14TH ST. MANHATTAN AVE NO PARKING NEV PARKING ONLY NEV PARKING ONLY PARKING ONLY PARKING ONLY STOP EV EV NO PARKING X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
STOP STOP COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
X X
20250 SW ACACIA ST., SUITE 260
NEWPORT BEACH, C A
U . S . A . 9 2 6 6 0
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
C I T
Y
O F
H E R M O S A
B
E
A
C
H , C A
1 9 0 7
N
NOTES
1. REFER TO SHEET L9 FOR THE PLANTING DETAILS
AND NOTES.
SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE O.C. SPACING WATER USE QTY TREES
T-1 MELALEUCA NESOPHILA PINK MELALEUCA 24" BOX PER PLAN LOW 3 T-2 TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX STD. 24" BOX PER PLAN MOD 3 SHRUBS
S-1 AGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVE 5 GAL. PER PLAN LOW 6 S-2 ALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOE 5 GAL. PER PLAN LOW 49
S-3 CAREX BARBERAE SANTA BARBARA SEDGE 1 GAL. PER PLAN LOW 5 S-4 DIANELLA CAERULEA `CLARITY BLUE` DIANELLA 5 GAL. PER PLAN LOW 34 S-5 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA `BREEZE` BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL. PER PLAN LOW 12 S-6 SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM BLUE EYED GRASS 1 GAL. PER PLAN LOW 24
PLANT LIST
T-1
2 14
S-2
1 S-1
S-1
1 S-2
10 S-4
2 1
S-1
12 S-6 S-5
10 5
S-3 S-6
2 12
S-6
17 S-4
S-4
3 S-4
8 S-1
1 S-4
2 S-2
7 S-1
1 T-1
1 S-2
18 S-1
1 S-4
2 3
T-2
10/03/2024
20250 SW ACACIA ST., SUITE 260
NEWPORT BEACH, C A
U . S . A . 9 2 6 6 0
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
A
BOULDER INSTALLATION
SCALE: NTS
NOTES:
1. ALL BOULDERS SHALL BE BURIED 30% OF OVERALL HEIGHT, WIDTH AND LENGTH.
2. FINAL LOCATION OF ALL BOULDERS SHALL BE PER THE ENGINEER.
3. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SAMPLE BOULDER FOR APPROVAL BY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PURCHASE.
BOULDER MEASUREMENT CHART:
APPROX. SIZE:
B1: 5'x5'x5'
B2: 3'x3'x3'
B3: 2'x2'x2'
BOULDER TYPE: BOULDERS SHALL BE "SIERRA BOULDERS" AVAILABLE AT SOUTHWEST BOULDER AND STONE PHONE: 714-882-1010 OR APPROVED EQUAL.
REFER TO NOTES FOR SIZES
FINISH GRADE
UNDISTURBED NATIVE
GRADE OR 90% CERTIFIED
COMPACTED SUBGRADE.
3'
2'
4'
5'
6'
RIVER ROCK COBBLE
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT RIVER
ROCK COBBLE COLOR & SIZE
SAMPLES TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW
AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO
PURCHASE.
2. RIVER ROCK COBBLE AVAILABLE
FROM SOUTH WEST BOULDER AND
STONE, 714-882-1010.
3. RIVER ROCK COBBLE SHALL BE
"MALIBU COBBLE", 4" DIA TO 8" DIA..
EXTENDED MORTAR BED 2" BEYOND
EDGE OF RIVER ROCKS COBBLE
POURED PCC MORTAR BED 6" DEEP.
MEDIAN CURB PER CIVIL PLANS.
EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT.
95% RELATIVE COMPACTED SUBGRADE.
WIDTH VARIES - REFER TO CIVIL PLANS
2"
COBBLE
2" 4
4 1 1
5 6 2 3 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
D
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT
NECESSARY TO FURNISH AND INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
2. UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS AND HARDSCAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATIONS.
3. ALL WORK ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING HYDROSTATIC, COVERAGE, AND
OPERATIONAL TESTS AND THE BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION OF TRENCHES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATIONS.
4. PLANT LIST ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKEOFF AND VERIFY SIZES AND QUANTITIES BY PLAN CHECK.
5. SAMPLES OF FERTILIZERS, ORGANIC AMENDMENT, SOIL CONDITIONERS, AND SEED SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO INCORPORATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO
THE ENGINEER A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SUCH FURNISHED MATERIALS IF ALL REQUIRED.
6. LOCATIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REVIEWED ON SITE BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
7. AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PER THE SPECIFICATIONS.
8. IF, DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS THERE SEEMS TO BE MINIMAL OR NO
PERCOLATION IN PLANTING PITS, CONTRACTOR SHALL CEASE PLANTING
OPERATIONS AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE TO MAINTAINING POSITIVE ROOTBALL DRAINAGE MEASURES.
9. TREES PLANTED WITHIN 5' TO 8' OF HARDSCAPE OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A ROOT BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
10.ALL SHRUB PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 3" THICK LAYER OF MULCH COVER.
C
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT RIVER ROCK COBBLE COLOR & SIZE SAMPLES TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASE.
2. RIVER ROCK COBBLE AVAILABLE FROM SOUTHWEST BOULDER AND STONE, 714-882-1010.
3. RIVER ROCK COBBLE SHALL BE "MALIBU COBBLE", 4" DIA TO 8" DIA..
4. BIOSWALE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER CIVIL DETAIL 84 SHEET C-7. 1 CURB
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 FINISH SURFACE
FINISH GRADE
TOPSOIL LAYER- BIOSWALE 80/20 MIX AVAILABLE FROM GAIL MATERIALS
COBBLE- PER NOTES- LAYOUT PER PLANS
WEED BARRIER - MIRAFI 140N
SUBGRADE PER CIVIL
RETAINING WALL
COBBLE AT BIOSWALE
SCALE: NTS
2 1 3
4 5 6
7 8
E
SHRUB PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. CROWN OF ROOTBALL TO BE 1/2" - 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.
2. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO PLANTING NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS.
A SHALLOW BASIN 2" DEEP SHALL BE
FORMED AROUND ROOTBALL BELOW
FINISH GRADE
1 2 FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PROJECT AGRICULTURAL
SUITABILITY SOILS REPORT
3 4 ROOTBALL
2 x DIAMETER
OF ROOT BALL DEPTH OF
1 2
3 4 CONTAINER
PREVAILING WINDS
A SHALLOW BASIN 2'' DEEP SHALL BE FORMED
AROUND BALL BELOW FINISH GRADE. TREES
PLANTED IN TURF AREAS SHALL NOT HAVE
BASINS.
BACKFILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT
AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY SOILS REPORT
CINCH TIE, ARBOR TIE, OR APPROVED EQUAL
2"Ø MINIMUM X 10' LODGE POLE STAKE BOTH
SIDES, OR 'TOMAHAWK TREE STABILIZER SYSTEM'
(800) 845-3343, OR APPROVED EQUAL
FINISH GRADE
ROOTBALL
TREES INSTALLED WITHIN TURF AREAS SHALL BE
INSTALLED WITH 'ARBOR-GARD' OR APPROVED
EQUAL AT BASE OF TRUNK.
1 NOTES:
1. CROWN OF ROOTBALL TO BE 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.
2. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO PLANTING
NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS.
2 3
4 5
6 7
2 3
4 5
1 6
7 DEPTH OF 12" CONTAINER MIN.
2 x DIAMETER
OF ROOTBALL
12~18" 6" MIN. 12~18"
TREE PLANTING & STAKING
(FOR 15 GAL. & 24" BOX TREES)
B NOT TO SCALE
10/03/2024
OF E RP DE RET SI GE R REE NI GNE L A ON S S I C A L I F OR N I A S T A T E O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639 ALEXANDER MH SASSOON E L E C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 SHEET INDEX GENERAL NOTES SHEET DESCRIPTION E-0 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND & SHEET INDEX E-1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM & SCHEDULES E-2 SITE LIGHTING PLAN E-3 SITE POWER PLAN E-4 DETAILS E-5 DETAILS E-6 TITLE 24 FORMS LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS 1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE. WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INDICATE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL GOVERN BUT THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED AS AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE ANY CODE OR REGULATION. 2. ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE NEW AND SHALL BEAR THE UNDERWRITERS' LABEL (UL) AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE MANNER FOR WHICH THEY ARE DESIGNED AND APPROVED. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BORE, NOTCH OR IN ANY WAY CUT INTO ANY STRUCTURAL MEMBER WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 4. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE NOTES: ALL MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS SHALL BE ANCHORED AND INSTALLED PER THE DETAILS ON THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. WHERE NO DETAIL IS INDICATED, THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS SHALL BE ANCHORED OR BRACED TO MEET THE FORCES AND DISPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. A. ALL PERMANENT EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS. B. TEMPORARY OR MOVABLE EQUIPMENT THAT IS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED (E.G. HARD WIRED) TO THE BUILDING UTILITY SERVICES SUCH AS ELECTRICITY, GAS OR WATER. C. MOVABLE EQUIPMENT WHICH IS STATIONED IN ONE PLACE FOR MORE THAN 8 HOURS AND HEAVIER THAN 400 POUNDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ANCHORED WITH TEMPORARY ATTACHMENTS. THE ATTACHMENT OF THE FOLLOWING MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SHALL BE POSITIVELY ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE, BUT NEED NOT BE DETAILED ON THE PLANS. THESE COMPONENTS SHALL HAVE FLEXIBLE CONNECTIONS PROVIDED BETWEEN THE COMPONENT AND ASSOCIATED DUCTWORK, PIPING, AND CONDUIT. A. COMPONENTS WEIGHING LESS THAN 400 POUNDS AND HAVE A CENTER OF MASS LOCATED 4 FEET OR LESS ABOVE THE ADJACENT FLOOR OR ROOF LEVEL THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS THE COMPONENT. B. COMPONENTS WEIGHING LESS THAN 20 POUNDS, OR IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, LESS THAN 5 POUNDS PER FOOT, WHICH ARE SUSPENDED FROM A ROOF OR FLOOR OR HUNG FROM A WALL. FOR THOSE ELEMENTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE DETAILS ON THE APPROVED DRAWINGS, THE INSTALLATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. THE PROJECT INSPECTOR WILL VERIFY THAT ALL COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT HAVE BEEN ANCHORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE REQUIREMENTS. 