Item F-3 Agenda Report — Beverly Hills City Council, June 17, 2025

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 17, 2025
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Robert Welch, P.E., Utilities General Manager
Jason W. Dyogi, Water Quality Specialist
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING OF THE 2025 DRINKING WATER PUBLIC

HEALTH GOALS REPORT
Attachments: 1. City of Beverly Hills Public Health Goals Report

2. Published Courtesy Notice

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council accept the City of Beverly Hills’ Water Quality Report relative to the 2025 Public Health Goals Report, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996. The City’s drinking water continues to meet all regulatory standards established by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to ensure the continued protection of public health.

INTRODUCTION
Under California’s Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, public water systems serving more than 10,000 customers are required to prepare a report every three years identifying any contaminants detected in the water that were above California’s Public Health Goals (PHGs) or the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs).

Regulations require a public hearing to receive public comments on the report. PHGs are developed by the California State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) while MCLGs are established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The City’s drinking water continues to meet all healthbased standards set by both the SWRCB and the USEPA, ensuring the protection of public health.

Staff has prepared the attached report titled, “City of Beverly Hills Public Health Goals Report,” to provide information regarding the quality of the City’s drinking water supply in relation to the applicable PHGs and MCLGs.

BEVERL
HILLS
id
Meeting Date: June 17, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION
The California SWRCB and the USEPA are responsible for setting regulations and drinking water standards and goals. Drinking water goals include PHGs and MCLGs.

PHGs are water quality goals set by OEHHA and are recommended target levels. PHGs are not required to be met by any public water systems. MCLGs are set by USEPA and are levels of contaminants in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to public health. PHGs and MCLGs are not water quality standards and are not enforceable by state regulators or the USEPA. They are goals identifying extremely small risks. These risks are normally assessed where one person in one million would be at risk based on risk assessments made using assumptions and theoretical extrapolations.

Drinking water standards are also referenced as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).

MCLs are the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. They are set as close to MCLGs and PHGs as are economically and technically feasible. MCLs are enforceable water quality standards that public water systems must meet. Beverly Hills’ drinking water supply complies with all Federal and State drinking water standards.

The attached document, titled “City of Beverly Hills Public Health Goals Report,” has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code §116470. This report is based on water quality data sampled from the City’s imported water supply provided by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Beverly Hills Foothill Water Treatment Plant and distribution system taken in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The water quality of the City of Beverly Hills’ water system complies with all of the healthbased drinking water standards established by the SWRCB and USEPA. All detected contaminants in the City’s water supply are below the applicable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) set by these regulatory agencies. The full report is available for public review online at https://beverlyhills.org/1021/Public-Health-Goal-ReportsI and printed copies were made available at the Beverly Hills Public Library on May 30, 2025.

Community Engagement
On May 8, 2025, the Public Works Commission approved a recommendation for City Council to approve the City of Beverly Hills Public Health Goals Report. Public notice of the scheduled City Council public hearing was published on June 5, 2025, in the Beverly Hills Weekly and on June 6, 2025, in the Beverly Hills Courier. In addition to developing this triannual Water Quality Public Health Goals Report, the City also provides an Annual Water Quality Report known as the Consumer Confidence Report, which provides detailed water quality information for each calendar year. A notification card is mailed to all customers by July 1st each year, providing information on the report’s availability along with a link to the online version, available at:
https://www.beverlyhills.org/1019/Consumer-Confidence-Reports Repo

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report has no fiscal/budgetary impact.

Shana Epstein,
Director of Public Works
Approved By
Attachment 1
City of Beverly Hills Water Utilities Bureau
Public Health Goals Report
Reported by Jason W. Dyogi – Water Quality Specialist
April 29, 2025
Background
Every three years, the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Act of 1996 requires all public water systems in California to prepare a Public Health Goals (PHGs) Report that have more than 10,000 services connections. This reporting requirement is unique to California. For this reporting period, water quality data has been compiled from both the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the City of Beverly Hills Water Utility Bureau. PHGs are non-enforceable goals established by California Environmental Protection Agency’s O3ice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The PHG Report must contain information of all contaminants that were detected above the PHGs published by the OEHHA. Additionally, for contaminants not covered by OEHHA, this report must also list any detections above the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) set by United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). This report must be completed no later than July 1, 2025. A public hearing should be held afterward to accept and respond to public comments, and for the governing board or city council to formally accept the report.

What are Public Health Goals (PHGs)?
PHGs are non-enforceable and not legally required to be met by any public water system. They are developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal EPA) O3ice of Environmental Health Hazard (OEHHA) and represent health-based contaminant level goals set below the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Their purpose is to inform consumers of potential health risks associated with the presence of certain contaminants even when found at levels below regulatory limits. The determination of health risk at these low levels is theoretical and based on risk assessments that involve multiple assumptions and mathematical extrapolations.

In contracts, MCLs are established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB - DDW). These limits are set at very conservative levels to protect public health and are designed to guard against all but negligible risk.

It is important to note that PHGs does not consider the availability of analytical test methods, detection capabilities, feasible treatment technology, or associated costs. They serve solely as ideal health targets, rather than practical regulatory standards. By law, OEHHA cannot set a PHG at zero and must calculate a numerical level to address risk, even though it may be unattainable or impossible to measure. 2 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Water Quality Data Considered
The water quality data in this report are based upon samples collected during the calendar years 2022, 2023 and 2024. These same annual results were also previously published on or before July 1st in the City of Beverly Hills’ annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), which were made available to all of our customers and posted online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1019/Consumer-Confidence-Reports Most contaminants tested were reported as Not Detected (ND) and are not generally listed individually in the annual Consumer Confidence Reports. In state accredited laboratory terms, “non-detect” generally means the contaminant was truly absent or that it was at a concentration below the Detection Level for Reporting (DLR). The DLR is the minimum concentration at which any contaminant must be report to the SWRCB – DDW whenever it is detected during required monitoring.

Contaminants Detected that Exceed a PHG or a MCLG
The following is a list of contaminants detected in the City of Beverly Hills' water system, including sources such as imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City’s Water Treatment Plant, distribution system monitoring stations, and customer taps. These contaminants were detected at levels exceeding the applicable Public Health Goals (PHGs) or Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs).

Summary Table of Detected Contaminants
PHG or State State Range of
Contaminant Units MCLG DLR MCL Results
Total Coliform • MCLG=0 NA 5 ND-1.1
Arsenic ppb 0.004 2 10 ND-24
Gross Ai ha n MCLG=0 3 15 ND 5.3
Gross Beta nt MCLG=0 4 50 ND 7.0
Combined Radium pCL MCLG=0 2 5 ND 2.3
Strontium nt 0.35 2 8 ND 1.1
Uranium pCL 0.43 1 20 ND 3.0
Bromate ppb 0.1 1 10 ND 15
Chromium IV 0.02 0.1 10 ND-0.2
Lead (90th Percentile Value) ppb 0.2 5 AL+15 0.7.3.9
Metropolitan's Jensen and Weymouth Plant Efuent Monitoring-Byproduct of oz0nation treatment Metropolitan is in compliance. Compliance is determined by a tunning a.al average 0f sampling IOghot the year tor oonating water treatment plants
Lead ad Copper Rule Monitoring at residential customer faucets. pCt picoCures per biter
ppb parts per b#ion
DLR detection grit tor reporting
MCi radrum contamination level
MCLGmamum contaminant goal
Ge pubic health goat
NA not applicable
Al acon trrut
3 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Health Risks for Detected Contaminants that Exceed a PHG or MCLG The California Health and Safety Code (Section 116470(b)(2)) requires public water systems to disclose the numerical public health risks for contaminants that have an established Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), Action Level (AL), Public Health Goal (PHG), or Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). The PHG numerical limits for each listed contaminant were developed by the O3ice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). For contaminants without an established PHG, the applicable MCLG, set by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), was used.

1. Total Coliform has a MCL of 5% positive samples of all samples per month and the MCLG is zero.

The reason for the coliform drinking water standard is to minimize the possibility of water containing pathogens which are organisms that cause waterborne disease. Coliform is only a surrogate indicator of the potential presence of pathogens, it is not possible to state a specific numerical health risk. While USEPA normally sets MCLGs “at a level where no known or anticipated adverse e3ects on persons would occur”, they indicate that they cannot do so with coliforms. Coliforms bacteria are an indicator organism that are ubiquitous in nature and are not generally considered harmful. They are used because of the ease in monitoring and analysis. If a positive sample is found, it indicates a potential problem that needs to be investigated with required follow up sampling needed. It is not uncommon for a system to have an occasional positive sample. It is di3icult, if not impossible, to assure that a system will not get a positive sample.

