notice and agenda for a special meeting may be combined in a single document. 3.2 Location of Posting. The notice and agenda shall be posted in a place to which the public has unrestricted access during at least normal business hours and where the notice and agenda are not likely to be removed or obscured by other posted material. Specifically, the notice and agenda shall be posted at the places indicated below, and/or at such other locations(s) as the City Clerk may designate: City Hall, the Police Station, and the City library. The agenda shall also be posted on the City’s website. 3.3 Posting for RegVlar Meetings. For any regular meeting of the City Council, the notice and agenda shall be posted no later than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the time set for the meeting. Resolution No. Page 5 3.4 1PTUing for Special Meetings. For any special meeting of the City Council, the notice and agenda shall be posted no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time set for the meeting. 3.5 Affidavit of Posting. Immediately following the posting of the notice and agenda, the City Clerk or designee shall complete an Affidavit of Posting, in a form developed by the City Clerk. The Affidavit of Posting shall indicate the time of the posting, the location(s) of the posting, and shall be signed under penalty of perjury. The City Clerk shall retain all such affidavits, together with a copy of each notice and agenda so posted, in his or her files. The affidavit notice and agenda shall be retained at least two (2) years subsequent to the date of posting, and pursuant to Government Code Section 34090, shall not be destroyed by the City Clerk thereafUer without the written consent of the City Attorney. SECTION 4. AGENDA - CONTENTS 4.1 Description of Matters. All items of business to be discussed at a meeting of the City Council shall be briefly described on the agenda. The description should contain sufGicient detail so that a person otherwise unaware could determine the general nature or subject matter of the item by reading the agenda. Closed session agenda items shall be described with particularity to the extent feasible without compromising the confidentiality of the closed session. 4.2 Availability of Agenda. The agenda of each regular meeting shall be made available to the public not later than the Friday preceding the Council meeting. 4.3 Limitation of Actions by Agenda. No action shall be taken by the City Council on any item not appearing on a posted agenda, subject only to the exceptions listed below: a.Upon a majority determination that an “emergency situation”, as defined by State law, exists. b.Upon a determination by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present, or if less than two-thirds of the Members are present, by unanimous vote, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need to take action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda posting. If the City Council makes a determination pursuant to this subsection, the minutes of the meeting at which the determination is made shall reflect what circumstances gave rise to the need to take action after the agenda was posted. c.Where the item upon which action is to be taken was included on a properly posted agenda for a prior meeting of the City Council occurring not more than five (5) calendar days prior to the date of the meeting at which action is to be taken, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken. 4.4 Submittal of Written Materials by the Public. Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the agenda of a regular City Council meeting must be submitted by noon of the Tuesday before the meeting in order to be included in the agenda packet. However, written materials received after that deadline will nonetheless be posted under the relevant agenda item Resolution No. Page 6 on the City’s website at the same time as they are distributed to the City Council and provided to the City Council and the public at the meeting. Written correspondence of a general nature addressed to the City Council will be handled in accordance with section 6.4. SECTION 5. ORDER OF BUSINESS 5.1 Commencement of Meeting. In the event that the posted agenda calls for a closed session, the Mayor or the City Attorney shall announce the intention of the City Council to recess into a closed session and shall state the basis therefor. Public comment shall be taken on the closed session agenda. At the time set for each regular meeting, the Council members, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk shall take their regular places in the Council Chamber. The Presiding Officer shall call the meeting to order and the business of the Council shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the order set forth in Section 5.2 except that with the consent of a majority of the Council, items may be taken up out of order. 5.2 Order of Business. The order of business at meetings of the City Council shall be as follows, in accordance with the procedures specified below: a.CALL TO ORDER The Presiding Officer shall call the meeting to order. b.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Presiding Officer shall designate a person to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. c.ROLL CALL The City Clerk shall call the roll of the Council members and the names of those present shall be entered on the minutes. The order of roll call shall be alphabetical with the Mayor Pro Tempore called fourth and the Mayor called last. d.REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION The Mayor or the City Attorney shall announce the basis for the closed session and those actions taken as are required to be reported by the Brown Act. e.ANNOUNCEMENTS Council members may make any announcements at this time. f.PRESENTATIONS This time is reserved for the reading and award of proclamations and commendations for members of the community, service organizations and others that have merited recognition by the Council. In addition, visiting dignitaries may be introduced at this time. g.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Oral and written comments from members of the public are accepted here as set forth in Section 6, herein. All comments from members of the public relative to Consent Calendar items must be heard at this time unless a Council member Resolution No. Page 7 agrees to remove a consent calendar item at the request of a member of the public made at this time. h.CONSENT CALENDAR Items of a routine nature may be approved by the City Council in a single motion by adoption of the Consent Calendar. The approval of the Consent Calendar shall signify the approval of each matter or recommendation included therein. i.PUBLIC HEARINGS The Council shall conduct all public hearings as set forth in Section 7. j.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR Items removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion shall be heard at this time. k.MUNICIPAL MATTERS The Council shall take up all matters of new and old business. l.CITY MANAGER' S REPORT This section is set aside for the City Manager to update the Council on important items initiated by staff or previously requested by the City Council. m.COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS This portion of the meeting shall be set aside for general comments, reports of meeting attendance, requests of staff, and/or other issues of concern from members of the City Council, and brief responses to audience comments. No extensive discussion of these comments is permitted. n.OTHER MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Direction from the City Council to place items of business on a future agenda shall be given at this time by a majority of the Council. No discussion, action or public comments shall be taken at this time. o.ADJOURNMENT SECTION 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 6.1 Public Comment. During the Public Participation section of the agenda, any member of the public may address the City Council on items appearing on the Consent Calendar. Comments concerning other items on the agenda will be heard at the time the item is considered during the course of the meeting; however, they may be offered at this time if the member of the public cannot be in attendance later in the evening. Members of the public may also comment upon any other items of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council at this time.Any Council member may request that matters addressed under Public Participation be placed for action on a subsequent agenda; however, no action shall be taken on items not appropriately placed on the agenda except in a situation as described in Section 4.3. 6.2 Limitations. The public comment period shall be limited to no more than three (3) minutes for each speaker, unless the Presiding Officer determines that good cause exists to Resolution No. Page 8 extend the time and doing so will not be arbitrary or unfair. The Presiding Officer also may allow additional time for the spokesperson of a group if doing so will limit the number of persons speaking and avoid repetitious presentations. 6.3 Procedure. Upon addressing the City Council, each speaker may choose to state his or her name and city of residence and then identify the subject or subjects upon which he or she intends to speak. Speakers shall address their comments or questions to the City Council as a whole, and not to any particular Council or staff member or to the audience. 6.4 Written Communications to Council. Persons who wish to address an issue to the City Council for the official record may submit written material to the Council in lieu of or in addition to speaking under the Public Participation section of the meeting. Such written correspondence must be delivered to the City Clerk by noon of the Tuesday before the regular Council meeting in order to be included on the agenda. SECTION 7. PUBLIC HEA3INGS Matters which are required to be heard in a noticed Public Hearing shall be conducted in the following manner: 7.1 Time for consideration. Matters noticed as public hearings shall commence no earlier than the time specified in the notice of hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, and shall continue until the same has been completed or until other disposition of the matter has been made. 7.2 Continuance of Hearings. Any public hearing being held or noticed or ordered to be held by the City Council may, by order or notice of continuance, be continued or re-continued to any subsequent meeting in the manner provided for under Section 2.6. 7.3 Conduct of Hearings. When a matter for public hearing comes before the City Council, the Presiding Officer shall open the public hearing and; a.Call for a report on noticing from the City Clerk b.Call for a report on written communications received by the City pertaining to the item being heard; c.With respect to quasi-judicial matters, request that each Council member report on any ex parte communications, as defined in Section 7.5. d.Request that staff present the staff report and any other relevant evidence. Presentation of the staff report prior to the formal opening of the Public Hearing shall not prevent its consideration as evidence. Any such evidence shall be made a part of the record of the public hearing. e.The Presiding Officer shall then recognize the proponents or appellants in the case, who shall be permitted 10 minutes to present evidence related to the matter under consideration. f.The Presiding Officer shall then recognize members of the public. No person may speak without first being recognized by the Presiding Officer. Members of the City Council Resolution No. Page 9 who wish to ask questions of the speakers or each other during the public hearing may do so. Members should be mindful that the purpose of the public hearing is to obtain testimony, and not to debate the merits of the item under consideration. Members should avoid debate and expressions of personal opinion until after the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. The Presiding OfGJcer shall conduct the hearing in such a manner as to afford due process to all afGected persons. Comments from the public shall be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker for public hearings, unless the City Council affirmatively decides otherwise. g.Following public comments, the proponents or appellants may present a wrap-up or rebuttal statement, not to exceed five (5) minutes in length. h.The Presiding Officer shall then close the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Council members may still, however, ask questions of staff or members of the public. Upon conclusion Council deliberations and immediately prior to a motion, the Presiding OfGicer shall formally closed the public hearing. Upon formally closing the public hearing, no additional public testimony shall be solicited or received without reopening the hearing. The hearing may not be reopened unless it is determined that no one in the audience has left the room since closure of the hearing. In the event the Presiding Officer is unable to make that finding, the hearing may not be reopened unless it is renoticed for a future meeting. i.The City Council shall then take action. 