5. PIPING, DUCTWORK, AND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BRACING NOTES: PIPING, DUCTWORK, AND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SHALL BE BRACED TO COMPLY WITH THE FORCES AND DISPLACEMENTS PRESCRIBED IN LATEST SECTIONS OF CBC AND ASCE. THE BRACING AND ATTACHMENTS TO THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE DETAILED ON THE APPROVED DRAWINGS OR THEY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE OSHPD PRE-APPROVALS (OPA #) AS MODIFIED TO SATISFY ANCHORAGE REQUIREMENTS OF ACI 318, APPENDIX D. COPIES OF THE MANUAL SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOBSITE PRIOR TO THE START OF HANGING AND BRACING OF THE PIPE, DUCTWORK, AND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL VERIFY THE ADEQUACY OF THE STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE HANGER AND BRACE LOADS. ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION 1/C SINGLE CONDUCTOR MCA MAXIMUM CIRCUIT AMPACITY & AND MFGR, MFR MANUFACTURER @ AT MH MANHOLE A OR AMP AMPERES MRCT MULTI-RATIO CURRENT TRANSFORMER ABV ABOVE MIN MINIMUM A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE MOCP MAXIMUM OVERCURRENT PROTECTION AF AMPERE FUSE RATING MTD MOUNTED AFC AVAILABLE FAULT CURRENT MTG MOUNTING AFG ABOVE FINISH GRADE MTR MOTOR AIC AMPERE INTERRUPTING CAPACITY MV MEDIUM VOLTAGE AL ALUMINUM N NORTH APPROX. APPROXIMATE NC NORMALLY CLOSED AS AMPERE SWITCH RATING NEC NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ASCC AVAILABLE SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT NF NON-FUSED ATS AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH NIC NOT IN CONTRACT AUTO AUTOMATIC NO. NUMBER AUX AUXILIARY OC ON CENTER AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE OCPD OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE BAT BATTERY OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER BEL BELOW OE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL BKR BREAKER OH OVERHEAD B.S. BARE STRANDED P POLE C CONDUIT PB PULL BOX CB CIRCUIT BREAKER PC PHOTOCELL CEC CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE PDS PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL SWITCH CKT CIRCUIT PF POWER FACTOR CL CENTER LINE PH OR Ø PHASE CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT PIV POST INDICATING VALVE C.O. CONDUIT ONLY WITH PULL WIRE PL PLATE CT CURRENT TRANSFORMER PNL PANEL CW COLD WATER POC POINT OF CONNECTION CU COPPER PREF. PREFERRED DL DAMP LOCATION LISTING PRI. PRIMARY DP DISTRIBUTION PANEL PVC POLY-VINYL CHLORIDE DWG DRAWING PWR POWER EA EACH REC/RECEPT RECEPTACLE ECM ELECTRONIC CIRCUIT MONITOR REQ'D REQUIRED ELEC. ELECTRICAL RGS RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL EM EMERGENCY RMC RIGID METAL CONDUIT EMH ELECTRICAL MANHOLE RPBP REDUCED PRESSURE BACK FLOW PREVENTER EMT ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING RTAC REAL TIME AUTOMATION CONTROLLER EPR ETHYLENE PROPYLENE RUBBER SCCR SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT RATING EQUIP EQUIPMENT SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EXIST/(E) EXISTING SF SQUARE FEET FIXT FIXTURE SHT SHEET FLA FULL LOAD AMPS SP SPARE FT FEET SPECS SPECIFICATIONS FMC FLEXIBLE METAL CONDUIT ST STREET FTG FOOTING STD STANDARD GFI GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER SW SWITCH GG GREEN GROUND SWBD SWITCHBOARD GND GROUND SWGR SWITCHGEAR HP HORSEPOWER T.O.D. TOP OF DUCTBANK HT HEIGHT T.O.M. TOP OF MANHOLE HZ HERTZ TPS TWISTED SHIELDED PAIR IE INVERT ELEVATION TRANSF,XFMR TRANSFORMER IMC INTERMEDIATE METAL CONDUIT TS TAMPER SWITCH ISC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT TYP TYPICAL J, JB, J-BOX JUNCTION BOX UG UNDERGROUND KCMIL THOUSAND CIRCULAR MILS UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED KV KILOVOLT V VOLTS KVA KILOVOLT-AMPERES VA VOLT-AMPERES KW KILOWATT VFD VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE LF LINEAR FEET W WATTS LFMC LIQUIDTIGHT FLEXIBLE METAL CONDUIT W/ WITH LOC. LOCATION W/O WITHOUT LTG LIGHTING WCR WITHSTAND CLOSE-ON RATING LV LOW VOLTAGE WP WEATHERPROOF M METER Z IMPEDANCE MAX MAXIMUM IN THE EVENT ABBREVIATIONS NOT MENTIONED HEREIN ARE USED, REFERENCE WILL BE MADE TO ANSI Y1.1, MILITARY STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARD INDUSTRY CONVENTIONS. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION NOTE CALLOUT DETAIL CALLOUT - NUMBER ON TOP DENOTES DETAIL NUMBER - NUMBER ON BOTTOM DENOTES SHEET DETAIL IS SHOWN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT CALLOUT, SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION CALLOUT FEEDER CALLOUT EXISTING FEEDER CALLCOUT NEW LINEWORK EXISTING LINEWORK DEMOLISHED LINEWORK CONDUIT CONCEALED IN WALL OR ABOVE CEILING CONDUIT EXPOSED CONDUIT CONCEALED UNDERGROUND OR BELOW FLOOR CONDUIT EMERGENCY MULTI-CHANNEL RACEWAY CONDUIT TURNED UP CONDUIT CAPPED BRANCH CIRCUIT HOMERUN TO PANELBOARD AND CIRCUITS AS INDICATED 3/4" CONDUIT, TICK MARKS INDICATE QUANTITY OF #12 AWG WIRES (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, NO MARKS INDICATES 2#12 & 1#12 GND WIRES) - SMALL MARK DENOTES HOT WIRE - LARGE MARK DENOTES NEUTRAL WIRE - DIAGONAL DENOTES GROUND WIRE GENERATOR SWITCH CIRCUIT BREAKER 2-WAY SWITCH, TRANSFER SWITCH FUSE TRANSFORMER GROUND CONNECTION