2. Arsenic is a semi-metal that can enter drinking water through natural deposits in the earth or from industrial and agricultural activities. Long-term consumption of water containing arsenic above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) may cause skin damage, circulatory system issues, and an increased risk of cancer, as arsenic is classified as a carcinogen. The health risk associated with arsenic exposure at levels above the MCL is estimated at 2.5 x 10⁻³, meaning approximately 2.5 additional cases of cancer per 1,000 people consuming the water over a lifetime.

Although arsenic levels in the City’s water supply remain below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), concentrations have been detected above the Public Health Goal (PHG) at both the Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) and the City’s water treatment plant e3luents. The city currently employs reverse osmosis, while MWD utilizes ion exchange and reverse osmosis.

Achieving arsenic concentrations below the PHG would require additional advanced treatment technologies, such as reverse osmosis, ion exchange, granular ferric oxide, or coagulation/filtration.

For the City’s system specifically, the Best Available Technology (BAT) would be ion exchange. The estimated capital and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for implementing ion exchange are projected to range from $0.67 to $9.59 per 1,000 gallons. These advanced processes would require a larger physical footprint, potentially necessitating land acquisition and infrastructure expansion.
4 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025

3. Gross Alpha Particle Activity has a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero. This contaminant originates from the natural erosion of mineral deposits. Individuals who consume water containing alpha emitters at levels exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 15 pCi/L over many years may face an increased risk of developing cancer.

The associated health risk for gross alpha particles is estimated at 1 × 10⁻³, meaning there is a potential for one additional cancer case per 1,000 people who drink water above the MCL over a lifetime. While there is no Public Health Goal (PHG) established for gross alpha, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has set the MCLG at zero to reflect the ideal healthbased target.

The City of Beverly Hills Water Treatment Plant currently utilizes two-stage reverse osmosis (RO) technology. Further reducing radiological contaminants to meet or fall below the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) would require the implementation of additional advanced treatment processes such as multi-stage reverse osmosis, ion exchange, or coagulation/filtration methods. These upgrades would substantially increase treatment costs, which would ultimately be reflected in higher customer water bills. According to cost estimates from the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), treatment costs range from approximately $2.04 to $8.04 per 1,000 gallons for reverse osmosis, $0.67 to $9.59 per 1,000 gallons for ion exchange, and $0.50 to $1.12 per 1,000 gallons for coagulation/filtration methods. Additionally, these advanced processes would require a larger physical footprint, potentially necessitating land acquisition and infrastructure expansion.

4. Gross Beta Particle Activity has an MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) of zero. This contaminant originates from the decay of both natural and human-made deposits. Individuals who consume water containing gross beta particles in excess of the MCL (50 pCi/L) over many years may have an increased risk of developing cancer. The cancer risk associated with gross beta particle exposure is estimated at 2 × 10⁻³, meaning two additional cases of cancer per 1,000 people drinking water above the MCL over a lifetime. Although there is no Public Health Goal (PHG) established for gross beta particle activity, an MCLG of zero has been adopted.

The City of Beverly Hills Water Treatment Plant currently utilizes two-stage reverse osmosis (RO) technology. Further reducing radiological contaminants to meet or fall below the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) would require the implementation of additional advanced treatment processes such as multi-stage reverse osmosis, ion exchange, or coagulation/filtration methods. These upgrades would substantially increase treatment costs, which would ultimately be reflected in higher customer water bills. According to cost estimates from the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), treatment costs range from approximately $2.04 to $8.04 per 1,000 gallons for reverse osmosis, $0.67 to $9.59 per 1,000 gallons for ion exchange, and $0.50 to $1.12 per 1,000 gallons for coagulation/filtration methods. If the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) were to implement RO treatment to achieve MCLG levels, the annualized capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs would range between $374 million and $716 million per year.

Additionally, these advanced processes would require a larger physical footprint, potentially necessitating land acquisition and infrastructure expansion.

5. Uranium has a Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.43 pCi/L. The source of this contaminant is the erosion of natural deposits. Exposure to uranium in drinking water can cause toxic e3ects on the kidneys. Additionally, individuals who consume water containing alpha emitters, such as uranium, 5 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
in excess of the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) over many years may face an increased risk of developing cancer. The estimated cancer risk associated with uranium levels exceeding the MCL of 20 pCi/L is 5 × 10⁻⁵, or five additional cancer cases per 100,000 people drinking water above the MCL over a lifetime. In comparison, the cancer risk at the PHG level of 0.43 pCi/L is 1 × 10⁻⁶, or one additional cancer case per one million people drinking water above the PHG over a lifetime.

The City of Beverly Hills Water Treatment Plant currently utilizes two-stage reverse osmosis (RO) technology. Further reducing radiological contaminants to meet or fall below the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) would require the implementation of additional advanced treatment processes such as multi-stage reverse osmosis, ion exchange, or coagulation/filtration methods. These upgrades would substantially increase treatment costs, which would ultimately be reflected in higher customer water bills. According to cost estimates from the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), treatment costs range from approximately $2.04 to $8.04 per 1,000 gallons for reverse osmosis, $0.67 to $9.59 per 1,000 gallons for ion exchange, and $0.50 to $1.12 per 1,000 gallons for coagulation/filtration methods. If the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) were to implement RO treatment to achieve MCLG levels, the annualized capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs would range between $374 million and $716 million per year.

Additionally, these advanced processes would require a larger physical footprint, potentially necessitating land acquisition and infrastructure expansion.

6. Combined Radium 226 and 228 are naturally occurring radioactive compounds found in groundwater as a result of the erosion of natural deposits. The cancer risk associated with radium 226 is estimated at 1×10⁻⁶, or one additional cancer case per one million people consuming water above the Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.05 pCi/L over a lifetime. Similarly, radium 228 presents a cancer risk of 1×10⁻⁶ at concentrations exceeding its PHG of 0.019 pCi/L.

Although there is no separate Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for each isotope, the combined MCL for Radium 226 and 228 is 5 pCi/L, with a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero.

The combined cancer risk from consuming water with radium levels above the MCL over a lifetime is 3×10⁻⁴, or three additional cancer cases per ten thousand people.

7. Bromate has a Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.1 parts per billion (ppb). It is a disinfection byproduct formed during the ozonation of drinking water. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), there is no direct epidemiological evidence linking long-term human exposure to bromate compounds with non-cancer or carcinogenic health effects. However, the U.S. 6 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that long-term exposure to bromate levels above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) may increase the risk of cancer.

One of the most effective Best Available Technologies (BATs) for reducing bromate is optimizing the ozonation treatment process. In the City of Beverly Hills, bromate originates from treated imported water supplied by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Reducing bromate levels to meet PHG or Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) targets is not considered feasible. Based on cost estimates provided by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), ozonation treatment to reduce bromate would cost approximately $0.14 to $0.91 per 1,000 gallons of water. Additionally, these advanced processes would require a larger physical footprint, potentially necessitating land acquisition and infrastructure expansion.

8. Strontium-90 has a Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.35 pCi/L. The associated cancer risk is estimated at 1×10⁻⁶, or one additional cancer case per one million people consuming water above the PHG over a lifetime. Strontium-90 primarily enters groundwater through fallout from historical nuclear weapons testing and releases from nuclear accidents. It is a byproduct of nuclear fission, particularly from the decay of uranium and plutonium.

9. Hexavalent chromium has a Public Health Goal (PHG) of 0.02 μg/L. This heavy metal is found both as a naturally occurring element and as a byproduct of industrial processes. While chromium in its trivalent form (Chromium-3) is relatively non-toxic and even essential in trace amounts, hexavalent chromium (Chromium-6) is known to be toxic and carcinogenic. It has been linked to liver toxicity and an increased risk of cancer when present in drinking water above the PHG.

The estimated cancer risk at the PHG level of 0.02 μg/L is 1 × 10⁻⁶, or one additional cancer case per one million people exposed to water at or above this level over a lifetime. For the City’s system specifically, the Best Available Technology (BAT) would be ion exchange. The estimated capital and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for implementing ion exchange are projected to range from $0.67 to $9.59 per 1,000 gallons. Additionally, these advanced processes would require a larger physical footprint, potentially necessitating land acquisition and infrastructure expansion.