7.4 Written Evidence. All persons interested in the matter being heard by the City Council shall be entitled to submit written evidence of any kind. All such evidence preTFnted shall be retained by the City Clerk as part of the Clerk's record. 7.5. Definition of “Ex Parte” Communication. "Ex parte communication" shall mean any oral or written communication between a member of the Council and any person, which meets all of the following requirements: (I) it is directed toward the merit or outcome of a quasi- judicial matter within the Council's jurisdiction; (ii) an application, recommendation or appeal on the matter has been submitted to the Council; (iii) the communication imparts substantive factual information which constitutes the basis of or otherwise influences the Councilmember's deliberation or decision on the matter; (iv) the information is not included in the staff report or other written materials contained in the agenda of the meeting at which the matter is to be heard or otherwise on the official record of the proceeding on the matter; and (v) the communication does not occur in a public meeting as defined in the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950, et seq.). SECTION 8. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF MEETINGS 8.1 Robert's Rules. Unless otherwise specified in this Resolution or by other ordinance or resolution, meetings of the City Council will be conducted to the extent practicable in accordance with the most recently revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order. In the event of any conflict between Robert's Rules and this resolution, the Municipal Code or of State law, the latter three sourDes of authority shall govern. 8.2 Motions. The Mayor or any member of the Council may bring a properly agendized matter of business before the Council by making a motion. Before the matter can be Resolution No. Page 10 considered or debated it must be seconded. Once the motion has been properly made and seconded, the Presiding Officer shall open the matter for debate offering the first opportunity to debate to the moving party and, thereafter, to any Council member properly recognized by the Presiding Officer. Debate shall be closed upon consent of a majority of the City Council. Once the matter has been fully debated and the Presiding OffiDer calls for a vote, no further debate will be allowed, unless the Council overrules the Presiding Officer by a majority vote. A motion that results in a tie vote does not pass. 8.3 Voting. Every Council member should vote unless disqualified by reason of a financial or common law conflict of interest. A Council member may change his or her vote prior to the time that the Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces the outcome of the vote on the motion, and not after. 8.4 Adjournment. The City Council shall adjourn each regular meeting by 10:30 p.m. unless a majority of the members present vote to extend the adjournment time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any item of business commenced prior to 10:30 p.m. may be completed without the necessity of an adjournment extension vote. Upon adjournment, those items of business not completed shall be continued to the next regular City Council meeting unless the Council schedules the items for an adjourned meeting to take place prior to the next meeting. SECTION 9. DECORUM. 9.1 Rules for City Councilmembers. Members of the City Council shall conduct themselves in an orderly and businesslike manner to ensure that the business of the City shall be attended to efficiently and thoroughly and to ensure that the integrity of the deliberative process of the City Council is maintained at all times. Members of the Council shall maintain a polite, respectful and courteous manner when addressing one another, City staff and members of the public during meetings. a.Role of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer of the City Council, who shall be the Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence the Mayor Pro Tempore, or in their absence any other member designated by the City Council, shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. It shall be the dutyof the Presiding Officer to ensure that the rules of operation and decorum contained herein are observed. The Presiding Officer shall maintain control of communication between Councilmembers and between the Council, staff and the public. b.Communication with Councilmembers. 1)Councilmembers should request the floor of the Presiding Officer before speaking. 2)A Councilmember who is speaking shall attempt to avoid repetition and shall endeavor to limit his or her comments to the subject matter at hand. Councilmembers should endeavor to express their views without engaging in lengthy debates. 3)When one CouOcilmember is speaking, other Councilmembers shall not interrupt or otherwise disturb the speaker. 9.2 Communication with Members of the Public Addressing the Council. Resolution No. Page 11 a.Councilmembers may, after requesting the floor of the Presiding Officer, question a person addressing the Council at the conclusion of the person's comments or upon expiration of the person’s time to speak. b.Councilmembers shall not engage the person addressing the Council in a dialogue with the City Council or City staff, but shall confine communication to a question and answer format. c.If a member of the audience has addressed the Council on matters which are not on the agenda, Councilmembers shall refrain from extended discussions of the matter. If a Councilmember so wishes, the Councilmember may, during the Councilmember Comments or Other Matters portion of the meeting, direct the City Manager to place the matter on the next agenda. 9.3 Rules for City Staff. a.Decorum. City staff shall not engage in public dialogue or debate with members of the public during public meetings. When addressed by the Council, staff shall respond in a polite and respectful manner. b.Role of the City Manager. The City Manager’s duties during City Council meetings include keeping a record of concerns raised by the Council regarding staff matters and directions for future staff action. 9.4 Rules for the Public. a.Members of the Audience. Members of the audience shall not engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including the utterance of loud, threatening or abusive language, whistling, stamping of feet or other acts which disturb, disrupt, impede or otherwise render the orderly conduct of the City Council meeting unfeasible. A member of the audience repeatedly or continuously engaging in any such conduct shall, at the discretion of the Presiding OfGicer or a majority of the City Council, be subject to ejection from that meeting. b.Persons Addressing the City Council. 1)Any person wishing to speak shall approach the speaker podium when called upon by the Presiding Officer. 2)No person shall address the City Council without first beingrecognized by the Presiding OfGicer. 3)Each person addressing the City Council shall do so in an orderly manner and shall not make repetitious, slanderous or irrelevant remarks, or engage in any other disorderly conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the Council meetings. Any person who so disrupts the meeting may, at the discretion of the Presiding OfGicer or a majority of the City Council, be subject to ejection from that meeting. 4)Persons addressing the City Council shall adhere to the time limit established for public comment and conclude their comments when requested to do so by the Presiding Officer. Resolution No. Page 12 9.5 Enforcement. a.Upon a violation of the rules of order and decorum established in Section 9.4 of this resolution, the procedure to enforce the rules is as follows: 1)Warning. The Presiding Officer shall request that a person who is violating the rules of decorum cease such conduct. If after receiving a warning from the Presiding Officer, the person persists in the violation, the Presiding Officer shall order the person to leave the City Council meeting. If the perTon does not leave the meeting, the Presiding Officer may order any law enforcement officer who is on duty at the City Council meeting as sergeant-at-arms to remove the person from the City Council chambers. 2)Removal. Any law enforcement officer who is serving as Tergeant-at-arms at the City Council meeting shall carry out the orders and instructions given by the Presiding Officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum. Upon instruction of the Presiding Officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant-at-arms to remove from the City Council meeting any person who is disturbing the proceedings of the City Council. 3)Resisting Removal. Any person who resists removal by the sergeant-at- arms may be charged with any applicable ordinance or law. 4)Motion to Enforce. If the Presiding Officer of the City Council fails to enforce the rules of order and decorum set forth above, any member of the City Council may move to require the Presiding Officer to do so, and an affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require the Presiding Officer to do so. If the Presiding Officer fails to carry out the will of the majority of the City Council, the majority may designate another member of the City Council to act as presiding Officer for the purpose of enforcing the rules of order and EFcorum established above. 5)Clearing the Room. If a meeting of the City Council is disturbed or disrupted in such a manner as to make infeasible or improbable the restoration of order, the Presiding Officer or a majority of the City Council may exercise the authority granted in the California Government Code Section 54957.9 by ordering the meeting room cleared and continuing in session in the manner authorized by 4ection 54957.9 of theGovernment Code. Members of the press shall be permitted to remain unless they have participated in the disruption. SECTION 10. Resolution No. 12-6787 is hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____________, 2015. Resolution No. Page 13 _________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk 08-6607 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RESOLUTION NO. 08-6607 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE TIME FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Section 2-1 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code authorized the City Council to fix by Resolution the time for holding its regular meetings; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to clarify that only public comment, and no other business, may precede closed sessions commencing at 6:00 p.m. change the time of its regular meetings from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. to accommodate adjourning to Closed Session prior to the start of the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 2-1 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the regular meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council shall commence at 6:00 p.m.. Only closed sessions (and public comment associated therewith) and study sessions may be held between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (and no other public agenda items) unless a regular meeting is adjourned to or a special meeting called for that time. No closed session or study session will be held during that hour unless the posted agenda of that evening’s regular meeting indicates that such session will take place; in the absence of such notification in the agenda, the regular meeting shall commence at the hour of 7:00 p.m. SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall take effect August 12, 2008 June __, 2015. Resolution No. 08-6607 is hereby rescinded. 