MOTOR - SINGLE PHASE FRACTIONAL OR INTEGRAL HORSEPOWER METER VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE PANEL FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH NON-FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH COMBINATION STARTER/DISCONNECT SWITCH SWITCH MOTOR RATED MEDIUM VOLTAGE FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH SYMBOL DESCRIPTION WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE - UPPER CASE LETTER INDICATES LIGHT FIXTURE CALLOUT. LOWER CASE LETTER INDICATES LIGHTING CONTROL ZONE. BOLLARD LUMINAIRE POST TOP LUMINAIRE POLE MOUNTED LUMINAIRE, SINGLE HEAD POLE MOUNTED LUMINAIRE, DOUBLE HEAD POLE MOUNTED LUMINAIRE, TRIPLE HEAD POLE MOUNTED LUMINAIRE, QUAD HEAD IN GRADE LUMINAIRE PATHWAY LUMINAIRE LANDSCAPE FIXTURE JUNCTION BOX PHOTOCELL FOR EXTERIOR APPLICATIONS DAYLIGHT SENSOR - CEILING MOUNTED RELAY EMERGENCY RELAY UL 924 COMPLIANT MOTION SENSOR - CEILING MOUNTED LIGHTING CONTROL NETWORK DEVICE DIGITAL TIMER SWITCH LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL - SURFACE MOUNTED PANELBOARD - RECESSED MOUNTED PANELBOARD - SURFACE MOUNTED DISTRIBUTION PANEL/ BOARD SINGLE POLE SWITCH, DEVICE SHALL BE MOUNTED +48" MAX AND +36" MIN FROM THE CENTER OF DEVICE: --------- W W A-1G M VFDM X y JPCDSRERMNTM RECESSED ON WALL G=GFCI, WP=WEATHER PROOF SURFACE G=GFCI, WP=WEATHER PROOF FLOOR OR CEILING C=CEILING 20A, 125V DUPLEX RECEPTACLE MOUNTED +15" AFF, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 20A, 125V QUAD RECEPTACLE MOUNTED +15" AFF, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 20A, 125V DUPLEX RECEPTACLE RECEPTACLE ON DEDICATED CIRCUIT 20A, 125V CONTROLLED DUPLEX RECEPTACLE 20A, 125V QUAD RECEPTACLE (HALF) CONTROLLED RECEPTACLE SPECIAL RECEPTACLE REFER TO DRAWINGS FOR NEMA CONFIGURATION J J J JUNCTION BOX 10/03/2024 Page 2224 of 2658 OF E RP DE RET SI GE R REE NI GNE L A ON SS I C A L I F OR N I A S T A T E O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639 ALEXANDER MH SASSOON E L E C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 PD1 M NOTESPROVIDE PEDESTAL PANEL WITH METER SECTION, MYERS POWER PRODUCTS #MEUG16-M200, 120/240V, 1 PHASE, 3 WIRE, 200A BUSSING, 30-CIRCUIT, IN A SAE 304 STAINLESS STEEL ENCLOSURE. PROVIDE WITH PAD MOUNT BASE #MEUG16-BASE, ANCHOR BOLTS #714548, AND 7-PIN PHOTOCELL RECEPTACLE. COORDINATE WITH SCE FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF UTILITY OWNED EQUIPMENT. PROVIDE (2) 3/4" X 10 FT COPPER-CLAD STAINLESS STEEL GROUND RODS AND #4 AWG COPPER GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR, CONNECTED WITH IRREVERSIBLE COMPRESSION CONNECTORS. PROVIDE AC-COUPLED 19.4 KWh, 6000W BATTERY SYSTEM IN A NEMA 3R ENCLOSURE, SUNVERGE #SIS-6848 OR EQUAL. PROVIDE CELLULAR MONITORING. 1234 2 1 SCE BOX SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM 1 NO SCALE 3 3" C - 3#3/0 AWG & 1#6 AWG GND (XHHW-2) #4 AWG GEC LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE TYPE DESCRIPTION TOTAL V-A LAMP TYPE LUMENS VOLTAGE CRI COLOR TEMP. MTG. MTG. HEIGHT APPROVED MANUFACTURERS F1 COBRA-HEAD LED POLE FIXTURE, TYPE 4 DISTRIBUTION 66 LED 6,010 120V 70+ 3000K PO +15' AFF EATON GALLEON #GAN-AF-02-LED-U-T4W-BK-8030 OR EQUAL. F2 RECESSED WALL LED STEP-LIGHT 18 LED 1,400 120V 70+ 3000K RW +18" AFF WE-EF QRI374 SERIES #616-2321 WITH ROUGH-IN HOUSING BQR30-I #616-9330, OR EQUAL. F3 TREE TRUNK MOUNTED LED LIGHT 53 LED 6,000 120V 70+ 3000K S +10' AFF BRADLEY LIGHTING STELLA #R-A-3/2-10-3000K-30-3000K-*-1-DB OR EQUAL. *COORDINATE FRAME SIZE WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. F4 POST-TOP LED FIXTURE 24 LED 2,408 120V 70+ 3000K PO +10' AFF EATON ARBOR #ARB-B1-LED-D1-T4-BK-8030 OR EQUAL. F5A INDIRECT/DIRECT LED GARAGE CANOPY FIXTURE 33.5 LED 3,620 120V 70+ 3000K S - LITHONIA LIGHTING #VCPG LED-V4-P1-30K-80CRI-T5M-MVOLT-SRM-UPL1-PIR-DNAXD OR EQUAL. NOTES: ABBREVIATIONS: 1. VERIFY ALL FIXTURE MOUNTING IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO ORDERING MOUNTING HARDWARE. PO = POLE RW = RECESSED WALL 2. PROVIDE 5-YEAR WARRANTY ON FIXTURES, LED BOARDS AND DRIVER. S = SURFACE 3. PROVIDE 4" DIAMETER ROUND ALUMINUM POLE FOR ALL POLE-MOUNTED FIXTURES. SEE PLANS FOR QUANTITY AND LOCATIONS. FINISH TO MATCH POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES. LENGTH SHALL BE EQUAL TO MOUNTING HEIGHT. BAT INV1 1" C - 2#8 AWG & 1#10 AWG GND (XHHW-2) (2) 15-PANEL STRINGS STRING MAX DC VOLTAGE = 652V MAX AMPS = 13A INVERTER SCHEDULE NAME MANUFACTURER AND MODEL QTY WEIGHT CONTINUOUS OUTPUT POWER NOMINAL AC VOLTAGE MAX AC OUTPUT CURRENT MAX OPEN-CIRCUIT DC VOLTAGE MAX DC INPUT CURRENT INV-1 FRONIUS PRIMO 10.1-1 1 82.5 LBS 9,995 VA 240V / 1PH 41.6 A 1,000 V 51 A 1" C - 2#6 AWG & 1#10 AWG GND (XHHW-2) 2#12 AWG (USE-2) PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL SCHEDULE NAME MANUFACTURER AND MODEL QTY WEIGHT MODULE DATA AT STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS (STC) TOTAL INSTALLED kW (DC-CEC) TOTAL INSTALLED kW (AC-STC) PEAK POWER MAXIMUM SYSTEM VOLTAGE OPEN-CIRCUIT VOLTAGE SHORT-CIRCUIT CURRENT MAXIMUM SERIES FUSE RATING MAXIMUM POWER POINT VOLTAGE MAXIMUM POWER POINT CURRENT CEC PTC RATING P-1 LG NeON2 #LG335N1C-A6 30 41 LBS 335 W 1,000 V 41 V 10.49 A 20 A 34.1 V 9.83 A 311.1 W 10 kW 4 P1 INV1 TYPICAL (30) 10/03/2024 Page 2225 of 2658