10. Lead does not have a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL); instead, regulatory compliance is based on the 90th percentile value of all samples collected from household taps, which must not exceed the Action Level of 0.015 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The California Public Health Goal (PHG) for lead is significantly lower, at 0.002 mg/L.
7 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
The primary sources of lead in drinking water include the internal corrosion of household plumbing systems, industrial discharges, and the natural erosion of deposits containing lead. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), prolonged exposure to elevated levels of lead can result in a variety of serious non-carcinogenic health effects. These include neurological damage (such as reduced IQ in children), elevated blood pressure in adults, and adverse impacts on the kidneys, reproductive system, immune system, and musculoskeletal health.

In the City of Beverly Hills, lead has not been detected in water from the Water Treatment Plant, the municipal distribution system, or water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The City’s water system is fully compliant with both federal and state Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) regulations. However, trace amounts of lead were detected in a small number of residential homes during required LCR monitoring, which assesses water quality at consumers’ taps.

Extensive sampling has confirmed that the City remains below the Action Level for lead, and as a result, the California Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has determined that Beverly Hills has achieved “optimized corrosion control” for its water system.

Optimized corrosion control is considered the best available technology for managing lead and copper in drinking water. The City continuously monitors water quality parameters that affect corrosivity—such as pH, hardness, alkalinity, and total dissolved solids—and will take corrective action if necessary to maintain optimal conditions.

It is important to note that replacing lead-containing plumbing within private properties can be expensive. Based on public estimates, replacing aging pipes in a typical 1,500-square-foot, twobathroom home can cost between $4,000 and $10,000 and may involve opening walls and floors to access internal piping.
8 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Best Available Technology (BAT) and Cost Estimates
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Division of Drinking Water (DDW) have identified Best Available Technologies (BATs) as the most effective methods for reducing contaminant levels in drinking water. As required by law, this report includes cost estimates for implementing BATs that could reduce specific constituents to their respective Public Health Goals (PHGs) or Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs).

However, it is not always technically or economically feasible to determine the precise treatment needed to achieve PHG or MCLG levels. Many PHGs and MCLGs are set well below the Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting (DLR), making it difficult, sometimes impossible, to verify through existing analytical methods whether contaminants have been reduced to such low levels. Additionally, attempting to reduce a contaminant to its PHG or MCLG may have unintended consequences on overall water quality or interfere with other treatment processes.

While many of the constituents detected above PHG levels in the City’s water system can be treated using multiple BATs, this report only includes technologies that are capable of addressing several contaminants simultaneously and are appropriate for large public water systems. It should be noted that even with the use of BATs, achieving PHG or MCLG levels may still not be possible, and the associated costs may be significantly higher than the estimates provided.

The cost estimates presented in this report are based on the following assumptions:
 Guidelines published by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) for BAT cost projections;
 A worst-case scenario, assuming no existing treatment infrastructure is in place;  The design capacity of each well containing constituents above the PHG or DLR, with costs calculated by multiplying the annualized capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs per 1,000 gallons of water;
 Total cost estimates are divided by the number of customers served by the City to provide a per capita cost estimate.

Recommendations for Further Action
The City of Beverly Hills Water Utilities Bureau’s drinking water continues to meet all regulatory standards set by the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB DDW) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to protect public health. All contaminants identified in this report remain below their respective Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as a result of effective treatment or strategic blending practices.

The City of Beverly Hills currently utilizes a highly e3icient two-stage reverse osmosis system, combined with oxidizing media filtration and cartridge filtration. In contrast, the Metropolitan Water District employs sedimentation, coagulation, filtration, and advanced oxidation processes for water treatment. Further reducing these constituents to meet Public Health Goals (PHGs) or Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 9 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
(MCLGs) would require the implementation of additional advanced treatment technologies. These upgrades would also demand a larger physical footprint, potentially requiring land acquisition and expansion of existing infrastructure. As a result, the associated capital and operational costs would significantly increase, ultimately leading to higher water bills for customers. In some cases, existing analytical methods are not sensitive enough to confirm reductions to PHG or MCLG levels. Moreover, attempting to reduce certain constituents beyond current treatment levels could unintentionally compromise other water quality parameters.

Given that the potential health benefits of achieving such reductions are unquantifiable and speculative, no additional actions are recommended at this time.

For Additional Information
Please contact Mr. Jason W. Dyogi, Water Quality Specialist at (310) 285-1000 or write to City of Beverly Hills Public Works Department, 345 Foothill Road, Beverly Hills, California 90210.

Exhibits
No. 1 Excerpts from California Health & Safety Code: Section 116470 (b) No. 2 Table of California Regulated Constituents with MCLs and PHGs No. 3 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports. Prepared by the O3ice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. February 2022
No. 4 Description of Cost Estimating Methodology for this PHG Report No. 5 City of Beverly Hills’ Consumer Confidence Reports – 2022, 2023, 2024 (available July 1st, 2025) 10 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
EXHIBIT 1

EXCERPTS FROM CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
SECTION 116470 (b)
(b) On or before July 1, 1998, and every three years thereafter, public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections that detect one or more contaminants in drinking water that exceed the applicable public health goal, shall prepare a brief written report in plain language that does all of the following:
(1) Identifies each contaminant detected in drinking water that exceeds the applicable public health goal. (2) Discloses the numerical public health risk, determined by the o3ice, associated with the maximum contaminant level for each contaminant identified in paragraph (1) and the numerical public health risk determined by the o3ice associated with the public health goal for that contaminant. (3) Identifies the category of risk to public health, including, but not limited to, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and acute toxicity, associated with exposure to the contaminant in drinking water, and includes a brief plainly worded description of these terms. (4) Describes the best available technology, if any is then available on a commercial basis, to remove the contaminant or reduce the concentration of the contaminant. The public water system may, solely at its own discretion, briefly describe actions that have been taken on its own, or by other entities, to prevent the introduction of the contaminant into drinking water supplies. (5) Estimates the aggregate cost and the cost per customer of utilizing the technology described in paragraph (4), if any, to reduce the concentration of that contaminant in drinking water to a level at or below the public health goal.
(6) Briefly describes what action, if any, the local water purveyor intends to take to reduce the concentration of the contaminant in public drinking water supplies and the basis for that decision. (c) Public water systems required to prepare a report pursuant to subdivision (b) shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report. Public water systems may hold the public hearing as part of any regularly scheduled meeting. (d) The department shall not require a public water system to take any action to reduce or eliminate any exceedance of a public health goal.
(e) Enforcement of this section does not require the department to amend a public water system’s operating permit.
(f) Pending adoption of a public health goal by the O3ice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 116365, and in lieu thereof, public water systems shall use the national maximum contaminant level goal adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 11 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
for the corresponding contaminant for purposes of complying with the notice and hearing requirements of this section.

EXHIBIT 2
TABLE OF CALIFORNIA REGULATED CONSTITUENTS WITH MCLs AND PHGs 12 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants Last Update November 2024
The table includes
California's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
Detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLs)
Public health oals (PHGs) from the
The PHGe foe NDMA PFOA n4 PFOS (which are not yet regulated in California) are included at the bottom of tis table
The Federal MCL foe PFOA an4 PFOS are also listed at the end of this table Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/l) unless otherwise noted Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR $64431 Inorganic Chemicals Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date f HG
Aluminum 1 0.05 0.6 2001
Antimony 0.006 0.006 0.001 2016
Arsenic 0.010 0.002 0.000004 2004
Asbestos (MFL million fibers per liter, for fibers 7MFL 0.2MFL 7MFL 2003 »10microns lone)
Barium ' 0.1 2 2003
Beryllium 0.004 0.001 0.001 2003
Cadmium 0.005 0.001 0.00004 2006
Chromium, Total 0.05 0.01 withdrawn 1999
No.200
Chromium, exvalent 0.01 0.0001 0.00002 2011
Cyanide 0.15 0.1 0.15 1997
Fluoride 2 0.1 ' 1997
Mercury (no anic) 0.002 0.001 0.0012 1999(ee2005)
Nickel 01 0.01 0.012 2001
Nitrate (as nitrogen NJ 10as N 0.4 45as NO3 2018
(10as N)
Nitrite (as N) las N 0.4 las N 2018
Nitrate Nitrite (as N) 10as N - 10as N 2018
Perchlorate 0.006 0.004 0.001 2015
Selemur 0.05 0.005 0.03 2010
Thallium 0.002 0.001 0.0001 1999(re2004)
13 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR 564441 and 564443 - Radioactivity Units are picoturies per liter (pC/l) unless otherwise stated; n/a not applicable Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG
Gross alpha particle activity OEHHA concluded in 15 3 none n/a 2003 tat a PHG was notpractical
Gross beta particle activity OEHHA concluded in deer/yr 4 none n/a 2003that a PHG was notpractical
Radium-226 . ' 0.05 2006
Radium-228 . ' 0.019 2006
Radium-22 Radium-228 5 . .. .