08-6607 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting in which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2008. ________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ _______________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0518 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 UPDATE ON FORCE OPTIONS SIMULATOR/FIRING RANGE (Police Chief Sharon Papa) Recommended Action: To receive and file this report. Background: In 2014, the Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD) recognized that the financial and staffing cost of meeting the State of California Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) requirements for firearms and force options training could be reduced through the purchase of a structure that could accommodate both requirements. After a thorough search, department members identified Shooting Range Industries as having a hybrid solution that would host both force options and firearms training inside the same facility. This unique system combines the distinctive experience of force option video training with live fire range training. For this reason, it is considered a sole source purchase. Staff identified funding sources for the purchase of the use of force simulator/range and presented the request to council as part of the 2014-2015 midyear budget. During the February 24, 2015 council meeting Chief Papa addressed questions from council and provided an overall description of the structure as well as its capabilities and benefits. Chief Papa also discussed potential noise concerns and the department’s belief that noise from the range will be minimal. The appropriation for funding was approved by council in a 5-0 vote. The use of force, especially “deadly force,” comprises the greatest liability exposure to our city. “Use of force” training is considered a perishable skill by POST, and all officers are required to routinely attend training. The force options simulator and shooting range will satisfy the department’s need for this training to maintain POST certification and mitigate liability exposure to the city. History The Hermosa Beach Police Department had a shooting range located inside the police department building at the time the facility was constructed in 1964. The range was removed sometime around 1990 and the space was converted into a property/evidence room and an office due to operational necessity. Since that time, the department has had to rely on commercial ranges or neighboring police departments to fulfill mandated training requirements. Local commercial range rates dramatically increased in 2006. At that time the department began to use other local police department’s facilities for range qualification as a cost savings measure. While this helped minimize Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0518 police expenditures for a period of time, ultimately our reliance on neighboring agencies presented a burden to those agencies and our department again contracted services with a local gun range in Torrance and in Los Angeles. Currently many issues contribute to increase costs of training and qualifying police officers and detectives in force options and firearms properly, including; the need to leave the city to qualify (travel time), reduced range availability (we have to schedule officers around the availability of the range), and the daily set up and take down of training exercises (commercial and other police agencies require our staff to set up and breakdown our scenario after each day). Availability of alternative ranges has also diminished due to increased use by federal agencies. Due to all of these factors, we were forced to reduce the number of times police personnel are certified in the use of their firearm from four times per year (best practice) to the minimum standard of twice per year. The additional requirement for force option training has required our department to rely on other police agencies or sending officers to facilities at Rio Hondo College for training, again incurring the costs and time away from patrol or detective functions. None of the force option simulator training currently available is actual live fire training nor does the training incorporate less than lethal options such as the Taser or pepper spray nor do they allow the use of flashlights. All of these tools are essential equipment in the field, thus making proficiency testing necessary at regular intervals. Analysis: Force Options Simulator/Range The force option/range facility we are purchasing built by Shooting Range Industries of Las Vegas, Nevada answers all of our needs. Due to available space constraints, the most logical option was a completely self-contained shooting range that could be placed into an existing space. The range is built within two large cargo type containers linked end to end and provides a 50 foot firing distance. The range is completely lined with AR500 armor plate, sound insulation and is equipped HVAC/heat and HEPA air filtration and accommodates all firearms currently in use by the department including rifles and shotguns. Currently we have to conduct all rifle training at an outdoor facility located in a remote area of Los Angeles County, at a considerable cost to the department. The ability to use long guns within the new facility will allow for increased training and skills maintenance at a fraction of the current cost. A MILO Range Pro Judgment and Marksmanship Simulation Training Suite with Laser & Live Fire Capability-includes a low light training module and a feature called trainee action capture which allows the department to record the employee’s actions for replay and review to provide feedback and evaluation. The simulator includes over 700 interactive branching scenarios. Scenarios have been based on real life experiences. Topics cover a wide variety of training situations including traffic stops, active shooter situations, burglaries, domestic disturbances, patrol observations and many others. Unique to this simulator is the ability to support a full range of simulated force options, including projectiles, OC spray, baton and Tasers. The modular building has a useful life expectancy of 35 years and has the ability to be relocated and/or expanded if circumstances arise. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0518 Fiscal Implications: Overtime Savings Annually the department is paying in excess of $12,000.00 in overtime for two firearms qualifications per year. In 2014 the department paid more than $4,000 in overtime to have officers attend force option training. Having the range on-site will greatly reduce or eliminate these costs while increasing the frequency of department-wide training. The purchase of the force option simulator/range will provide the police department with a level of flexibility it has not had since the removal of the departmental range in 1990 and will also allow for state of the art training, and ensure regularly scheduled range qualifications. The cost of the facility is primarily funded by asset forfeiture and grant funds as follows: Asset Seizure/Forfeiture*$286,886 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Grant $ 53,793 General Fund $ 40,902 Total:$381,581 * By law, Asset Seizure/Forfeiture funds may only be spent in the following areas: ·Law enforcement training ·Law enforcement equipment and operations ·Law enforcement facilities and equipment ·Asset Accounting and Tracking Per the contract, a down payment of $190,790 has been made. Attachments: 1.February 24, 2015 Council Agenda 2.February 24, 2015 Additional Appropriations Report 3.Midyear Budget Recommendations Respectfully Submitted by: Milton McKinnon, Captain Concur: Sharon Papa, Chief of Police Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:00 PM Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Council Chambers City Council Mayor Peter Tucker Mayor Pro Tem Nanette Barragan Councilmembers Carolyn Petty Hany Fangary Michael DiVirgilio Meeting Agenda City Council Study Session: Midyear Budget Update (6:00pm) and Regular City Council Meeting (7:00pm) Executive Team Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Karen Nowicki, City Treasurer Tom Bakaly, City Manager Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director Diane Strickfaden, Assistant to the City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Director Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Sharon Papa, Police Chief David Lantzer, Fire Chief February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda 6:00 P.M. – STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL a)ID#2015-0198 MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2014-15 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, budget transfers and fund balances as shown herein and in the attached Revenue Detail Report, Additional Appropriations Report, Budget Transfers Report, and Budget Summary Report. 2. Approve the addition of $108,289 to the assigned fund balance for Contingencies in order to meet our target of 16% for this goal; a transfer of $29,632 to the Lighting Fund to cover the additional deficit created by revenue revisions; and appropriate the remaining funds available of $166,113 to Prospective Expenditures. 3. Approve a transfer of funds in the amount of $1,324,690 from the Capital Improvement Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund to bring the balance to the goal amount. 4. Approve the resolution committing the revised amount for General Plan Maintenance Fees as shown in the attachment: Resolution - Increase to General Plan Maintenance Fees. (Commitments or restrictions of fund balance require a resolution.) 5. Receive and file the attached information about City Council travel and benefits. 6. Review updated Fiscal Health Scenarios. (Available Monday as a supplemental) Revenue Detail Report Additional Appropriations Report Midyear CIP Spreadsheet Revisions CIP 14-502 Clark Field and Community Center Tennis Lighting CIP 14-503 Lawn Bowling Green Complex Lighting Budget Summary Report Budget Transfers Report Resolution - Increase to General Plan Maintenance Fees City Council Travel and Benefits SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation Slides from Viki Copeland (added 2-24-15 at 1pm).pdf Attachments: PUBLIC COMMENT Page 2 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. - REGULAR AGENDA All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. City Council agendas and staff reports are available for your review on the City's web site located at www.hermosabch.org. Complete agenda packets are also available for public inspection in the Police Department, Hermosa Beach Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council Chambers foyer or you can access the packet at our website, www.hermosabch.org, on your laptop, tablet or smartphone through the wireless signal available in the City Council chambers: Network ID: City Council Password: chb13 Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California, during normal business hours. All written communications from the public included in the agenda will be posted with the agenda on the City’s website To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) will be available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0203 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Page 3 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT ANNOUNCEMENTS PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS a)ID#2015-0223 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON UPDATE FROM REGION MANAGER RAYMOND POK b)ID#2015-0222 SPECIAL OLYMPICS HOST TOWN PRESENTATION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda as a business item. 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 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 (Miscellaneous Items and Reports – City Manager and Other Matters), or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar. Public comments on the agenda items called Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters will only be heard at this time. Comments on public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Members of the audience may also speak: 1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar; 2) during Public Hearings; and, 3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters raised in written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. Page 4 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda a)ID#2015-0228 LETTERS REGARDING HERMOSA BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES Letter from Jim Hausle - school facility study.pdf Letter from Julie Nunis - considering existing buildings to address student overcrowding.pdf Letter from Linsey Miller - North School Building traffic.pdf Letter from Lynne Pope - Hermosa School District.pdf Attachments: b)ID#2015-0229 LETTERS REGARDING THE PROPOSED OIL DRILLING PROJECT Letter from Rio Frohoff - Input on Oil Drilling.pdf Letter from Robert Fortunato - Letter to the Editor.pdf Attachments: c)ID#2015-0230 LETTER FROM DR. DARLENE ARDAVANY REGARDING CONCERNS OF VOLLEYBALL SCHEDULING Letter from Dr. Darlene Ardavany - Concerns regarding volleyball scheduling.pdf Attachments: 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public comment permitted at that time. a)ID#2015-0224 MEMORANDUM REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the memorandum regarding City Council minutes. b)ID#2015-0205 CHECK REGISTERS (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:To ratify check registers 02-05-15 02-12-15 Attachments: c)ID#2015-0218 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Recommendation:To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. Tentative Future Agenda.docAttachments: d)ID#2015-0208 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS FOR DECEMBER 2014 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:To Receive and File the December Financial Reports December 2014 Revenue Report December 2014 Expenditure Report Attachments: Page 5 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda e)ID#2015-0177 CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT (City Treasurer Karen Nowicki) Recommendation:To Receive and File the December 2014 City Treasurer's Report and Cash Balance Report Treasurer's Report Cash Balances Report Attachments: f)ID#2015-0227 ACTION SHEET OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Recommendation:To receive and file the action sheet