NO
PARKING
NEV
PARKING
ONLY
NEV
PARKING
ONLY
PARKING
ONLY
PARKING
ONLY
STOP
EV EV
NO
PARKING STOP
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT J J J JJJ J J J 2E-5 PANEL PD1 F1PD1-5 F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7 F2 PD1-7 F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7 F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7 F2PD1-7 F2PD1-1 F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7F2 PD1-7 F2 PD1-5F2 PD1-5 TYP 1 PC 2 F5A PD1-5 F5A PD1-5 F5A PD1-5 F3PD1-7 F3PD1-7 F4PD1-7 F3PD1-7 F1PD1-5 F1PD1-5 2"C2#12 AWG & 1#12 AWG GND J JJJJ 4E-4 TYP OF E RP DE RET SI GE R REE NI GNE L A ON S S I C A L I F OR N I A S T A T E O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639 ALEXANDER MH SASSOON E L E C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 NOTESPROVIDE OUTDOOR RATED PHOTOCELL WITH 7-PIN CONNECTION. PROVIDE NEMA 3R JUNCTION BOX AT TREE BASE, COORDINATE WITH TREE FIXTURE MANUFACTURER FOR ADDITIONAL WIRING REQUIREMENTS. GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, AT LEAST TRADE SIZE 1", BURIED MINIMUM 24" BELOW GRADE. SEE DETAILS 1 AND 2 ON SHEET E-5. 12 C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7 N LIGHTING PLAN 1 1" = 10'-0" 0 10 10/03/2024 Page 2226 of 2658 NO
PARKING
NEV
PARKING
ONLY
NEV
PARKING
ONLY
PARKING
ONLY
PARKING
ONLY
STOP
EV EV
NO
PARKING X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X STOP STOP
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 2 3 2 J PANEL PD1 2E-4 1 PD1-6 EVCS-2 PD1-12-14 EVCS-1 PD1-8-10 2- 3E-5 4 3 2"C4#8 AWG 2#12 AWG 1#10 AWG GND 1"C - 2#8 AWG & 1#10 AWG GND 1"C - 2#8 AWG & 1#10 AWG GND 1"C - 2#12 AWG & 1#12 AWG GND 3- J (E) SCE PULLBOX SOLAR INVERTER BATTERY X X X X 3E-4 PANEL PD1 G, WP PD1-2 PD1-4 PD1-9 G, WP 2 1 TYPICAL 4E-5 J BATTERY J NEV
PARKING
ONLY
PARKING STOP
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT PV INVERTER 'INV-1' MOUNTED ON CANOPY FRAME JJJJ J J JJJ J J JJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J JJ J J OF E RP DE RET SI GE R REE NI GNE L A ON S S I C A L I F OR N I A S T A T E O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639 ALEXANDER MH SASSOON E L E C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 NOTESPROVIDE HANDHOLE PULLBOX. PROVIDE LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE SINGLE PORT BOLLARD-MOUNT CHARGING STATION, CHARGE POINT #CT4011. SEE DETAIL 6 ON SHEET E-5 FOR MOUNTING. PROVIDE SOLAR-POWERED MULTI-SPACE PAY STATION, IPS GROUP #MS1. SEE DETAIL 6 ON SHEET E-5 FOR MOUNTING. PROVIDE 10 KW SOLAR ARRAY MOUNTED TO PRE-ENGINEERED SEMI-CANTILEVERED CARPORT. GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, AT LEAST TRADE SIZE 1", BURIED MINIMUM 24" BELOW GRADE. SEE DETAILS 1 AND 2 ON SHEET E-5. 1234 C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7 N POWER PLAN 1 1" = 10'-0" 0 10 ENLARGED POWER PLAN 2 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 4 SOLAR PV POWER PLAN 3 1" = 10'-0" NOTESPROVIDE MINIMUM (4) 2" AND (8) 1" CONDUIT STUB-OUTS FROM PANELBOARD BASE TO ACCESSIBLE HANDHOLE. CAP SPARE CONDUITS IN ACCESSIBLE HANDHOLE. PROVIDE 30" TALL QUADRUPLEX OUTDOOR POWER PEDESTAL WITH WHILE-IN-USE COVER, LEGRAND WIREMOLD #XPP1G30C-SV OR EQUAL. 12 0 10 10/03/2024 Page 2227 of 2658 OF E RP DE RET SI GE R REE NI GNE L A ON S S I C A L I F OR N I A S T A T E O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639 ALEXANDER MH SASSOON E L E C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 LIGHT POLE FOOTING 4 NO SCALE HANDHOLE 2 NO SCALE BASE DETAIL PLAN VIEW LINE LOAD 36" 14 3/8" 13 1/4" 3" MIN. SLOTS FOR BASE INSTALLATION 14.75" 17.25" BOTTOM VIEW 16.25" MOUNTING SLOT DETAIL 3" 2" 12.25"RECOMMENDED SIDE CLEARANCE MINIMUM CLEARANCE REQD. PER NEC 110.26, TYP FRONT AND BACK LINE LOAD 10" USE 5/8"-18 ANCHOR BOLTS 6" MIN. ASPHALT 24" MIN.SEE PLANS. CONDUIT ASPHALT SECTION A-A 18" MIN. AC PATCH TOP OF NEW 12" X 18" X 12" PULLBOX A 12" PULLBOX BASE EXTENSION 12" GRAVEL SLURRY DIRTA LIGHTING 4" PULL BOX 18" 4" 4" 4"
4"