Strontium-0 8 2 0.35 2006
tum 20,000 1,000 400 2006
Lrarun 20 ' 0.43 2001
14 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR 664444 - Organic Chemicals (a) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG
Benzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 2001
Carbon tetrachloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 2000
12Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.0005 0.6 1997(rev2009)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) 0.005 0.0005 0.006 1997
1,1-Dichloroethare(1,1-0CA) 0.005 0.0005 0.003 2003
1,2-Dichloroethare (1,2-0CA) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 1999(e2005) 1,-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 0.006 0.0005 0.01 1999
Ci-1,2-Dichloroeth fe 0.006 0.0005 0.013 2018
Tran1,2-Dichloroet lene 0.01 0.0005 0.05 2018
Dichloromethan (Methylene chloride) 0.005 0.0005 0.004 2000 ,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 1999
,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 1999 (e2006)
Eth/benzene 0.3 0.0005 0.3 1997
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) 0.013 0.003 0.013 1999 Monochlorobenene 0.07 0.0005 0.07 2014
Styrene 0. 0.0005 0.0005 2010
,1,22Tetrachloroethane 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2003
Tetrachloroet ten (PCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.00006 2001
Toluene 0.15 0.0005 0.15 1999
,24Trichlorobenene 0.005 0.0005 0.005 1999
1,1,1Trichloroethane(1,1,1TCA) 0.2 0.0005 1 2006
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.0003 2006 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.0017 2009
chlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 0.15 0.005 1.3 2014
12Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113) 1.2 0.01 4 1997(r62011) Vinyl chloricde 0.0005 0.0005 0.00005 2000
Kvlenes 175 0.0005 18 1997
15 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
(b) Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)
Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PH Date of PHG
Alachlof 0.002 0.001 0.004 1997
Atrain 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 1999
Bentaon 0.018 0.002 0.2 1999(re2009)
Benokalpyren 0.0002 0.0001 0.000007 2010
Carbofuran 0.018 0.005 0.0007 2016
Chlordane 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 1997(+e2006)
Dalapon 0.2 0.01 0.79 1997(re2009)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 0.0000 0.000003 2020 24-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2 4-DJ 0.07 0.01 0.02 2009 Di(2-eth h ' e 0.4 0.005 0.2 2003
Di(2-eth ) phthalate (DEHP') 0.004 0.003 0.012 1997
Dinoseb 0.007 0.002 0.014 1997(re2010)
Diquart 0.02 0.004 0.006 2016
Endothal 0. 0.045 0.094 2014
Endrin 0.002 0.0001 0.0003 2016
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 2003
Glyphosate 0.7 0.025 0.9 2007
le ptachlor 0.0000 0.00001 0.000008 1999
he achlor epoide 0.00001 0.0000 0.000006 1999
Hexachloroberene 0.001 0.0005 0.00003 2003
Hexachlot tahene 0.05 0.001 0.002 2014
Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.000032 1999(re2005)
Methoxychlor 0.03 0.01 0.00009 2010
Molin.ate 0.02 0.002 0.001 2008
Omyl 0.05 0.02 0.026 2009
Pentachlorophenol 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 2009
eloramn 0.5 0.001 0.166 201%
Poly.chlorinated biphenyl4 (PCBs) 0.0005 0.0005 0.00009 2007 Sirnaine 0.004 0.001 0.004 2001
Thiobencarb 0.07 0.001 0.042 2016
Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 0.0000.3 2003
123Tchloropropane 0 000005 0.000005 0.0000007 2009
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 310 510 510 2010
24,5-1P (Sivex 0.05 0.001 0.003 2014
16 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Copper and Lead, 22 CCR $64672.3
Values referred to as MCI for lead and copper are not actually MCLs; instead, they arecalled Action Levels" under the lead and copper rule
lH%\il·hlrH11ii,
1 copper
i:i
'> 10os93 [z
· •
oo
i\l
s
■i-a:1•�"
·
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR 664533 - Disinfection Byproducts Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG
Tota Trihalomethanes 0.080 - - ..
geomnodichloronethane .. 0.0010 0.00006 2020
Broroform .. 0.0010 0.0005 2020
Chloroform .. 0.0010 0.0004 2020
Dibworochloromethane .. 0.0010 0.0001 2020
Haloacetic Acids (fwe) (HAAS) 0.060 - - ..

Monochloroacetic Acid .. 0.0020 .. ..

Dichloroacetic Adic .. 00010 - ..

Trichloroacetic Acid .. 0.0010 .. ..

Meo»obrornoacetic Acid .. 0.0010 - ..

Dibroroacetic Acid .. 0.0010 .. ..
georate 0.010 0 0050 .. 0.0001 2009
Chlorite 1.0 0020 0.05 2009
p Dufour Brom.ate % 0.0010 mg/L for analysis performed using£PA Method 3170Revision 20,321.8,0r 326.0 Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants.

Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG
NNarosodirnethylarnine (NDMA) - .. 0.000003 2006
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA} - .. 0.0000000 2024
Perfluorooctane sufoiic acid (pros - .. 0.0000OT 2024
PFOA ad FOS hav US EPA MCLG+ and MCLs
FOA -MCLG is zero. MCL is4 ngl
FOS -MCLG is zr.MCL i 4 ngl
17 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
EXHIBIT 3

HEALTH RISK INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL

EXCEEDANCE REPORTS

PREPARED BY OEHHA
FEBRUARY 2025
18 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
0IE Or ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Public Health Goals
Health Risk Information
for Public Health Goal
Exceedance Reports
February 2025
Pesticide and Environnental Toxicology Bach
O#fee of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection A8ency
19 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Health Risk Information for
Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports
Prepared by
office of Environmental Health llaardAssessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
February 2025
for the 202 feport New in this document are newly established Public Health Goals(HG« for per fluorooctanoic acit (FOA) per fluorooctane sulfonic a0i (DfOsl and five haloacetic acids monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid trichloroacetic acid, monobroroacetic acid,and dibrornoacetic acid Background: Under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), public water systerns with more tha 1000service connections are equired top/pare a eport every three years tor contaminants that exceed their respective pi4Ge 'Thie document contains health risk information on drinking water containatsto assist public water systems in preparing these reports A p4is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant heath risk if consumed for a lifetime p4Ge are developed and published byte Office of Environmental Health /Hazard Assessment (OH4A)using Current risk assessment principles, practices and methods.