of the Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 2015. pcaction.docAttachments: g)ID#2015-0207 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2015 Recommendation:To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of January 21, 2015. action minutes 1-21-15Attachments: h)ID#2015-0215 CITY CONSENT PER CITY LEASE TO MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO FAÇADE OF CITY OWNED BUILDING AT 1303 HERMOSA AVENUE PER (RETAIL FRONTAGE OF MUNICIPAL PARKING STRUCTURE BUILDING) (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Recommendation:Authorize an application for a Conditional Use Permit that will involve minor modifications to the fa�ade of the City-owned building at 1303 Hermosa Avenue in order to relocate a walk-up ATM facility (previously the site of Kinecta Credit Union). Letter of Request- ATMAttachments: Page 6 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda i)ID#2015-0211 REMOVAL OF GRANITE CUBICAL BOLLARDS AND RELOCATION OF PLAQUES ON PIER PLAZA (Assistant to the City Manager Diane Strickfaden) Recommendation:Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the removal of the granite cubical bollards from Pier Plaza; and 2. Direct staff to deliver the plaques on Pier Plaza to the Lighthouse Caf� provided that the owner of the Lighthouse Caf� agrees to refurbish the plaques, install the plaques on the Lighthouse Caf� building fa�ade, and return the plaques to the City in the event they are removed from the Lighthouse Caf�. Attachment 1 PierPlazaLayout Attachment 2 Bollards, Disabled Markings, and Plaques Attachment 3 Areas for Relocation Attachments: j)ID#2015-0214 PROJECT STATUS REPORT AS OF JANUARY 31, 2015 (Assistant to the City Manager Diane Strickfaden) Recommendation:To receive and file the Project Status Report as of January 31, 2015. CIP Project Summary JAN 2015 FinalAttachments: k)ID#2015-0199 DATES FOR THE 2015-16 BUDGET (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the following date for the 2015-16 Budget: Budget/CIP Workshop Thursday, May 21, 2015, 7 P.M. l)ID#2015-0191 AWARD BID FOR PATIENT COTS (Fire Chief David Lantzer) Recommendation:Staff recommends that Council award the bid for the purchase of patient cots to Stryker EMS Equipment of Portage, MI for $20,794.20, but not to exceed $24,500 (to allow flexibility for additional features deemed desirable). RFP-Gurneys Bid Opening Log Sheet Attachments: m)ID#2015-0194 PURCHASE OF CARDIAC MONITOR-DEFIBRILLATORS (Fire Chief David Lantzer) Recommendation:Approve the purchase of three (3) cardiac monitor-defibrillators from ZOLL Medical Corporation of Chelmsford, MA in the amount of $109,601.24 made in reliance on a bid solicitation by San Bernardino County. RFB - Cardiac Monitors Cardiac Monitor Bid Recap 2014-07 Quote from ZOLL Attachments: Page 7 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda n)ID#2015-0175 WITHDRAWAL FROM LA RICS (Fire Chief David Lantzer) Recommendation:Direct and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to effectuate an immediate withdrawal from the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA RICS) Joint Powers Authority. Resolution Withdrawing From LA RICSAttachments: 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES NONE 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. a)ID#2015-0225 TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW AND REGULATE RETAIL SALES/DISPLAY ENCROACHMENTS ON PIER PLAZA AND RELATED AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND PROVIDE DIRECTION CONCERNING ENCROACHMENT AREA RENTS (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Recommendation:As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow outdoor retail sales/displays encroachments on Pier Plaza (including Loreto Plaza) subject to an encroachment permit and determine the project is exempt from the Environmental Quality Act, and direct staff to evaluate setting encroachment area rents similar to or less than the amount paid by snack shops, allowing for waiver of rents for the first year following adoption of the proposed ordinance. Proposed Ordinance-Text AmendmentAttachments: Page 8 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a)ID#2015-0198 MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2014-15 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommendation:It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, budget transfers and fund balances as shown herein and in the attached Revenue Detail Report, Additional Appropriations Report, Budget Transfers Report, and Budget Summary Report. 2. Approve the addition of $108,289 to the assigned fund balance for Contingencies in order to meet our target of 16% for this goal; a transfer of $29,632 to the Lighting Fund to cover the additional deficit created by revenue revisions; and appropriate the remaining funds available of $166,113 to Prospective Expenditures. 3. Approve a transfer of funds in the amount of $1,324,690 from the Capital Improvement Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund to bring the balance to the goal amount. 4. Approve the resolution committing the revised amount for General Plan Maintenance Fees as shown in the attachment: Resolution - Increase to General Plan Maintenance Fees. (Commitments or restrictions of fund balance require a resolution.) 5. Receive and file the attached information about City Council travel and benefits. 6. Review updated Fiscal Health Scenarios. (Available Monday as a supplemental) Revenue Detail Report Additional Appropriations Report Midyear CIP Spreadsheet Revisions CIP 14-502 Clark Field and Community Center Tennis Lighting CIP 14-503 Lawn Bowling Green Complex Lighting Budget Summary Report Budget Transfers Report Resolution - Increase to General Plan Maintenance Fees City Council Travel and Benefits SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation Slides from Viki Copeland (added 2-24-15 at 1pm).pdf Attachments: Page 9 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda b)ID#2015-0193 CARBON NEUTRALITY INITIATIVES: RECEIVE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND MEMO ON ECONOMIC/HEALTH BENEFITS OF CARBON NEUTRALITY; ACCEPT MUNICIPAL CARBON NEUTRAL PLAN AND ADOPT RESOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL CARBON NEUTRAL TARGET OF 2020; AUTHORIZE CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING SERVICES (BRENDLE GROUP); AND UPDATE ON RELATED INITIATIVES (Continued from meeting of February 10, 2015) (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommendation:1. Receive City of Hermosa Beach GHG Inventory, Forecasting, Target-Setting Report for an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan, January 2015; 2. Review Addendum to Brendle Group's Report regarding Health Costs/Benefits of Carbon Neutrality (Economic Benefits of Carbon Neutrality Follow-Up Response to City Council Questions, February 3, 2015); 3. Authorize Brendle Group to provide Climate Action Planning Services coordinated with the General Plan Update in the amount of $24,000; 4. Accept Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan including Action Plan and Funding Scenarios to support both 2017 and 2020 Municipal Carbon Neutral Targets; 5. Adopt Resolution adopting a Municipal Carbon Neutral Target of 2020; 6. Direct staff to commence the Municipal Carbon Neutral Implementation Measures including the employee commute program; and 7. Receive information on Renewable Energy opportunities/PV Solar Installations; Community Choice Aggregation; and Hermosa Beach's Existing Transit/ Transportation Systems. (1) EECAPwith GreenHouse Gas Inventory.pdf (2) Hermosa Beach Economic Benefits of Carbon Neutrality Follow-up Memo 020415.pdf (3) Brendle Group Report PPT Slides.pdf (4) Brendle Group Hermosa Beach Phase 2 Proposal.pdf (5) Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan - Executive Summary (February 2015).pdf (6) Hermosa Beach Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan (February 2015).pdf (7) Implementation Costs and Schedule-2020 target.pdf (8) Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan PPT Slides.pdf (9) Resolution- Municipal Carbon Neutral Target 2020.pdf (10) Transportation Info on City Website.pdf Attachments: Page 10 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda c)ID#2015-0219 ACCEPTANCE OF GUIDELINES FOR CATALYST PROJECTS AND STATUS OF DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY, AND DETERMINE THE ACTIVITY IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Continued from meeting of November 25, 2014) (Ken Robertson, Community Development Director) Recommendation:That the Council accepts the Guidelines for Catalyst Projects and the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy as modified, and determines the activity is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262; and directs staff to return with a comprehensive discussion of downtown and interceptor parking facilities. Principles and Guidelines Downtown Parking Concept SUPPLEMENTAL from H. Longacre (added 2-24-15 at 10am).pdf SUPPLEMENTAL from Michael Keegan (added 2-24-15 at 1pm).pdf Attachments: d)ID#2015-0221 CITY MANAGER BONUS (City Attorney Mike Jenkins) Recommendation:The City Council ad hoc negotiating committee consisting of Mayor Tucker and Councilmember Petty recommend that the City Council approve a 7% bonus for the City Manager for calendar year 2014 in the amount of $12,950. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a)ID#2015-0220 HERMOSA BEACH CITY / SCHOOL COMPACT MEETING (City Manager Tom Bakaly) Recommendation:Per the direction of the COMPACT Subcommittee, the following action items are to be executed prior to the next subcommittee meeting: * Consideration of dividing school programs by age; younger students to attend City School District After School Program (K - 2nd grade), older students to enroll in City PARK program * Exploring the creation of a "Joint Powers Agreement" (JPA). This could potentially provide the community with access to the School District's facilities through many of the programs offered through the City of Hermosa Beach o COMPACT to review current JOA created and maintained by Beverly Hills; provide briefing and overview of best practices in program and explore ways to create JPA in Hermosa Beach * Schedule next COMPACT Subcommittee Meeting to review research and make further recommendations COMPACT_AfterSchoolProgram_2 11 15_FINAL.docxAttachments: b)ID#2015-0226 CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES Appt List 4 Final 2015.docAttachments: Page 11 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 February 24, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL NONE 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Council members for possible future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken. NONE ADJOURNMENT Page 12 Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/24/2015 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 1 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS GENERAL FUND (001) City Council Special Events More Livable,Supplies for events and updates 14,600$ Oil Project mailers, banners, ads, and postage ($4,000). Sustainable Beach for Council Chambers Other public relations mailers, banners, ads, and postage City for seminars, open houses, misc. city events ($6,000). City seal and name on Dais back wall- art production, plaque production, and install ($4,600). City Manager Salaries High Performing Management Analyst 7,178$ Convert Management Analyst from full-time temporary City Providing 1st to permanent. Increase of $7,178 for benefits March to June. Class Services This will be an annual increase of $21,535 to cover benefit costs. Contract Services More Livable,Bike Racks, Inventory and 30,000$ Purchase bike racks ($20,000). Inventory and valuation of Sustainable Beach valuation of SCE poles.SCE owned poles ($10,000). City Office Supplies High Performing Meeting supplies 2,000$ Supplies and refreshments for additional meetings. City Providing 1st Class Services Finance Administration Contract Services High Performing Temporary Accountant 22,000$ To assist with bank reconciliations and budget schedules City Providing 1st through June while new staff train and existing staff transition Class Services into new responsibilities. Finance Cashier Part-time/Temporary High Performing Part-time Cashier 5,268$ To help with high volume of customers and mail during parking City Providing 1st permit season. Class Services Contract Services High Performing Increase in Merchant Account 18,231$ There was a 78% increase in credit card processing fees the second City Providing 1st Fees half of 13-14. While there was only a slight increase in the number Class Services of credit card transactions, the dollar amount charged increased by $433,304 (56%) due in part to the implementation of online business license renewal. 