12" 1 2 3 4 1 KEY NOTES PULL BOX BASE. SET ON PEA GRAVEL BASE BENEATH PULL BOX. (PROVIDE EXTENSIONS AS REQ'D. IN FIELD) MIN. OF (1) EXTENSION. POUR 4" CONCRETE OR AC PATCH PAD AROUND EACH PULL BOX TO PREVENT SINKING BELOW GRADE, AND SLURRY COAT AROUND. SEE SECTION A-A. PROVIDE 6'-0", #6 GROUND BOND JUMPER TO COVER FROM SERVICE GROUND CONDUCTOR WITH NECESSARY APPROVED HARDWARE. WATER TIGHT INSTALLATION-FOAM SEAL CONDUIT OPENINGS. 1234 NOTES 1. LABEL EACH COVER TO IDENTIFY SERVICE 2. DO NOT MIX POWER & L.V. COMM. CONDUITS. 2 2 PEDESTAL PANEL MOUNTING 1 NO SCALE RECOMMENDED GROUND ROD LOCATION 7" 2" GROUND TEST WELL 3 NO SCALE COMPRESSION CONNECTOR NON-REVERSIBLE CONNECTOR, GROUND ROD CONTINUOUS LOOP GND CONDUCTORS REQUIRED REFER TO PLAN FOR BROOKS SERIES 1-RT OR EQUAL PRECAST 8-3/4" DIA TRAFFIC BOX, COMPRESSION CONNECTOR NON-REVERSIBLE GROUND ROD CLAMP, LABELED "GROUND" IN CAST IRON COVER CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD. 3/4"x10' LONG COPPER 1/2" ENGRAVED LETTERS "BOTTOMLESS" CONCRETE PULLBOX 12"x18"x12" WITH 4" GRAVEL BASE AND CONCRETE TRAFFIC LID STAMPED "LIGHTING" CONDUIT CONTAINING CIRCUIT WIRING AND EQUIPMENT GROUND CONDUCTOR REFER TO SCHEDULE FOR FOOTING DIAMETER #4 AWG BARE COPPER GROUND CONDUCTOR. 24" MIN. #3 TIES AT 12"O.C. GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLT FURNISHED WITH POLE TYP 20' (1) #4 BC STRANDED COPPER CONDUCTOR DRAINAGE, RADIUS EDGES AND GRIND SMOOTH SLIGHTLY SLOPE TOP OF BASE FOR PROPER ALL EXPOSED ABOVE GRADE SURFACES LIGHT POLE PROVIDE NON-SHRINK GROUT MANUFACTURER PROVIDED BASE COVER ANCHORED WITH TAMPER PROOF HARDWARE AND GASKETS 0'-0" UP TO 15'-0" LIGHT POLE FOOTING SCHEDULE POLE HEIGHT 6" 2'-6" FOOTING DIAMETER 6'-0" 2'-0" 15'-1" UP TO 30'-0" 8'-0" 2'-6" 1" PVC SCHEDULE 80 GRAVEL 1 FOOTING HEIGHT BELOW GRADE FOOTING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE 2 3 KEY NOTES GROUND POLE TO GROUND CONDUCTORS IN CONDUITS. REFER TO SCHEDULE FOR ABOVE GRADE HEIGHT. REFER TO SCHEDULE FOR FOOTING LENGTH BELOW GRADE. VERTICAL REBAR 3" CLEAR MINIMUM. REFER TO SCHEDULE FOR SIZES AND QUANTITIES. 1234 4 (6) #6 (8) #6 VERTICAL REBAR 10/03/2024 Page 2228 of 2658 4" MINIMUM OF E RP DE RET SI GE R REE NI GNE L A ON S S I C A L I F OR N I A S T A T E O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639 ALEXANDER MH SASSOON E L E C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 SEMI-CANTILEVER SOLAR CARPORT 3 NO SCALE PVC TO RGS CONDUIT RISER DETAIL 2 NO SCALE NOTES 1. PROVIDE ENGINEERED CARPORT FOR SOLAR ARRAY, POWERS SOLAR FRAMES OR EQUAL. METAL FRAMING SHALL BE POWDER COATED TO MATCH ADJACENT METAL FINISHES. STRUCTURAL DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE PLACEMENT WITHIN THE BIOSWALE PROVIDE DEFERRED SUBMITTALS FOR ENGINEER AND CITY REVIEW. MINIMUM CLEAR HEIGHT 10'-0" CL CL CL CL RGS CONDUIT CONDUIT COUPLING CONDUIT COUPLING PVC SCHEDULE 40 CONDUIT PVC COATED RGS CONDUIT SOLAR PV GROUNDING DIAGRAM 5 NO SCALE CONDUIT DUCT BANK 1 NO SCALE 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM 1" PVC SCHEDULE 40 CONDUIT FINISHED GRADE WARNING TAPE, HARRIS INDUSTRIES DU-01 95% COMPACTION BACKFILL NOTESWEATHERPROOF 1-GANG CAST ALUMINUM JUNCTION BOX WITH SELF-THREADING GROUND SCREW. ATTACH TO SURFACE USING (4) MOUNTING LUGS WITH FASTENERS LISTED FOR THE WALL MATERIAL. BOX FINISH: POWDER-COAT, GRAY. WEATHERPROOF 1-GANG CAST ALUMINUM WHILE-IN-USE LOCKABLE COVER AND NEOPRENE GASKET. FINISH TO MATCH JUNCTION BOX. 1/4" SILICONE SEALANT CAULKING BEAD ALONG LEFT, TOP, AND RIGHT SIDES OF BOX AND COVER. COLOR TO MATCH JUNCTION BOX AND COVER. 3/4" RGS WITH SPACER CONDUIT STRAP. PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT FINISHES. 12 34 SURFACE OUTDOOR RECEPTACLE 4 NO SCALE1 2 4 1 3 EQUIPMENT MOUNTING PAD 6 NO SCALE 4" X 4" X 3/8" THICK PAD NEOPRENE VIBRATION (4) BOLTS, 1/2" DIA. EXPANSION ANCHORS, 2-1/2" MINIMUM EMBEDMENT. FINISHED GRADE 4" HOUSE KEEPING PAD NOTES 1. SPECIAL INSPECTION OF EXPANSION ANCHOR INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED. 2. EXPANSION ANCHORS SHALL BE GRADE SAE 304 STAINLESS STEEL, HILTI-KWIK BOLT TZ2 OR EQUAL. 3. MINIMUM 12 BOLT DIAMETERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FROM BOLT TO EDGE OF HOUSE KEEPING PAD. EQUIPMENT: - BATTERY SYSTEM - PAY STATION - EV CHARGER INV1 PD1 1#12 AWG GND 1#4 AWG GEC TO CANOPY STEEL 10/03/2024 Page 2229 of 2658
OF E RP
DE RET SI GE R
REE NI GNE
L A
ON
S S I
C A L I F OR N I A
S T A T E
O F SIGNED: 06/18/2021 No. E22639
ALEXANDER
MH
SASSOON
E L E
C T R I C A L 06/18/2021 10/03/2024 Page 2230 of 2658
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CMO-054
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES
OF TORRANCE, HERMOSA BEACH, MANHATTAN BEACH, AND REDONDO
BEACH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS
PROJECT FOR THE BEACH CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP (Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Torrance, the City of Hermosa Beach, the City of Manhattan Beach, and the City of Redondo Beach for Implementation of the Beach Cities Green Streets Project for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Attachment 1);
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement (Attachment 2); and
3. Adopt a resolution approving construction of the Hermosa Avenue Green Street project pursuant to Government Code Section 830.6 and establishing a project payment account (Attachment 5).