The water systems report is equired to identify the health risk category (e.g carcinogenicity or neurotoxicity)associated with exposure to each contaminant in drinking water that has g pend to include a brief, plainly worded description of these risks There port is also required to disclose the numerical public health risk, f available, associated with the California Maoorumn Contaminant Level (MCL) and wt the 4G4or each contaminant The health risk information document is prepared b OH4A every three years to assist the water systerns in providing the required information in their reports
heat ad Safety Code Section 164704b
ethandSafey Code Decioe 116.36.5
Office of Environmental lea/th Pia#Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 20.25 3
20 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Numerical health risks: Table ! presents health risk categories and cancer risk values for chemical contaminants in drinking water that hare 4Ge The Act requires that OEHHA publish HGs based on health risk assessments using the most current scientific methods.As defied in statute 4Ge for nor-carcinogonic chemicals in drinking water are set at aconcentration at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safetFr carcinogens p4Ge are set at a concentration that does not pose any significant tis.k to heap44Ge provide one basis for revising MCLs, along with cost and techo logical feasibility. OEHHA has been publishing P4Gs since 1997 and the entire list published to date is shown in Table f
Tole presents health risk information for contaminants that do not have 9Ge but have state or federal regulatory standard« The Act requires that, for chemical contaminants with California MCLs that do not et have pie, water utilities use the federal Marum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for the purpose of complylg with the requirement of public notification, MCLGs, like P4Gs, are strictly health based and include a margin of safety. One difference, however,is that the 44CL6.s for carcinogens are set at zero because the LS £irornent4 Detection Agency (us£DA)assures there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to such chemicals pi4Ge on the other had,are set at a level considered to pose no Significant is.k of cancer this is usually no hoe tha a oner-one-million excess canoe ti94 (1106) level fora lifetime of exposure. In Table ? the cancer is.ks shown are based on the US EPA's evaluations
For more information on health risks The adverse health effects for each chen ical with pi4Gare surnarieding pH(technical support document The documents are available on the OEHHA website (https//oehha 0a.gov/water/publichealth-goals aha Ofee of Environmental lea/th/laaAssessment
Water Toi00logy Scion
February 20.25 2
21 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cance
Chemical Health Risk Category HG isat MCL Risk at the
(mo/' the pg (mg/L California
MCL
Alachlor 0ar00o9OMO'y 0.004 NA56 0.002 NA
(0ates ca0e)
Aluminum neurotoioy a0 06 NA ' NA
ounotoity
(harms the nervous and
irnrnunesystems)
oticone hepatoto0City 0.001 NA 0.006 NA
(harms the liver)
Aneni Car0DO9OOy 0000004 1e1 0.01 2510
[0ates caCe) (410 (one per (2.5 per
million thousand
A±bolo Oaf ON • Moy 7L' pet0 7L 1e10
(0ates caCe) (fibers»p (fibers 10 (one per
fr0n4 cons i miion)
length) length)
Atra.e Oaf ON • icity 0.00015 pet 0.001 et0
(0ates ca0e (seven pof
miion)
Bacur cardiovascular to6ii 2 NA ' NA
(causes high blood
pressure)
a040e4if4Gehl$000/7000400000000$00./.Th art
hard traits deed by 0eAlo Caloriars osics in#or Clearingh ae tooleatb.ah bat l 15.l.%k lg.Alec011912..0
eolian perter of wet,equivalent4parts pe en./ppm%
C84Laper boo79000%00.00a00r0. ho00l.h00800008.Ah0.a0000.ab 0er0r 110080 0000080.a000.a04l07000400
4Laa%-000a00.%l
n0a0lC00i0.a004he 0a
heft6foe al0hob0010804000000.a0000900a0040al0l0a4040
bro0a04.90.h0.a00.a00040i0.880p0000000800000al0
fLen.io6prier0w.a
Office of Environmnental Meath laad Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 3
22 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values fr Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemic.al Health Risk Category PG Risk'at MCL Risk at the (mg the PG tog/) California
MC
Ben0tacon hepatotoicity ad 0.2 NA 0.01% NA
gestivsystem
toxicity (hams the liver
intestine, and0a0OS
body weight effects)
Benzene Car0I0O9My 0.00015 pet0 0.001 710
(Causesleuei) (seven po
miion
Beno[alyrene 0arOOOgenii/ty 0.000007 1+10 0.0002 310
(0a6an0er) (+10 (three per
hundred
thousand
Benilium sv8stem toicity 0.001 NA 0.004 NA
(harms the stomach or
intestine)
Brocade car0Io9ni0illy (0aO 0.0001 pet0 0.01 10
cane) (one
per ten
thousand'
Cadman nephrotoooiy (ham. 0.00004 NA 0.005 NA
the kidney)
factor.an @productive toxicity 0.0007 NA 0.018 NA
(harms the testis)
Gatton car0Io9icity (0a0OS 0.0001 p+10 0.0005 510
tetrachloride cane) (five pet
miion
Office of Environmental teath ta.ardAsssme t
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 4
23 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Cherie.a Health Risk Category HG Riskat MCL Risk at the (mo/ the pg (mg/ California
CL
Chlordane Car0IO9OMO 0.0000.3 f 0 0.0001 3+10
(0au6Scan0er) (three per
million)
Chloe hematotooicity 0.05 NA f NA
(0a0es anemia)
neurotoOy
(ea net0bhi04%l
effects)
Chromic car0IO96DOY 0.00002 pe10 0.010 510(fve
beasalient (0a0ca0er) per ten
thousand
Cooper 0give#ystem 0.3 NA 1.304 NA
too ly(0a880.a0./.
vomiting diarrhea)
Cyanide neuroto0city 0.15 NA 0.15 NA
(da0nag6 nerves)
endocrine toxicity (affects
the thyroid)
Dada0on nephvotoooity 0.79 NA 0.2 NA
(harms the kidney)
Di2eththeot developmental toxicity 0.2 NA 0.4 NA
adiate (DE±A (dis.rps development)
2470.%% Car'0IO96OMO 0.012 pet0 0.004 3+10°
(0a0es Ca0er) (three per
ten miion)
ALabo.Th800i080/00pp60a0484fl00000000080000080/6at0lap.uh0 le0opp adlidirking wet is de fron hou hold plumbing(leldaCopper4 % 22Calton Cod of Regula ' [CCR]scion 646723%
Ole of Environmental leathlaard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025
24 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
California Caneer California Cancer
Chemic.al Health #Rik Category PG Risi'at MCL Risk at the (mg/l' the pHG (mg) California
MCL
##tee 0a0no9OMO'y 0.00000.3 et0 0.0002 7e10
#9" (0aes canoe) (3010) (seven po
hundred
thous.and)

1.2. Di.hloco-banana hepatot0city 0.6 NA 0.6 NA
lo-0CB (harms the liver)
L4Dichloro-benzene carcinogenicity 0.006 De10 0.005 810 Lo.DE (0a0 0a0CO) (eight per
ten mion)

1.1Do.hioro-ethane carcinogenicity 0.003 et0 0.005 2et0 LL.1-0CA (0ae0ah0e) (two Def
mi.ion
12-Dichloro-ethane Caro0O9OOfy 0.0004 pet0 0.0005 fe10
(12-0CA (causes cancer) (one pf
mnilion)
[9keen hep too0lily 0.01 NA 0.006 NA
(harms the liver)

1.2-Di.hlono-alt/dens 0tphrotoo0y 0.013 NA 0.006 NA
0I (hams the kidney)