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 2 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS Police Uniforms Commitment to Uniforms for new hires 5,000$ Outfit one Captain and one Reserve Officer @ $2,500 Safe Community each. Conference/Training Commitment to Educational reimbursements 5,000$ Educational reimbursements for two Police Service Officers Safe Community were more than anticipated. Equipment>$1,000 Commitment to New workstation 1,723$ Ergonomic workstation setup for Lieutenant due to Safe Community physical limitations. Equipment>$5,000 Commitment to Shooting Range and Force 40,902$ Purchase a shooting range and training similar for range Safe Community Options Training Simulator qualifications, since local options are limited. The onsite simulator would allow officers to qualify while on duty, reducing overtime and the amount of time officers are taken out of the field. Total purchase is $381,581. Balance is to come out of the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund and Asset Seizure/Forfeiture Fund. Fire Telephone Commitment to Added cell phone and data plan 1,400$ Add cell phone and data plan to Electronic Patient Care Safe Community Record (IPad) for Fire Inspector. Maintenance Materials Commitment to Air Source fee 500$ Air Source fee was increased. Safe Community Contract Services Commitment to Shared Services Study and Time 16,000$ Increased scope of Shared Services Study ($10,250). New Safe Community Warner Cable Account Time Warner Cable account for the Fire Station office televisions ($750). Paint interior of fire station ($5,000). Equipment<$1,000 Commitment to Modifications to new Engine 5,755$ Unforeseen modifications needed for new engine to function Safe Community safely. Equipment>$1,000 Commitment to Motor for automatic opener 4,500$ New motor for automatic opener that operates the Safe Community apparatus bay door. Equipment>$1,000 Commitment to Emergency Management 3,600$ Purchase 120 Community Emergency Response Team Safe Community Supplies (CERT) kits for Emergency Management. 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 3 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS Community Services Regular Overtime Commitment to Increase Overtime 20,000$ Overtime required to fill gaps due to staffing shortages Safe Community caused by injuries, leave time, and an impending retirement in May (Parking Meter Technician). Telephone Commitment to Phone Charge Miscalculation 3,000$ Miscalculation of phone changes in 2014-15 fiscal year Safe Community appropriation request. The 14-15 budget request did not take into account actual expenditures in 13-14. Community Development/Planning Contract Services High Performing Contract Planner 28,455$ For new Contract Planner to support development review City Providing 1st and entitlement processing. Additional support is necessary Class Services due to high volume of development and planning activity. Wage based on $40.65/hr. for 700 hours March-June. Community Development/General Plan & Coastal Plan Update Office Operating Supplies High Performing Office Supplies 22,150$ Expenditures for General Plan community workshops and City Providing 1st outreach including notices, ads, mailers, banners, video Class Services recordings and other operating costs. Would come out of the General Plan Maintenance Fee Reserves. Public Works Administration Part-time/Temporary High Performing Part-time Public Works $17,742 Request for a part-time Public Works Inspector, up to 30 hours City Providing 1st Inspector.per week, to assume the inspector duties currently performed Class Services by Associate Engineer. This would allow the Associate Engineer to spend more time on project management duties. Cost for March to June is $17,742. Annual cost is $53,764. Total Additional General Fund Appropriations 275,004$ Reduction in General Plan Maintenance Fee Committed Funds (22,150)$ Net change 252,854$ 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 4 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS Gas Tax (115) CIP-128 Street Improvements Contract Services More Livable,Increased Scope 11,880$ To increase the scope of CIP 14-128 Street Improvements Sustainable Beach to include the repair of Bayview Road between 1st Street and City Second Street. 11,880$ Bayview Drive (135) Contract Services Administrative costs (313)$ Reduce administrative costs, which were over budgeted. (313)$ Measure R (147) CIP-128 Street Improvements Various Contract Services Reduce project (7,080)$ Reduce project due to higher spending than estimated at year end (7,080)$ 13/14. Air Quality Improvement Fund Contract Services 5 Electric Vehicle Charging 30,000$ Purchase 5 additional Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations. Stations 30,000$ Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (153) C.O.P.S. Program Equipment>$5,000 Commitment to Shooting Range and Force 53,793$ Purchase a shooting range and training similar for range Safe Community Options Training Simulator qualifications, since local options are limited. The onsite simulator would allow officers to qualify while on duty, reducing overtime and the amount of time officers are taken out of the field. Total purchase is $381,581. Balance is to come out of the General Fund and Asset Seizure/Forfeiture Fund. 53,793$ Asset Seizure/Forfeiture Fund (170) Equipment>$5,000 Commitment to Shooting Range and Force 286,886$ Purchase a shooting range and training similar for range Safe Community Options Training Simulator qualifications, since local options are limited. The onsite simulator would allow officers to qualify while on duty, reducing overtime and the amount of time officers are taken out of the field. Total purchase is $381,581. Balance is to come out of the General Fund and Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund. 286,886$ 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 5 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS Capital Improvement Fund (301) Public Works -CIP CIP 537- South Park Phase I Improvements Contract Services More Livable,Increased Scope 150,000$ To fund increase scope for CIP 11-8537. Additions include Sustainable Beach ADA parking area, decomposed granite, and an automatic City irrigation system. CIP 541- Clark Field Energy Efficient Electrical Contract Services More Livable,Increased Scope 27,000$ Increased the scope of CIP 14-541 to include another Sustainable Beach pole for the Little League Field and additional design costs City CIP 651- Lot A Trash Enclosure Contract Services More Livable,Lot B Trash Enclosure 8,013$ Additional cost incurred for Lot B trash enclosure demolition Sustainable Beach Demolition and Generator to eliminate illegal dumping once the Lot A trash enclosure City for Lot A was demolished ($3,200). Also needed to rent a generator to power the new Lot A compactor after SCE delayed their electrical work for the compactor ($4,813). CIP 653- Parking Structure Repairs Contract Services More Livable,Retention 3,014$ To cover retention paid in 14-15 and not reappropriated from Sustainable Beach prior year. City CIP XXX- Community Center and Clark Park Tennis Lighting Contract Services More Livable,New Project- Tennis Court 121,792$ Install light fixtures at the Community Center and Clark Park Sustainable Beach Lighting tennis courts. The proposed light fixtures provide enhanced City light levels, which would cost the City an additional $608 per year. The installation may require reimbursement of EECDG funds received by the City in June 2012 for the Community Center lights. This is accounted for in the request. CIP XXX- Lawn Bowling Green Complex Contract Services More Livable,New Project- Lighting for Lawn 60,000$ Installation of eight light poles and fixtures at the Lawn Bowling Sustainable Beach Bowling Green Green Complex to facilitate night bowling. City 369,819$ 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 6 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (715) Information Technology Contract Services High Performing 6 IPADs 4,301$ Purchase 6 IPAD Airs for Directors due to the roll out of the City Providing Legistar system for staff reports and agendas. 1st Class Service Equipment<$1,000 High Performing 7 IPADs and Accessories 4,975$ Purchase 7 IPADs and accessories for the Planning City Providing 1st Commission (5) and for the Planners to share (2). IPADs are necessary due to the Legistar program and will reduce paper usage. Equipment>$5,000 High Performing Wifi for City Hall 10,000$ Multiple access points to allow IPADS and other mobile City Providing devices to use the internet without connectivity issues. 1st Class Service Police Equipment > $5,000 Commitment to Canon Copier 5,088$ Additional amount needed to replace Xerox copier in Safe Community Detective Bureau. Upgrade is needed based on the usage and demands on the equipment. It will be networked and have 7 users. Fire Vehicle Commitment to Ambulance 146,677$ Funds for new ambulance should have been reappropriated Safe Community in September. Designated Building Maintenance Funds Contract Services Commitment to Building improvements $5,000 Building improvements are necessary to bring bathrooms and work areas up to adequate levels. Improvements include Safe Community replacing hazardous stair treads and torn flooring and installing new toilet seats, bathroom exhaust fans, and window blinds. Streetlighting/Landscaping/Medians Vehicles More Livable,GMC Sierra C15 16,579$ After investigating options with South Coast Air Quality Management, it was determined that a viable replacement for the F150 is a Sustainable Beach a 2015 GMC Sierra C15 2 WD or 4 WD Flexible Fuel Vehicle. City Quote is higher than the original budget because the budget was based on the cost of a conventional fuel vehicle. 2014-15 Midyear Budget Review Additional Appropriations Requests 7 FUND/DEPARTMENT RELATED GOAL EXPLANATION RECOMMENDED COMMENTS Sewers Vehicles More Livable,Ford F350 Utility Truck 7,369$ Original amount in 14-15 budget wasn't for a CNG vehicle. The Sustainable Beach quote is higher than budget due to CNG conversion to comply City with the clean fleet policy. Vehicles More Livable,Volvo Model L90G Crawler 202,060$ Replace existing John Deere Crawler which is severely Sustainable Beach rusted and unreliable. The crawler is critical to open beach outfalls City to prevent flooding. The current cost of renting a replacement is $6,000 per month. 5-6 models have been demoed and the one selected is able to be brought off the beach and stored in the yard, increasing it's useful life to 15 year. (The current crawler lasted 9.) The purchase would be made through a government purchasing group, which would save approximately $27,000 (cost without is $229,000). Community Development/Building Contract Services High Performing Accela Mobile Office 1,176$ Public works will be hiring for two vacant positions that will City Providing need Accela Mobile Office (AMO) access. 1st Class Service Building Maintenance Contract Services More Livable,New Storage Building 22,193$ New storage building to house Emergency Operations Sustainable Beach Center supplies and Kiwanis Christmas Tree materials. City Old unit was demolished due to disrepair. 425,418$ City Hall1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Hermosa Beach Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1ID#2015- 0198 Name: Status:Type:Action Item Consent Calendar File created:In control:2/10/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/24/2015 Title:MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2014-15 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:1. Revenue Detail Report, 2. Additional Appropriations Report, 3. Midyear CIP Spreadsheet Revisions, 4. CIP 14-502 Clark Field and Community Center Tennis Lighting, 5. CIP 14-503 Lawn Bowling Green Complex Lighting, 6. Budget Summary Report, 7. Budget Transfers Report, 8. Resolution - Increase to General Plan Maintenance Fees, 9. City Council Travel and Benefits, 10. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation Slides from Viki Copeland (added 2-24-15 at 1pm).pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/24/2015 1 City Council2/24/2015 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of February 24, 2015 MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2014-15 (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1.Approve the revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, budget transfers and fund balances as shown herein and in the attached Revenue Detail Report, Additional Appropriations Report, Budget Transfers Report, and Budget Summary Report. 2.Approve the addition of $108,289 to the assigned fund balance for Contingencies in order to meet our target of 16% for this goal; a transfer of $29,632 to the Lighting Fund to cover the additional deficit created by revenue revisions; and appropriate the remaining funds available of $166,113 to Prospective Expenditures. 3.Approve a transfer of funds in the amount of $1,324,690 from the Capital Improvement Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund to bring the balance to the goal amount. 4.Approve the resolution committing the revised amount for General Plan Maintenance Fees as shown in the attachment: Resolution - Increase to General Plan Maintenance Fees. (Commitments or Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 restrictions of fund balance require a resolution.) 