Executive Summary:
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would establish proportional responsibility for the construction and implementation of the Beach Cities Green Streets Project in Torrance, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach utilizing grant funds, as well as necessary contributions from the individual agencies.
Hermosa Beach’s portion of this project, the Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 164 and Storm Drain Improvements (CIP 417), would improve the area near Hermosa Avenue between Herondo Street and 6th Street to include green street elements that would help reduce pollution from storm water runoff.
Approval would allow Hermosa Beach to utilize the grant funds to help construct this important project aimed at reducing bacteria water quality exceedances from Hermosa Beach and the Herondo Drain in compliance with State storm water regulations.
Background:
The cities of Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District formed the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (WMG) to develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) to comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Regional Board)
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 5
2012 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and Santa Monica Bay Toxics TMDL. The Beach Cities EWMP was submitted to the Regional Board on February 9, 2016 and was approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board via a letter dated April 18, 2016. The WMG was directed by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board to begin implementation of the EWMP immediately, including construction of identified capital projects. The EWMP was updated in 2021 to reflect the new NPDES permit (Attachment 3).
Complementary to regional storm water structural projects, green infrastructure projects and programs are critical to achieve water quality compliance, as detailed in the EWMP.
Green Streets are typically smaller local control measures in available rights-of-way and augment regional structural projects to achieve water quality objectives. The Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project was identified in the 2016 EWMP and the 2021 update as a distributed structural project to receive and treat dry-weather and some stormwater runoff from an approximately 47-acre drainage area.
In 2018, the City of Hermosa Beach applied for a Proposition 1 grant through the Ocean Protection Council to fund a Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project. That grant application was unsuccessful and this joint effort with the WMG to utilize Prop 12 and SCW funding for the Beach Cities Green Street Project is a chance to help complete this important project. At its March 10, 2020 meeting, City Council approved an MOU between the watershed agencies to complete project design (Attachment 4). Project design was completed in Fall of 2024.
The City of Torrance, in partnership with the other cities in the WMG, applied for and was successful in receiving a Proposition 12 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Grant of $2 million from the Coastal Conservancy in February 2018 and a grant from the Safe, Clean Water (SCW) Regional Infrastructure Program for $5,366,953 in March 2020. These grants will help fund the Beach Cities Green Street Project, which includes the Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project, as well as green street projects identified for two sites in Manhattan Beach, five sites in Redondo Beach, and five sites in Torrance. A portion of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Grant was used to fund the design of the project. The balance will help fund construction of the project.
The portion of the project in Hermosa Beach, the Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project, is an important project for reducing bacteria water quality exceedances from Hermosa Beach and the Herondo Drain. The Herondo Drain is the largest storm drain system within the Beach Cities EWMP that discharges directly to Santa Monica Bay. Located at the southern border of the City of Hermosa Beach, it drains over 3,000 acres of area throughout Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Manhattan Beach, and is a source of elevated bacteria levels directly off-shore. This drainage area includes 287
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 5
acres of Hermosa Beach and the proposed project would capture runoff from 47 acres otherwise not captured for treatment.
Hermosa Beach, and its WMG partners, sought alternate projects to achieve storm water diversion and pollutant reductions equivalent to what would have been achieved by the abandoned Hermosa Greenbelt Infiltration Project (Greenbelt Project). The search for alternative projects involves reanalyzing existing concepts and exploring new projects throughout the region with the possibility of combining multiple smaller projects to achieve compliance goals. The City, with assistance from its watershed group partners, identified distributed drywells in the vicinity of Pacific Coast Highway as the most viable project to help meet these diversion goals. Staff is working separately on the feasibility of the proposed dry well project and potential funding opportunities.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
June 23, 2015 Authorized submission of the draft EWMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Adopt Los Angeles County Program Environmental Impact Report
February 13, 2018 Adopted Resolution Approving Application for Prop 1 Grants Funds through California Ocean Protection Council
March 10, 2020 Approved MOU for Green Streets Project and Grant Funding October 27, 2020 Approved MOU for EWMP Update
Discussion:
The Hermosa Avenue Green Street project would remove 5,115 linear feet of gutters in the project area and replace them with permeable concrete gutters. Additionally, 39 King Palm trees would be planted in the medians on Hermosa Avenue, between Herondo Street and 6th Street, replacing existing landscaping. Per the terms of the Coastal Conservancy grant, participating agencies are required to plant 200 trees within the project areas. These green street elements would serve to improve storm drainage, reduce pollutants, and simultaneously help beautify the southern end of Hermosa Avenue. The project area, including the southern end of Beach Drive, is historically prone to flooding. The proposed project would help reduce flooding in the area resulting from storm events.