1.2-0ichloro-ethylene noun0too 0.05 NA 0.01 NA
trans (harms the immune
system)
[223% Car00O9MOY 0.004 et0 0.005 f 0 (0a6can0e) (one pOf million
Office of Environmental leath laad Ase.men
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 6
25 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemical Heath Risk Category pG is'at MCL Risk at the
(mg/t)' the pHG (mg/) California
MC
a 240ibike- hep.a00000/ya 0.02 NA 0.07 NA
nephvotoity
(harms the liver ad
kidney)
2Diehl4- caret «e Morty 0.0005 110 0.005 110
aoaoe aoodone (0a6 0ah0e) (one DO
diciooda hundred
thousand
e...o» 0a0oOOy 0.0002 110 0.0005 210
(0a0Can0e) (two pf
mion
Loosest 'productive toxicity 0.014 NA 0.007 NA
(harms the utenu and
testis
oat ocular to0City 0.006 NA 0.02 NA
(harms the eye)
dew lopent.al to0icily
• matommatori
Eada±hall estivesystern toxicity 0.094 NA 0. NA
(harms the stomach or
intestine)
Endo hero0to00t 0.000.3 NA 0.002 NA
(0ass convulsion)
hep»tot.o y
(harms the liver)
Ethbeene hepatotoooity 0.3 NA 0.3 NA
iphemlethane (harms the liver)
% carcinogenicity 0.00001 et9 0.00005 510
(0a0can0e) (five pet
million
Office of Environmental ieath taard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 '
26 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemic.al Heath Risk Category pG iskat MCL Risk at the
to9/l the p4 (mg/t) California
MCL
fluoride musculoskeletal toooif ' NA 2 NA
(0a0s tooth moing
Glyphosate nephrotoity 0.9 NA 0.7 NA
(harms the kidney
iaboa.000a.4h 0a0oo9icily 0.0000.3 1+10 0.06 2et0
diroooas.etc.as.d (Causes CaCe) (two pot
thousand)
Hai0a.etc.as.ds Caro9OMO'y 0.0002 pet0 0.06° 3+10
dicocoa.cc.ac.d (Cause$ 0aCO) (three per
ten
thous.and
ialoacetic.ac.ids mutuoskelet.al toity 0.025 NA 0.06 NA monobrooo (0ates mu
a.0.al de900ea0i01)
iaboa.0Ga. general toxicity (0a0es 0.053 NA 0.06 NA
monos.bore body and organ
acetic. acid weigh.tchages)
ialoacoho.a.h 0a0IO9Oy 0.0001 De10 0.06 6+10
tac.hloooas.etc.as.d (Causes caCe) (8 per ten
thousand)
hHeptachlor 0a00o96OMO 0.000008 pet0 0.00001 e10
(0as0aCe) (8+10) (one pf
mion)
Porto ha08000a040$0/040400000000a0/ a00000/ 0d • •
000000000000a04a04/¥ eicar heh044 for invi halo%0eta0id Bee0060gLborho.acetic%it.he his wivy%cent 0obi a4%004th80.h ha08080804080%800pl
d 06 mg dichlorocetiacid the tis.kw vary%with.et0obi
ha08080804080%800pl
eeee0060gL trichloroacetic0ithni vary%.et0obi
ha08080804080%800pl
Office of Environmental leath laard Asses.me t
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025 •
27 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table t: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemic.al Health Risk Categ y HG is at MCL Risk at the
(mg/' the 9HG (9/) California
CL
tiootac.hit car0O9OMO'y 0.000006 10 0.00001 210
$0oat (0a0es canoe) (6109 (two per
lion)
io.as.oat 0ar09O9oily 0.0000.3 10 0.001 3e10
benzene (0a00can0e) (three per
hundred
thous.and
tecoro 9gos0/stem t00it 0.002 NA 0.06 NA
glen±adiene (0ates stomach lesion9)
0cceD
Lead • lo0petal 0.0002 epe10 0.016(AL) 210
el tty (Gies (two per
(0a0ts neur0behavioral 0based lion)
effects in children)
on this car di cul to0i0it
(causes high blood elect
poss)
0ar'0oO9OOy
(0as0aOf)
hndanee-BC carcinogenicity 0.000032 f 0 0.000.2 610
(0a0ts canoe) (six per
million)
0¥ nephrotoiity 0.0012 NA 0.002 NA
I0oroan.) (harms the kidney
MethonvchNor endocrine to00It 0.00009 NA 0.03 NA
(Causes hormone elects)
lb car0IO90MO'y 0.013 10 0.013 et0
(0a06ca0er) (one pOf
million)
Olee of Environmental leath laa4Asses0net
Water Toi0ology Section
February 2025 9
28 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemic.al Health #Risk Category 9HG is.at CL' Risk at the (mg the PG (mo/) California
MCL
Molinate carcinogenicity 0.001 1+10# 0.02 2+10
(causes cancer) (two per
hunred
thousand
]Monochior
.at 0.07 NA 0.07 NA benzene
[clgrobenene
Neck.et developmental toxicity 0.012 NA 01 NA
(cases increaJ
neonatal deaths)
Nitrate hematotoxicity 45as NA 0as NA
metheroglobinernia
0at9
)
nitrate
�
nitrate)
Nitrite hematotodcity 3as nitrite NA as NA
(0a0OS nitrogen
meteroglobinerria) (=3as
itrite)
Nitrate andhemnatoxicity 0as NA 10as NA
Nola (0a0/OS nitrogen nitrogen
Nnitr0so Car ODO9OMO/y 0.000003 1+10 none NA
$%5% (causes canoe) (3+10)
Oxamyt general toxicity 0.026 NA 0.05 NA we
finial%94.Go40a410ppr.express nirope)does not replace the lnee. v.a6a000a00/0007 0h00.0400000000090000090
Office of Environmental leathlaad Assessment
Water Toi0ology Section
February 2025
29 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemical Health #Risk Category PG Risa CL' Risk at the
(mg) the p (mg/) California
MCL
£leg.ane 0aCao9oily(0a0/0 0.0003 e10 0.001 310
canoe) (three per
miion)
Perchlorate enoonne toity 0.001 NA 0.006 NA
(affects the thyroid'
de gmental toxicity
(0a00 /eu40le/Opmental de fie.its
5= Caro • city (0a0es 110 et0 NA NA
canoe)
a%± 0a0Oge NO/My(0a/Se 710 et0 NA NA
cancer)
Piloran 0.166 NA 05 NA
(harms the liver)
Polechloriale bicar0o96Ooly 0.00009 e10 0.0005 610
bend(PC.Bs (0a0Scan0er) (0 pf
million)
Radium-226 Car0IO9OMO¥ 0.05pCit 110 5 pCit pet0
(0a0so8can0er) (combined (one per ten
fay thousand
Radium-228 car0O96OMO!y 0019 pCM et0 5 pCit 310
(0a60Can0er) (combined (three
Ran per ten
thousand
' - zzz: 0.03 NA 0.05 NA
nail damage)
Office of Environmental leathlaad Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025
30 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Caner California Cancer
Chemical Heath #Risk Category HG islat MCL Risk at the
(mo/' the HG (mg/ California
CL
See..4.5.1 Dopa.ooicity 0.003 NA 0.05 NA
(harms theliver)
Sica.0# goeral too0y 0.004 NA 0.004 NA
(cutes body weight
effects)
Stratum-.90 carcinogenicity 0.35 pCM pf0 80CM 210
(0a00can0e) (two per
hundred
thousand)
Stene car0O9ONO'y 0.0005 et0 0.1 210-
[inbenee) (0a0es Can0e) (two per ten
thousand)

11.2.2 carcinogenicity 0.0001 10 0.001 10
Iotas.hioco-ctbaoe (0a00an0e) (one pM
hundred
thousand)
237.8- Tetra- Caron€ge wot 510 f10 310 610
.bk ' d (0a00can0e) 0 per ten
dloin .(I.CODD. thousand)
dioxin
Iettac.ion car0O96Oy 0.00006 1e1 0.005 810
ethe (0a00can0e) (eight per
(perchloro- hundred
etdeo.at EEthousand)
Ihala integumentary tocity 0.0001 NA 0.002 NA
(0aes hair0)
Office of Er onnenal leath laa0Ase.men
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025
31 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Caner California Cane
Chemic.al Heath Risk Category G Rise'at CL Risk at the
tog/t)' the p4 tog/) California
MCL
Iiobanoat general too8y 0.042 NA 0.07 NA
(causes body weight
elects
hematotoic.iy
(affects red blood cells)
Iolune hepatotoiy 0.15 NA 0.15 NA
[met4benzene) (harms theliver)
0doerne toxicity
(hams the thymus)
Ioxaphone 0a 0o9NO'y 0.00003 1et0 0.003 1e10
[0a00ca0r) (one per ten
thous.an

1.24Tic.lore hdocrine to0icity 0.005 NA 0.005 NA
Dantos (harms adrenal glads)

11.1-Trichloro- neurot000 ' NA 0.2 NA
ethane (harms the nerve
system)
reproductive toity
(0ates fewer 0spring)
hepaotoiiy
(harms theliver)
1 .. , .... tty
(causes blood elects)

1.1.21bloc2 car0o9Noy 0.000.3 bx1 0.005 2e10
0than Cases ca-er) (two pof
hundred
thous.and
ichioroe-ethylene car0ino9Noy 0.0017 1et0 0.005 3+10
.ICE (0a0es caner (three pf
miion)
Ofloe of Environmental Meath ta.ard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025
32 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Caneer Califon.la Cancer
Chemic.al Health #Risk Category PHG Risk at MCL" Risk at the (mg/l the pg (mg) California
MCL
% accelerated mortality 1.3 NA 0.15 NA
(increase in earty death)
11 1.2.3-Trichloro- Car00O9MOY 0.000000 110 0.000005 710 2Iooane (0a06s can0e) (7e10) (510) (seven pf

11.23-10P miion
Hr hepatotoicity 4 NA 1.2 NA
(harms the liver)
etbaoe (freon1132)
[ET carcinogenicity 0.00006 1x10 0.080 13et0
(0a0can0e) (1.3per
methane thousand)
lrr cace woty 0.0005 re10 0.080 210
(0a06can0e) (two per ter
thousand
fawn0 carcinogenicity 0.0004 x10 0.080 2e10
Ghlorotor (0a0can0e) (two per ten
thousand
foe8oat1.ha0000ha0 (08000fbr0 fl0000h.ab00000hi000007,a0 0d00000hi000000.%) h0040C4soi0.%al00%0
Bede0080Lbronoliclooeta tht% we rye«.et 0obi nsa4ti0o44. 0or0a0000.%80498000.00
Ed000600bro0noon.00i.eh0d0000bra040a0040%f
ta00%004018000.79
Bedee0080g1chloroform. the tie .rywhie0obi.aiohe0a00toll 6ha0000401800079
Office of Environmental leathlaa4Assess.me t
Water Toicology Secion
February 2025
33 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table t: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
California Cancer California Cancer
Chemical Meath Risk Category HG is.at MCL Risk at the
(mg/l' the pg (mg/) California
MCL
E= 0aCOO9ONO'y 0.0001 1e10 0.080 810
(0a6Can0er) (eight per ten
th thousand
Itium 0a00O9ONO'y 4000Ci/ML r10 20.000 5e10
(0a60an0 pCit (five per
hundred
thousand
oaoir 0aODO9ONO 0.430CL ff0 200Ci/M 510
(0a0O 0a0CO) (five pet
hundred
thousand'
Minic.horde 0a00ONO'y 0.00005 110 0.0005 10
(0a00an0 (one per
hundred
thousand)
Alene neurotooicity 1.8(single NA 176(single NA
(affects theses loner 0 lo4net 0
mood. a mnolo sun of tum of
control' isomers) isomers
Foe8obi.a000ha0(080.0f0or l0000%a 000000000000.a00000700ho0 .0) The84Corin0700 080000.