5.Receive and file the attached information about City Council travel and benefits. 6.Review updated Fiscal Health Scenarios. (Available Monday as a supplemental) Background: The City has conducted a Midyear Budget Review annually since fiscal year 1981-82. The review is a good tool to ensure that assumptions and estimates originally used to prepare the budget ten months earlier remain realistic. All revisions will be recorded as of 1/31/15 so total midyear revisions will reflect in the 14/15 budget amounts used for preparation of the 2015-16 budget. Analysis: OVERVIEW The local economy continues to show some improvement as reflected in the 2%revision to revenue estimates in the General Fund.After all recommended revisions,funds are available to adjust our Contingency (rainy day fund)to our goal of 16%of appropriations for operations,cover the deficit of $29,632 in the Lighting Fund and to transfer $166,113 to Prospective Expenditures. REVENUE (Note: Refer to the more detailed Revenue Detail Report behind the agenda item for individual revenue accounts.) The overall change in the General Fund revenue estimate is an increase of $704,676 or approximately 2%. The following charts show the trends for the largest tax revenue sources. 2014-15 Midyear Revenue by Category TAXES Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 Property Tax The estimate for secured property tax revenue is adjusted up by 2% now; the revised estimate is up 6% over 2013-14. Growth for the prior five years was 6%, 2%, 4%, and 7% respectively. Sales Tax Sales tax revenue for the first half is up 8%,however we are revising the budget to assume revenue at the level of 13/14 which is a 2%increase to the budget;revenue maybe more but we will stay conservative for now. As shown in the charts on the next page,the category with the highest sales tax overall is Eating/Drinking Places.The categories with the highest increase are Building Materials (13%)and Furniture/Appliance Stores (26%). Historical Note:As in the original budget,sales tax is split into two accounts now,3108 Sales Tax and 3104 In Lieu Sales Tax.The In Lieu amount is the State’s “Triple Flip”25%reduction of local government sales tax,which will be repaid in January and May with property tax funds. These accounts are shown in the Midyear Revenue Review Report. The following charts compare sales tax on major accounts for the first half of this year to the first half of last year by the top ten categories to show what the trends are by category and geographic area. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 SALES TAX Comparison of First Half of 2013-14 to 2014-15 Sales Tax Increase % Change % of2014-15 Decrease Previous Year Total 1 EATING/DRINKING PLACES 547,878 52,300 10.55%46.91% 2 OTHER RETAIL STORES 145,245 (5,221)-3.47%12.44% 3 BUILDING MATERIALS 101,633 11,628 12.92%8.70% 4 FOOD STORES 90,056 598 0.67%7.71% 5 SERVICE STATIONS **-12.33%* 6 FURNITURE/APPLIANCE 50,805 10,416 25.79%4.35% 7 BUSINESS, SERVICE, REPAIR 50,513 2,449 5.10%4.33% 8 AUTO DEALERS AND SUPPLIES 39,738 9,199 -18.80%3.40% 9 DRUG STORES **0.37%* 10 APPAREL STORES 29,836 (9,300)-23.76%2.55% * Drug store and service station amounts are not listed because there are too few in the category. **Major accounts only RANK/BUSINESS CLASSTop Ten Categories** Sales Tax Comparison by Geographic Area Revenue % of % Revenue % OF LOCATION 2013-14 Total Change 2014-15 Total PCH 415,846 41%1%420,784 40% Downtown 419,809 41%3%432,236 42% Pier/Valley/Monterey 126,088 13%11%140,258 14% Aviation 45,929 5%-4%44,299 4% Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 Transient Occupancy Tax Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)is 8%up compared to the first half of last year.Receipts last year were up 10%.The budget revision puts receipts at the level received last year represents a 2%change.The budget estimate at over $2.2 million is the highest ever. Utility User Tax Utility User Tax (UUT)revenue is adjusted down 2%.The AT&T refund settlement of $70,000+is recorded in the prior year revenue account rather than the UUT account; AT&T receipts going forward will be less. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 The only other category with significant change is Current Service Charges. Current Service Charges The estimate for service charges is up approximately 4% due primarily to increases in plan check fees, parking meters, and Car2Go funds that were not originally budgeted and parking permits. The increase in parking meters would include the demand parking pilot program which would be one-time funds unless the program is continued. That item is separate on this agenda. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Additional appropriations are on the attached spreadsheet,Additional Appropriations Report.Since there are new capital improvement projects recommended,there is also a Midyear Capital Improvement Program worksheet (Midyear CIP Spreadsheet Revisions)and two detail request sheets attached (CIP 14-502 Clark Field and Community Center Tennis Lighting and CIP 14-503 Lawn Bowling Green Complex Lighting). RESULT OF CHANGES As a result of changes to estimated revenue and additional appropriations,a balance of $556,888 is available in the General Fund. It is recommended that those funds be used in the following manner: §Assign additional funds of $108,289 from the balance available in the General Fund to bring the Contingency up to the goal amount of 16% of General Fund operating appropriations. §Transfer $29,632 to the Lighting Fund to cover the deficit in the Lighting District created by revenue revisions. §Appropriate remaining funds of $166,113 to Prospective Expenditures. FINANCIAL POLICIES The City Council’s adopted policies are: General Fund - Any funds remaining unspent at year-end in the General Fund transfer equally to the Contingency Balance, Insurance Fund, Equipment Replacement Fund, and the Capital Improvement Fund. The City Council may change these transfers from time to time as necessary. For 2013-14, funds in the amount of $2,499,592 were transferred to the Capital Improvement Fund, resulting in a fund balance of $2,831,179. Compensated Absences Balance - The goal is to maintain 25% of the funding needed for accrued liabilities for employee vacation, sick and compensatory time. Contingency Balance - The goal is to maintain an amount equal to 16% of the General Fund operating appropriations to be used in the event of economic uncertainties or unforeseen emergencies. Insurance Fund - The goal is to maintain $3,000,000 in net position for claims above recorded claims liabilities or catastrophic losses.During 2014-15 budget deliberations, City Council directed staff to transfer any balance over the goal amount of $3,000,000 at year end 2013- 14 to the Sewer Fund. The goal of $3,000,000 is in addition to the $6,000,000 previously set Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 aside as contingency for the oil settlement. The amount transferred was $3,063,903. Equipment Replacement Fund - The goal is to maintain net position equal to the accumulated amount calculated on the equipment replacement schedules for all equipment, based on replacement cost and useful life. Retirement Rate Stabilization Balance - Created in the 2004-05 Budget for use during times of rate volatility. Progress on Funding Goals Fund Nam e Goal Estimated Fund Balance 6/30/15 Over/(Under) Goal Amount Compensated Absences Balance $302,053 25% of current liability $297,262 ($4,791) Contingency Balance $4,967,183 16% of operating budget $4,858,893 ($108,2 89) Insurance Fund $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 Equipment Replacement Fund $2,540,573 $1,215,883 ($1,324,690 ) As is shown in the Over/(Under) Goal Amount column, the Compensated Absences Balance, the Equipment Replacement Fund, and Contingency Balance are underfunded. We recommend leaving the Compensated Absences balance as is since it is under goal by a very small amount. As noted previously, $2,499,592 was transferred at year end 2013-14 from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Since the balance in the Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF) is under goal by $1.3+ million, it is recommended that funds be transferred from the Capital Improvement Fund in that amount to bring the ERF balance to the goal amount. The balance in the Capital Improvement Fund, after midyear appropriation revisions, would be $773,173. PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING UPDATE Below is a summary of the steps involved in the process: 1.Orientation to Department Heads 2.Results Definition Workshop (30+ participants) 3.Presentation of Results to City Council 4.Creation of Departmental Program Inventories 5.Development of Personnel Costs by Finance Department 6.Development of Costing Worksheets 7.Completion of Costing Worksheets by Departments 8.Self-scoring of Programs by Departments 9.Peer Review of Program Scoring (10 Inter-departmental Teams) 10.Consultant Compilation of Final Program Scores, Quartile Ranking Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:ID#2015-0198,Version:1 11.Consultant Peer Review Exception Report, Review with Teams 12.Consultant Development of Diagnostic Tool We are about to complete step six so we are halfway through the process. Because of the high degree of interdepartmental involvement and competing demands with other projects citywide, the process is taking longer than we anticipated. Our goal is to complete the process to create the tool and then update the numbers with the 2015-16 budget numbers. The presentation would not be incorporated into the 2015-16 Budget but would be presented as a standalone during the budget process. FISCAL HEALTH Updated scenarios will be available Monday as a supplemental and will be presented at the workshop. THE CHALLENGE FOR NEXT YEAR With approval of the Midyear changes by the City Council, staff will move forward with preparation of the 2015-16 Budget. ·Even though Strategic Planning may take place after budgets are due, we will plan to incorporate items from the planning session as necessary. ·We plan to incorporate performance measures from the Center for Performance Measurement (CPM). ·Current Memorandum’s of Understanding with employee groups expire June 30, 2015 and any funding changes will need to be balanced with other Council priorities. ·The Class and Compensation Study results will be incorporated as directed by City Council. (Still under consideration) ·The Fiscal Health and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan will be updated on an ongoing basis. ·Funding Capital needs such as sewer, storm water, and public safety building upgrades will continue to be a challenge. As always, we will remain conservative in our approach as we begin the budget process for next year. 2015-16 BUDGET WORKSHOP The Budget Workshop is scheduled for May 21 at 7:00pm, with adoption planned for June 9, 2015. Respectfully Submitted by: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/17/2015Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0542 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 UPDATE ON BICYCLE PARKING (Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council receive and file this report. Background: On April 14 2015 staff provided City Council with an update on activity related to bicycle parking solutions for the City. Expanding the existing bicycle parking is important for reducing the disorderly parking to poles, trees and other locations that bicyclists have been using when there isn’t sufficient capacity in the downtown commercial area, therefore minimizing damage to these structures and reducing thefts. Staff also suggested that by providing bicycle parking options with a level of convenience comparable to driving, people may choose to replace their vehicle trips with biking trips, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants associated with motorized vehicle trips. Staff described the purpose of the update was to summarize existing plans and studies and to develop a plan to expend the $20,000 approved in the FY 14/15 mid-year budget to purchase bike racks. The following independent and collaborative studies were outlined and staff presented City Council with a plan that included bicycle parking solutions from a combination of these studies. The staff report, including the expenditure plan and budget can be downloaded here: <https://hermosabeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2258696&GUID=747EBB4F-DBEF- 40D2-AC90-C2B2ED3221BB> 1)The South Bay Bicycle Mini-Corral Plan, Existing Condition Report (November 2014) The South Bay Bicycle Mini-Corral Plan recommends locations for bicycle mini-corrals in the cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. Bicycle mini-corrals are clusters of two- four bicycle racks located on-street, along the curb in commercial areas. The Plan furthers the efforts of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan by recommending locations for mini-corrals and providing design guidelines for their installation. Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0542 2)Fiesta Parking, and immediate and long-term parking solutions on Pier Plaza and Pier Avenue, and surrounding parking lots The Public Works Commission is exploring alternative, temporary bicycle parking solutions for Fiesta Hermosa. In addition, they have worked with staff to identify immediate and long-term parking solutions in the commercial district on Pier Plaza and Pier Avenue, and the surrounding parking lots. 3)Immediate solutions to bicycle parking on the Strand Staff addressed the immediate issue of bicycle parking on the Strand and purchased ring-mount racks to secure bikes to the sand-side of the Strand wall at priority locations near volleyball courts and lifeguard towers. The multiple bike racks are preferred to the individual U-bolts since they minimize drilling into the wall and can be easily relocated as ground-mount racks, if needed in the future. Staff will document their use on weekends and weekdays for a month following their installation and report back to the City Council. Analysis: Following the April 14 2015 meeting there was some confusion regarding who was conducting the aforementioned studies and how they were being implemented. Specifically, the Public Works Commission had not been presented the study of alternative Fiesta Hermosa parking solutions to the Public Works Commission for comment and review prior to the April 14 meeting. Importantly, the Public Works Commission was originally tasked with exploring only Fiesta Hermosa parking options and expanded this scope to include immediate and long-term parking solutions on Pier Plaza and Pier Avenue, and surrounding parking lots. This occurred collaboratively with City staff and appears to be the primary cause for confusion. Public Works Commissioners presented the report on both Fiesta Hermosa Parking and immediate and long-term parking solutions to the Public Works Commission on May 20, 2015 (Attachments 1 and 2). Staff and commissioners discussed some of the parking solutions presented in the report. Staff are currently revising the expenditure plan and budget presented to City on April 14 to incorporate changes in the availability and price of bike racks. Staff will update City Council on the success of the expanded parking solutions following the installation of the racks. The ring-mount racks to secure bikes to the sand-side of the Strand wall at priority locations near volleyball courts and lifeguard towers were on back-order and are arriving the week of June 22 2015 for installation before July 4 2015. Staff will document their use on weekends and weekdays for a month following their installation and report back to the City Council. Fiscal Implications: No fiscal impact associated with this action. Attachments: Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff ReportREPORT 15-0542 1.PW Commission Report 2. PW Commission Presentation Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Public Works Commission Downtown Bicycle Parking 2015 Report Acknowledgments Sub Committee Members Andrea Giancoli Public Works Commissioner Peter Hoffman Planning Commissioner Chairman Rob Saemann Public Works Commissioner Consultation Justin Schnuelle Public Works Commissioner City of Hermosa Beach Staff Kristy Morris Environmental Analyst Pamela Thompson Chief Planner This report contains 3 areas of study:  Immediate bicycle parking recommendations.  Future bicycle parking recommendations.  Fiesta bicycle parking recommendations. Immediate Bicycle Parking Recommendations In light of the upcoming Downtown Core Revitalization Project (DCRP) and the major development of hotels and commercial projects in the area, these locations are subject to change in the next 1 to 5 years. All or some of these locations could also remain for many years to come. However, all of these recommendations provide immediate relief for bicycle parking in the downtown commercial area. Improvements in this category are relatively inexpensive, and can be moved and reused upon future development. These possibilities can be prioritized by need and funding. The additional parking will provide spaces for beachgoers, and patrons and employees of the Plaza, Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue businesses. Pier Plaza – 112 spaces + palm tree areas Mermaid area - 74 bicycle spaces and 4 bicycle trailer spaces Citi Bank – 17 spaces Bank of America – 17 spaces Palm trees – up to 9 spaces per tree (7 palms = 63 potential) There are three general areas to increase parking on the Plaza before the DCRP. The area just south of the Mermaid parking lot, the areas just south of Citi Bank and north of Bank of America, and additional racks alongside the palm trees in the center of Pier Plaza. The palm trees could have any combination of racks and benches surrounding each tree, protecting landscaping at the base of the tree. This would spread out available designated spaces throughout the Plaza. Bicyclists are more likely to use parking that is within sight of their destination. Currently, many bikes are parked adjacent to the fences for the restaurant, bar, and retail encroachment areas. This added parking will greatly reduce or eliminate this unauthorized parking and reduce “bike clutter” on the Plaza, particularly on warm summer busy days. Business owners could request their patrons to use designated areas. Immediate Page 1 Pier Plaza Bicycle Parking Immediate Page 2 11th Street – 108 spaces If in the future Lifeguard parking were to be relocated, this area can provide Strand-adjacent parking for cyclists. This area will provide bicycle parking for beach users. South of the Pier on the sand side of the Strand wall – 60 spaces This pilot program is already under way and will provide 60 spaces for beach users. Immediate Page 3 Existing concrete area south of the restrooms opposite Scotty’s – 27 spaces Adding racks to the existing rack will provide more Strand-adjacent parking spaces for beach users. Northwest corner of 13th Street and the Strand – 20 spaces Exchanging a larger capacity (20) rack for the smaller (3) existing one will add more Strand- adjacent parking spaces for beach users. The existing rack can be relocated for use elsewhere. Immediate Page 4 Lot A – 26 spaces There are a few small areas where mini corrals can be added, much like the SB Mini Corral Program on upper Pier and Hermosa Avenues. In addition, there is an area adjacent to the Bank of America ATM, and an area east of the compactor. These combined areas will provide daily bicycle parking for the businesses and their employees in the area. Lot B –14 spaces (double level rack -28) Adding a ground level rack to the small area in the northeast corner will add 14 spaces to Lot B. Adding a double level rack can increase the capacity to 28. These will provide daily bicycle parking for beach users and patrons and employees of the businesses and in the area. Immediate Page 5 Lot D – 70 spaces The area in the northeast corner is currently dirt and is slightly pitched. If leveled and paved, it could be accessed from the sidewalk on Monterey Ave. and add 70 spaces. This would provide needed parking for the patrons and employees of Upper Pier Ave Hermosa Ave in front of Starbuck’s Coffee – 6 spaces The sidewalk in front of this popular coffee shop is very congested with bikes. A curb side bike rack in the street, near the corner, would provide relief without taking away any car parking. Immediate Page 6 Upper Pier Ave. Bulb-outs – 6 spaces per Tree Bike racks like the Tree can be added to increase bicycle parking by 6 spaces each in a relatively small area. These will provide daily bicycle parking for the patrons and employees of Upper Pier Ave businesses. Note: All of these spaces will supplement the SB Mini Corral Project without duplication. Immediate Page 7 Future Bicycle Parking Recommendations When downtown hotel and commercial projects require the redevelopment of Lots A and B into multilevel parking structures, it is recommended that bicycle parking be included in the plan to meet the increased demand of these developments. There are a number of different multilevel racks to accomplish this and use a minimum of precious space. In addition, there is a new underground system that can hold up to 200 bikes with a very small footprint. It is designed for a shallow water table and while expensive as a retrofit, may be more reasonable to install during the construction of a multilevel parking structure. These measures can insure enough bicycle parking far into the future. Future Page 8 Fiesta Bicycle Parking Recommendations The existing Fiesta bicycle parking is an approximately 200’ X 200’ area of beach, south of the restrooms, across from Scotty’s Restaurant. It consists of plywood flooring and temporary fence with makeshift temporary racks. The Chamber of Commerce and several volunteers do a great job of handling over one thousand bikes per day each day, over the Fiesta weekends. However, the entrance and exit are adjacent to the already crowded Strand. In an effort to relieve congestion and confusion between bicycle parking, strand cyclists, skaters, pedestrians, and patrons of the Fiesta, an alternative to that location was sought. There is no single large area to replace the existing one. This fact may be the solution to the problem. By locating three areas, all near the Fiesta yet separate from each other, a larger number of bicycles could be parked in a safer and more efficient manner. Two of these areas are adjacent to the Strand, the main bikeway in the area. This arrangement would reduce the number of volunteers needed to service a single large area. Fiesta Page 9 11th Street – 238 spaces The parking spaces on 11th Street from the Strand to Beach Drive could be blocked off for the Fiestas with temporary fence and temporary racks. Staff discussed the proposed Fiesta parking location with Los Angeles County Fire Department Lifeguards and the City Fire Chief during a meeting on May 6, 2015 and concern was expressed regarding the potential for loitering and obstruction of emergency vehicle access. Staff met again with the Fire Department staff on May 13, 2015 who did not object to the location if the existing emergency roadway would be left open for access to the beach and Strand. Signage would keep this area clear for Emergency vehicles. Additional temporary racks would provide 238 spaces for the Fiestas. 13th Street – 92 spaces 13th Street from the Strand to Beach Drive could be blocked off for the Fiestas with temporary fence and temporary racks. As per Fire Department suggestion on May 13, 2015 a 10’ roadway would be left open for emergency access to the beach. Signage would keep this area clear for Emergency vehicles. 72 additional temporary racks plus the 20 permanent spaces would provide 92 spaces. Fiesta Page 10 Lot D at 14th Street and Manhattan Ave. – Option 1- 250 spaces Option 2- 108 spaces Adding temporary racks and blocking off the large parking area with temporary fence for security (Option 1) would provide 250 spaces for Fiesta parking. Option 2 would provide 108 spaces. Lot D is ½ block away from the north end of the Fiesta on 14th Street, and is ½ block away from the east end of the Fiesta on Pier Ave. Lot D Option 1 Lot D Option 2 These three sites or any combination thereof can provide more than the current capacity in place now. They would be spread out at the corners of the Fiesta and lessen congestion on the Strand. They would be safer and more accessable on pavement rather than plywood over sand. Standard “on the ground” bike racks, rather than the makeshift ones currently used, would be more efficiently organized, and allow the cyclists to lock their bikes on their own, increasing security. Fiesta Page 11 Fiesta Bicycle Parking Signage and App - All three locations can be marked by signs. Fiesta maps and a website can advertise the locations, and when any one lot is full, bicyclists can be directed to the other lots by the volunteer attendant. All Bicycle Parking - It is also recommended to develop a Beach Cities Bicycle Parking App and website, so cyclists can quickly and easily find all permanent and Fiesta parking available on their cell phones. Local bicycle rental and repair shops could sponsor the website and App through advertising. Fiesta Page 12 Summary If all immediate recommendations were enacted, the total number of bike spaces added would be: Pier Plaza ............................. 175 11th Street ............................ 108 Strand wall sand side ............. 60 Beach slab opposite Scotty’s .. 27 13th Street .............................. 20 Lot A ...................................... 26 Lot B ...................................... 28 Lot D ...................................... 70 Hermosa Ave. (Starbuck’s) ...... 6 Upper Pier Ave. Bulb outs ....... 6 Total spaces ......................... 526 If all Fiesta recommendations were enacted, the total number of bike spaces added would be: 11th Street ............................ 238 13th Street ............................... 92 Lot D option 1 ....................... 250 (Lot D option 2- 108) Total spaces .......................... 580 Page 13 HERMOSA BEACH BIKE PARKING COORDINATION PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING May 20, 2015 -07:00 PM Plan/ Study/Policy Blue Zones Vitality City: Beach Cities Livability Plan (2011) SB Bicycle Master Plan (August 2011) City of Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan (September 2011 Living Streets Policy (2012) SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (2012) CA SB 375, Sustainable Communities (2008), CA SB 99 (Active Transportation Program)2013 SB Bicycle Mini-Corral Plan Existing Conditions Report (SCAG) (November 2014) PW Commission Scoping Study (2015): Fiesta Bike Corral Alternatives Staff: Immediate Parking Solutions; and Future Parking Solutions BACKGROUND SB BICYCLE MINI-CORRAL PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT •Implements bike parking recommendations in SB BMP •Bicycle Mini-Corrals: 2 to 4 bicycle racks located on- street, along the curb in commercial areas •Rank of suggested locations 1. HERMOSA AVE & 14TH ST ~ 11FT, Close to Corner 2. HERMOSA AVE & 10TH ST ~ 18FT, Large Curb Space 4. PIER AVE & MONTEREY BLVD3. HERMOSA AVE & 10TH ST ~ 14FT, Close to Corner North Side ~ 10FT, Protected Curb Space 5. PIER AVE & HERMOSA AVE ~ 16FT, Close to Corner Storm Drain may be an issue- catch basin clean-out/street sweeping PURPOSE: •Identify Fiesta Bike Corral Alternatives Assist staff: •Identify Immediate Parking Solutions •Recommend Future Parking Solutions PW COMMISSION SCOPING STUDY PERMANENT PARKING –PIER AVE -Pier Plaza –112 spaces + palm tree areas -Mermaid area -74 bicycle spaces and 4 bicycle trailer spaces -Citi Bank –17 spaces -Bank of America –17 spaces -Palm trees –up to 9 spaces per tree (7 palms = 63 potential) PERMANENT PARKING –11th ST LIFEGUARD PARKING -108 spaces PERMANENT PARKING –EXISTING CONCRETE AREA SOUTH OF THE RESTROOMS OPPOSITE SCOTTY’S –27 SPACES PERMANENT PARKING –LOT A-26 spaces Parking Lot Mini-Corrals PERMANENT PARKING –PIER AVE BULB-OUTS 6 spaces per Tree NW CORNER OF 13TH STREET AND THE STRAND –20 SPACES PERMANENT PARKING –LOT B–14 spaces (double level rack -28) PERMANENT PARKING –LOT D 70 spaces STRAND BEACH RACKS PILOT PROGRAM: 15 racks (6 bikes a rack)= 90 bike parking spaces. DESCRIPTION SPACES BIKE RACK TYPES COST ESTIMATE West Pier Plaza bike corral in front of the Mermaid 76 2 x Custom Mermaid bike racks 4 x 10’ wide double-sided racks $2,000 $3,000 Strand Ring Racks 60 10 x Curve-It Bike Racks/ 6-Bike Rack $2500 East Pier Plaza bike racks in front of Bank of America 18’ length along wall 9 8 1 x 10’ single-sided rack 1 x 8’ single -sided rack $700 $600 Bathrooms @ Pier Plaza/ Strand 19’6” length along wall 9 8 1 x 10’ single-sided rack 1 x 8’ single -sided rack $700 $600 13th St @ Strand/Beach House 20’ length along curb 18 2 x 10’ single-sided rack $1,400 In-street, along curb mini corrals Zane’s Uncorked Starbucks 6 6 8 3 x Custom bike hitches 3 x Custom bike hitches 1 x Custom bike rack $1,350 $1,350 $1,750 Bike Tree on Pier Plaza in front of Java Man 6 1 x Bike Tree $4,500 Total Number of Spaces 214 Total Cost $20,450 UNDERGROUND PARKING •Automated Underground Parking •200 bike capacity •ECO Cycle of Japan (GIKEN) •Cost approx. US$1.25M including construction works •Can be installed in shallow water table •No licensed dealer in the US at present SIGNAGE/ APPS Examples Potential Bicycle Parking App for South Bay Beach Cities NEXT STEPS •Prioritize locations based on necessity and visibility •Develop Fiesta Hermosa Bicycle Parking Plan with Signage •Develop budget and identify funding opportunities •Work with neighboring Cities to develop a South Bay Beach Cities Bicycle Parking App •Identify “Bike Share” locations Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0529 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE & ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE (City Manager Tom Bakaly) Recommended Action: Designate a voting delegate and an alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting scheduled for Friday, October 2, at the San Jose Convention Center. Background: The League of California Cities takes positions on legislation at the state level that impacts the cities. The position that the League of California Cities takes on various bills starts at the annual business meeting where resolutions are considered. These resolutions guide the legislative effort during the next year. In order for the City to participate in the vote, we must designate the voting delegate and an alternate. Attachments: 1.League of California Cities Letter and Voting Procedures 2.Voting Delegate/Alternate Form Respectfully Submitted by: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/18/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff ReportREPORT 15-0533 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS EXPIRATION OF TERMS SCHEDULE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council schedule Planning Commission applicant interviews for a time and date certain. Summary: Two terms on the Planning Commission will expire June 30, 2015. Appointments will be for four-year terms ending June 30, 2019. The following three applicants have filed for the two seats: Peter R. Hoffman Ryan D. Nowicki Rob Saemann Background: At its meeting of May 26, 2015, the City Council directed the City Clerk to advertise, consistent with standard practice, the two Planning Commission term expirations, inviting applications from persons interested in being considered for appointment. As directed, a notice was placed on the City’s website, posted in the normal Civic Center locations, and published twice in the Easy Reader (June 4 and 11), with an application-filing deadline of 6 p.m., Wednesday, June 17. The two incumbents were notified on June 1 (by mail and by phone) of their expiring terms and the deadline for filing applications if they were interested in being considered for re-appointment. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission applications Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/19/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Misc Item 8-b of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 8-b Page 1 of 4 City Clerk and City Manager's office: This is a ‘Supplemental Communication submitted for Consent Item 8-b of the June 23, 2015, Regular Hermosa Beach City Council meeting agenda. Please include with the agenda materials packets and the Granicus Internet agenda postings for the meeting, and advance a copy to those listed under TO: below. Thank You. June 22, 2015 To: Hermosa Beach City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Finance Director, Interim Police Chief, Fire Chief, Contracted City Attorney, and Community Resources Department. From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach resident. Regarding: Planning and other Commission appointments, advertising, number of terms, etc. Mayor, Councilmembers, and others: The following are my comments, given freely, and they are entirely my views and opinions on everything I've stated herein. First off it is important that the two Planning Commission openings be re-advertised more vigorously and that a 30-day period be provided for interested men and women to learn of these important openings, have time to do their research, and apply for the positions. The manner in which advertising for applicants has been accomplished for decades is really far less than honorable, and appears to be designed to keep the town being run essentially by an insider clique. More suggestions follow below the agenda item following. Miscellaneous Item 8-b's staff report (per this link) states the following at this writing. "https://hermosabeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2360802&GUID=F320FA66-E4AD-4AE2-A039-177D986A7AE5" ___________________________________________________________________ File #: REPORT 15-0533 Version: 1 Name: Type: Action Item Status: Miscellaneous Item - Council File created: 6/17/2015 In control: City Council On agenda: 6/23/2015 Final action: Title: VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS EXPIRATION OF TERMS SCHEDULE Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Misc Item 8-b of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 8-b Page 2 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Attachments : 1. 2015 Planning Commission Apps "https://hermosabeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=3836126&GUID=208A2C5 1-6A1A-4F3A-9D9A-6B73EE61CB12" • Staff Report Text Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of June 23, 2015 Title VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS EXPIRATION OF TERMS SCHEDULE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS (City Clerk Elaine Doerfling) Body Recommended Action: Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council schedule Planning Commission applicant interviews for a time and date certain. Body Summary: Two terms on the Planning Commission will expire June 30, 2015. Appointments will be for four-year terms ending June 30, 2019. The following three applicants have filed for the two seats: Peter R. Hoffman Ryan D. Nowicki Rob Saemann Background: At its meeting of May 26, 2015, the City Council directed the City Clerk to advertise, consistent with standard practice, the two Planning Commission term expirations, inviting applications from persons interested in being considered for appointment. As directed, a notice was placed on the City's website, posted in the normal Civic Center locations, and published twice in the Easy Reader (June 4 and 11), with an application-filing deadline of 6 p.m., Wednesday, June 17. The two incumbents were notified on June 1 (by mail and by phone) of their expiring terms and the deadline for filing applications if they were interested in being considered for re-appointment. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission applications Submitted by: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Concur: Tom Bakaly, City Manager ___________________________________________________________________ Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Misc Item 8-b of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 8-b Page 3 of 4 It would be useful, if the council really did desire a wide range of community applicants for important appointed positions, that a quality legal advertisement was run in the Easy Reader's editorial section for Planning Commission Applicants and that there be a 30- day application period rather than a bare minimum 13-day limit from the present first running of the innocuous legal ads presently run essentially buried in the legal section in the back of the Easy Reader. The City advertises other far-less important matters in the editorial section using its special editorial rate. Is it worth spending a few hundred dollars to let the City's 20,000 residents really know there are openings on the Planning Commission and that the city is seeking the best people with expertise, those interested, but probably unaware? All forms of notice should be utilized, including announcements from the dais, such that others than "insiders" are aware of these important openings. By the way, it should be of interest to the Hermosa Beach City Council that the Manhattan Beach City Council set a limit for appointed commissioners to be no more than two 3-year terms on any commission. (6 years maximum) And the Redondo Beach City Council set a limit for appointed commissioners to be no more than two 4-year terms on any commission. (8 years maximum) The following information below re: present planning commissioner's terms is from: http://vivahermosa.com/ http://vivahermosa.com/refgovtcontacts.html Planning Commissioners in Hermosa Beach are appointed by the Council for 4-year terms and have no limits on the number of terms. Several commissioners have served through 8 or 9 different elected City Councils. While they should be thanked for their long service it is not a good nor healthy policy for the city to not have new people with new ideas being presented. Peter Hoffman 1-310-374-6004 phoffman@lmu.edu (finishing 4th term) (applying for 5th term) First appointed August 1999 on motion by Edgerton, seconded by Benz, re-appointed June 2003 on motion by Edgerton, re-appointed 2007 (unopposed), term ends June 2015, Sam Perrotti 1-310-372-7269 sperrotti1@verizon.net (finishing 5th term) (retiring from the Commission) First appointed August 1995, re-appointed August 1999 on motion by Edgerton, seconded by Benz, re-appointed June 2003 on motion by Edgerton, re-appointed 2007 (unopposed), term ends June 2015, Ron Pizer 1-310-344-5008 ron.pizer@verizon.net (in 5th term) First appointed July 1996, re-appointed July 2004 on motion by Keegan, re-appointed (unopposed) June 2008, term ends June 2016. Supplemental Communication from H. Longacre to Misc Item 8-b of the June 23, 2015 Hermosa Beach City Council Agenda 8-b Page 4 of 4 Kent Allen 1-310-379-6002 allenk3@bp.com (in 3rd term) First appointed February 2004, re-appointed July 2004 on motion by Keegan, re-appointed June 2008 (unopposed), term ends June 2016. Michael Flaherty 1-310-379-4085 MikeFlaherty2010@gmail.com (in 1st term) First appointed July 2012, term ends June 2016. --- End of Supplemental ---