Ed00060pi000hi00090.0/01w0.0000d80000r8a04080004/.
0rt00.008000800
Olive of Environmental Meath/la.ard#Asses.men
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025
34 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals
UgEA C.acer California Cancer
Chemical Health Risk Category MCLG is#at CL Risk at the (mg the pg (mg/) California
MCL
Disinfection by product (08Ps)
Chlorarnines au t000ty •• NA nee NA
(0ales irritation)
0gs46ten t0icily
(harms the stomach)
he tot00i0it'y
(0a0sane0ia)
Chlorine al0o/ (0a0 44 NA no NA
irritation
gtvesystem to0icily
(harms the stomach)
Chlorine dioxide heat laity 0.8° NA nee NA
(0a0sane7ia)
neurotoo0t
(harms the nervous
system)
R " uclides

4.4.hni 0ate0yb%doth%(9£A44LG0curt0rLaenl 4Ldou net0ls 0lh%is pod
4LG=daorun coot%tie0l go% est.ab#shed9Le
604#/ppr8000.%000.000.a00hi fr0el0000.Ac00.a0000bl0
0r% 10%.00.00a0000.a 90001000084.00
Looi4CL4a00.00000%al.ab4h4Cao4
44nu.fed Dile ta4Level Golpe44G
The ea Marn ls Dicta0Le4 (orhighest level of dnfe ntaoweirdie Office of Environmental leathtaa0dAsemen
Water Toxicology Section
February 2025
35 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals
U$EPA Cancer California Cancer
Chemic.al Health Risk Ca " y' MCLG is at MCL Risk at the (mg' the p4 (mg/t) California
MCL
Gross alpha carcinogenicity 0(op 0 15 pCiM up to 410
particles (0a00Scan0er) included' (includes (top%
fair the most but not potent alpha radon al
fair) emitter)
Beta parties ad 0a0oo9ii 0@op 0 50 pCit pto2e10
photon emitters (0a00Scar0er) included' (Judged (toe p
e004 the most vern/yr) potent beta
emitter)
4«or gos%alpha bl p.%la%scening.df0rag0%0 ta00.h.Co Ang Pet.Gwen0lo908pa000pa0Doth0Ee44Ao0a0th
oanor risks at thee AMC«at be .eh 2¥ 0eh
piLpioourie pier of water
Ofoe of Environmental leathlaa4Assessment
Water Toi0ology Section
February 2025
36 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
EXHIBIT 4
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS – WATER UTILITIES BUREAU

DESCRIPTION OF COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY FOR THIS PHG REPORT 37 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table1- Cost Estimates for Treatment Techologi4 (2012 ACWA PHG Survey) ft.test
4e
he.
er4oleo.rt4 2012Survey
echolg dot62024
' on Exchange Coach.le/46Wtoeduce Arsenic 2.00 coo0a0/0761f0osts 2 on Euchage Cyof Riverside Pubic Utters, fer GM for Pecoote 13O toe.a.en
' lo Exchange Carol0Engineers aorousuit 202costs tor treating 099 G/sea.rcfot4a0$Di$0%040.a000000a00 8a4 Design fished water co.centric 4 ng/l
0 Does not ire concentrate disposal orlad cost
• 6aoar Act%.a Col Riverside Pubic thties, G/sources, fer ICE DBCP 0.65 Cbee (VOC SOC)treatment
' Gar Activated Co.Engineers, aornosut2012cots for treating 047 Carbee Wureefer 1444 Design sue water concert0¥ 13gLDesign fished water ocetio00
mngL Does not include concentrate disposal or lad cost
• Grala Activated LADWPLiid Phase GAtreatment at Tuiuga Welfeld 9 Carbon, Liquid Costs for treating well Tearet lo DCE [VOCI eh 2011.2012cost
' Ree00e0% Col0Engineers aorousutii 202costs tor treating 1.05 G/sea.rcfot4a0$Li$0%040.a000000a00 8a4 Design fished water co.centric 4 ng/l
0 Does not ire concentrate disposal orlad cost
• Pele4foe Cy04erowel.treatment to educ TEP 0.58
Ara00 concentrations 2041costs
• 00a0 /D67TPteatent plat includes chemical 012
harich ado a/0+0.20090140000000000hue 144AA
concentrations 2009.2012cost
0 00a0 $(wDPWPte.rent plat includes chemical 0.26
hoica add%c a000+02009014000000000hue Tl44AA
concentration 2009202cote
" Coagulator o4D treatmentto4u000.a099000040000 099 hon W.201100ts 12 Coagulation an DiegowAcosts to reduce TBeoarte, rtidy 1 lion concentrations,table%4o4Sae froiect water
Option.aion adColode4er water,teated al0al/T
" glecdig (well Rancho Cahorn%w0Gwbleding well, 11090onto 093 00fu00i000401080 4 Bleeding (Wells) echo(44en%/DG/blenching wels,tore.duce.sic 0.76 concentration 2012costs
15 Blenching ch0Caborn./pursing4/Dater to bled with GW 09 tote0u0a0000107a0704010ost
16 erosiorh.b.bi0 Atcarout/ corrosion inhibitor aioto 01% 0ob0 water 2041costs
Go wrd.on0orig.a.ii0pug bogieoghiwoo(e429Cyr
Coucio Cold041347146 204
38 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 2-Cost Estimates for Treatment Techologies (Other Agencies) £et.test
de - er4oleo.art4 2012Survey
echoly deed1224
' eh0- ferry282013ilepoetthoroifenced 214-13.38 Coagul ' - eseach.Cyof Glecale,CA 1002000 g0mm. educe let0 lex.valet.horniurn to!ppb
2 ¥ Wee B.are fer%a282013isl#epoethen.iu#Renova 2 91%
Anelee Research.Cyof Glecdale,CA 100-2000 gmm. educe
lex.vat horrirntoppb
3 DX Geen Sate 4ate0Co,Kw/di.po.bees.in 144GD 0.8
chlorate rerowalbui a 20
• DX Golden State Water Ca,DX wdisposable resin, 1000 g00, 47 perchlorate reno(Pe.po044esirated)
5 DX Gaden State hater Co.twit brine regenerati0 959
gpenfe Shein renowbuih 200
• 0/Ac%optic Golden ta/erCo.Gaul Perie Ciees.an, 25¥ 287 Arsenic removal6goon2fecities bu 2006
' RO lnl4tenpireu/tiltiesAency(hie8sin Des.ate4O 3.28
cost to reduce 800 p TD, 10ppm Nitrate ( NO)
ppro7mgd
• DX lnlaEmpire UtilisAene ,h.lea.iDes.aht4cost 1.82
tore.duce10pomnNtrate%40apro.26
• eke4foe lnhaEmpie1plies Agency(hi.cs.inDes.ate A 0.35 Aeration VOCar stripping ypical treated flow of appro 1mgd 0 DX Weest Val Depont for Waterfecycling Funding 0.76 108 fan4e 88gtreatent facii.Atoe.owe
chlorate Sechler level410pp 2009e0ts
1 Coagulation we"ooddesoot osMcoto2.esrg 0.5o
ton re.ability-Lah0ten.sac9e00a0ha004
sine.a 20092012costs
12 rgq gt%le/Doge desigdafee th 0.&4 2.26 2.38
actual capitol costs 288 mgdudied be reactor (FBI
tea004$.echo0a0a44 00000lo0w
bnulire filtration&chlorinatioi 202NOTE Th%
capitol coefog greatoemt facile th leg 00.
gpeni230.llee au.lied owe20eswth.4t
exp.a4te4000aper with minimal cot inter future$17
.le flee4thoughstateal4el gtsehth
er.aider free4De4tho4#e
ti-foe0 ei. p.De gleed44e20Cy er
c Coe lode1357140 20
39 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 3- Cost Estimates for Treatment Techologies (Updated 2012 ACWA Cost of Treatment)
felon.test
4e
e..ft 64lent4 2012Survey
heh0logy let6 2024
' Lau.ha#hv.ate 4lccA firmestimate forCalorn.iat hater 0.77 14l Carbon geooes,ha9es0.a0rt00th008.a004 wate froth tat/er PosiecttorneetSte2D/Dee
a04b0.% 99g
2 Gaul Activated CaroloEngineers, estimate for VO eat.met(Ce9% 0.36 Carbon emowad el CE Oet 194100 ca.act
' Gaul Activated Carol0Engineers,est for large No.Cal4gfwaer 19 Carbo treatment pl490gcapait)treating wterror the ate Water Proiettoredee 4.4 gecusos,ENA
00000/0000st40466(ban ha00ore.al 199
4 Laur#cw.ate CH2Ml study on Sa Gabriel Basin, foe13 mngd central 066 09% Carbo treatment facity fer VOCd SOC removal by AC 199.0 ' Lao#tv.ate Southern Calton Water Co actual data lo rented GA 3.0.3 Carbon to reonoeVOC(1,Del I.0ngd capacity fact 1999 • 6au#cow.at Southern Caldon Water Co ch00at.a0p0.aft 96 Carbo Act remove VOC(Ice216mgd plant cap.acit, 19.%8
' Ren0eenoi Alee.l Pirnie.stir.atie(fern.a Lhrbale 2.28 4.3 goos,ha9es0ha.tr0/a0900ha04t000
wate froth Stat/ePcojectto meet SD/DP
0db000.%. 1998
• Reen0so.is Boyle Engineering.coast toed.ce 1000 pen IDS in 5.37 brackish groundwater ino.Cl40engdplat operated
t40%0 a tow .oh be line199
• et0no.i Boyle Eng«ering. POcosttordre 100Opp TD/Sin .3 brackish groundwater in Se(40ngplat operated
a 100%0l design flow, high brine lie cost. M 197l
10 Reen0no.is Boyle Engineering.Ocost to reduce 1000 pp IDS in 35 b""sect oorggprope
a40%%.design#ow. high brio line cost. M 19l
1f et0o.is Boyle Engineering.coast to reduce 100 pen IDS in 2.77 backs.h groudwtine ,400mgd plat operated
et 00%0l de fo be hi@cost 19
12 Reen0no.is Arsenic Reveal Stud.Cd0fScottee,AD 0H2MIN 899 lee1paned plat operated40%04es.gap.act
0et199
3 ewer0enc Arsenic er.owl Stud,Colcottsale,AC 0H2Ml .31 lier1.00ngdplat operated at 100%0l design capacity
0et 199%
% Ree0soi Areoic Removal Study.Ctyof Scottsdale,A-0A2Ml 397 le400end plat operated440%04cdesg capacity
0et19%
Goe04oi. 4pee oleo20Cy et
40 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
Table 3 (Continued)-Cost Estimates for Treatment Techologies (Updated 2012 AWA Cost of Treatment)
em.tut 4et
4e
et 84loot 201240WA Survey
holy let6 2024
15 eye0o Arsenic erow.al Stu.Cof Scottsdale A,44444./ 246 lee100mgdplant operated at 100%of design capacity
0et19¥
16 eyer0soi CH2Mill study on Sa Gabriel Basin, leer13 mngdcentral 2484.3$ neater a90to rerowe nitrate 1990
1 Pele4fee An.alysi 4osfe don enova(AWA.RF 1.42
Ara0i0 ]publication)eedy/Jenks,le140ngdfaoioperate
a40%0f «¢ carpi 0et. 199l
" Pele4fee An.alysi 4osfe kc4on ennovat(AWA.RF 0.76 Ara0i0 ]publication)dye.ks,tor140ongdfacilit a40% 0l et. 199
1¢ ele4fee Croll0Engineers.erst.in.ate fee Otto(Ce 0.38 ratio packed tower ion, without ogate.atoe.
costs based on operation during329cleat10i%
downtime 1h/dear strippingopettic 190gf
0et194
2 Pele4fee Carol0Engineers et£tee.atrentbEcole4lewio 0.39 Arabi lower air stripping without0lgastneaten0.&4gos
bed on operation during3294sear10%cent
6h/dry air stripping operation, 1900g0on deg
e 1994
21 Pele4lee CH2Ml study on Sa Gabriel Basin, lier13 mngdcentral 0631.01 Ab0 treat[el packed tower aetioel Cd
ado ten.ow199
22 vaned Carol0Engineers,erst.in.ate fee Otto(Ce 0.75
eion uVLght, Ozone hydrogen erode 0&Mosts based on
Poe • oration during329dyer410%¢dentin24he/la
AO aion, 190 0et199
2 alc.Peles.tire.ate le(uAlge surfacer wate 017 0.3
neat0pa0440/0900tot/.arr0th
ate% ProiecttoretSte2/D9/borne
c .be. 199
24 lo Exchange ,244.lgudoSaGabriel Bai,le134gd central 0821.08 re.a004ha0ht+ion1ch.a09400000000.40!90
(e4 le04eei..4pee be gee co42 et
41 | P a g e
Water Utilities Bureau April 29, 2025
EXHIBIT 5
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS – WATER UTILITIES BUREAU
2022, 2023, (2024 AVAILABLE JULY 1ST, 2025) CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS Attachment 2
PAGE 10 JUNE 6, 2025

COURTESY NOTICE
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 17 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

The California Health and Safety Code Section 116470 requires public water systems serving more than 10,000 customers to prepare a report every three years including information on the detection of any elements in the water at levels above Public Health Goals (PHGs) or Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). PHGs are adopted by the California State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Similarly, MCLGs are set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A public hearing is required for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comments on the report.

Staff has prepared the report entitled, “Public Hearing of the 2025 Public Health Goals Report” to provide information regarding the quality of its drinking water supply relative to adopted PHGs and MCLGs.

Copies of the report will be available for public view online at the City’s Public Water Resources Division webpage at www.beverlyhills.org/PHG and at the Beverly Hills Library.

Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meeting through live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed. These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.

Public Comment Participation:
• Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288
• Email: [email protected]
• Video (during public comment only): http://beverlyhills.org/comment • To Watch Video Live: http://beverlyhills.org/live or
• On-Demand: http://beverlyhills.org/citycouncilmeetings • In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):

It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only the first three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a large number of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the City Clerk’s Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part of the record.

If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record.

Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting.

In-person speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.

The City Council may act on any item listed on the agenda.

In Person Participation:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Public Works Customer Service at 310-285-1000, or by email at [email protected].

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-2400 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.

THE 2025 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS WATER QUALITY REPORT

RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS (PHG)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND

SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

The City Council will consider adoption of an ordinance to amend the short term rental regulations applicable to single-family and multifamily residential zones, which are referred to as “single-family and multifamily transient uses” in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC). The Planning Commission previously reviewed this topic at the August 8, 2024 study session and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2076 unanimously recommending the City Council adopt the draft ordinance at their November 14, 2024 regular meeting. The draft ordinance includes, but is not limited to the following changes:
• A prohibition on short term rental uses in any residential zone of the City, including the use of accessory features such as pools or tennis courts; • A minimum initial lease term of one year for the rental of units in single-family residential zones and a minimum initial lease term of 6 months for multi-family units in the City; and
• Changes to other sections of the BHMC related to short term rentals, such as a penalty fee structure specific to short term rentals.

This summary of the ordinance is prepared and published in accordance with the requirements of Government Code §36933. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code §36933, a certified copy of the entirety of the text of the proposed ordinance will be available for review during normal business hours at the Office of the City Clerk Office located at City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Second Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 at least five days before the City Council will consider adoption of the ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Since the project does not authorize construction, and actually imposes greater use restrictions on certain properties to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the project reflects minor changes in land use limitations, and do not result in changes to land use or density. Accordingly, the City Council will consider a recommendation to find the project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please be advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at City Hall. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meeting through live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms.

Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed. These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.

It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only the first three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a large number of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the City Clerk's Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part of the record.

If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting.

In-person speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.

Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council’s action 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 City, either at or prior to the public hearing.

In Person Participation:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Chloe Chen, Principal Planner in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department at (310) 285-1194, or by email at [email protected]. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this ordinance, so that important updates and notifications may be sent to you.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING

SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS (TRANSIENT USES) FOR

SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES,

AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
www.beverlyhills.org

BEVERLY HILLS COURIER

Beverly Hills City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Beverly Hills City Council
June 17, 2025