If approved, the City of Torrance would serve as the lead agency on the entire Beach Cities Green Streets Project. By approving the proposed resolution, and entering into the MOU, the parties agree to:
Work collaboratively to implement construction of the project; and
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 5
Each be responsible for any additional funds, beyond the grant funding, necessary to complete the project.
The term of the proposed MOU is five years to allow for full project completion. The total cost for construction of all the agencies’ projects is estimated to be $8,388,716, with the Hermosa Avenue Green Streets portion estimated at $1,029,659. Hermosa Beach’s local match is estimated at $188,286 which was budgeted in CIP 164 and CIP 417. The project costs include three years of post-construction stormwater monitoring.
Should the construction bids exceed the engineer’s estimate, the MOU requires the agencies to seek additional funds in a timely manner. The MOU also allows each agency to withdraw from the agreement before contract award without penalty if they cannot secure the necessary funds. The City of Torrance would require all necessary funds be secured prior to award of the construction contract. The bid documents are structured to allow the project to potentially move forward should any agency terminate its involvement before award. Upon receipt of signed MOUs from each agency, the City of Torrance anticipates advertising for construction bids in January 2025.
Approval of the proposed MOU and completion of the Hermosa Avenue Green Street project would help the City accomplish significant water quality improvements, thereby demonstrating to the Regional Board the City’s continued commitment to meeting its pollution reduction mandates. The project would also provide an opportunity for the City to work successfully with its neighboring agencies in the WMG and set a precedent for future cooperation necessary for the group to accomplish other joint projects (e.g., the proposed Distributed Dry Well project CIP 438) and meet its final water quality goals.
Lastly, this project would serve the dual benefit of rehabilitating and enhancing an important gateway to the City and creating an impactful statement of commitment to sustainability for residents and visitors alike.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:
Infrastructure Element
Goal 5. The stormwater management system is safe, sanitary, and environmentally and fiscally sustainable.
Policies:
5.1 Integration of stormwater best practices. Integrate stormwater infiltration best practices when initiating streetscape redevelopment or public facility improvement projects.
5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 5
designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff and minimize impervious surfaces.
Fiscal Impact:
If approved, the City would use Fiscal Year 2024–2025 budgeted CIP 164 Hermosa Avenue Green Street and CIP 417 Storm Drain Improvements project funds for the Beach Cities Green Street Project required match and project contingency.
Per the engineer’s estimate of construction total costs, the City of Hermosa Beach’s required match would be $188,286. Actual costs associated with construction of the project would be determined after the project is bid and a contractor secured. The City would be responsible for its share of funds required for construction that exceeds the grant funding amount. Should the actual costs exceed the estimated local match, contingency funds of $160,000 would be used from the above referenced CIP’s for a total estimated cost of $348,286. The City would also retain the ability to withdraw from the project without penalty if construction were to exceed the amount budgeted.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution - MOU
2. Draft Memorandum of Understanding
3. Beach Cities EWMP 2021
4. 2020 Memorandum of Understanding for Design
5. Draft Resolution - Construction and Account
6. Project Plans
Respectfully Submitted by: Douglas Krauss, Environmental Program Manager Concur: Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Pat Donegan, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 24-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
BETWEEN THE CITY OF TORRANCE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, AND THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF
THE BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT FOR THE BEACH
CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP
WHEREAS, the cities of Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District formed the Beach Cities Group (BCG) to develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) to comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Regional Board) 2012 NPDES Permit and with the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDL and Santa Monica Bay Toxics TMDL;
WHEREAS, the Beach Cities EWMP was submitted to the Regional Board on February 9, 2016 and was approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board and an update to the EWMP was approved in 2021;
WHEREAS, the Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project was identified in the EWMP as one of the projects necessary to help achieve the water quality objectives for the watershed as required by the NPDES Permit;
WHEREAS, the City of Torrance applied for and was successful in winning a Proposition 12 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Grant in the amount of two million dollars from the Coastal Conservancy to help fund design and construction of green streets within the cities of the BCG;
WHEREAS, the City of Torrance in partnership with the other parties submitted a successful funding application to the Safe, Clean Water Regional Infrastructure Program and has been awarded funding (SCW Regional Funds) of $5,366,953 for the construction of the Beach Cities Green Streets Project; and WHEREAS, in 2020 the BCG agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund design and engineering of the Beach Cities Green Streets Project; and
WHEREAS, a MOU is required between the cities to establish cost sharing and other proportional responsibilities for constructing the project, with the City of Torrance serving as lead agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Mayor is authorized to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Torrance, the City of Hermosa Beach, the City of Manhattan Beach and the City of Redondo Beach for Implementation of the Beach Cities Green Streets Project for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review Approval of the MOU and removal 5,115 linear feet of gutters in the project area and replacement with permeable concrete gutters is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. This section exempt, among other things, the maintenance or minor alteration of existing public facilities with no expansion of existing use, The gutters will remain the gutters, except with the new permeable concrete which is the environmentally preferable.
Further this action is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. This project will enhance an protect the environment via the installation of a more environmentally conscious permeable gutter in certain areas of the City.
SECTION 3. This resolution takes effect immediately and 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 at which time same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 12th day of November, 2024 Dean Francois
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ________________________________ Myra Maravilla Patrick Donegan
City Clerk City Attorney
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 1 of 18
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TORRANCE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH,
AND THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT FOR THE BEACH CITIES
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made and entered into as of the date set forth below by and between the CITY OF TORRANCE, a chartered municipal corporation, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a California municipal corporation, the CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, a California municipal corporation, and the CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, a chartered municipal corporation. Collectively, these entities shall be known herein as “PARTIES” or individually as “PARTY”.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS the PARTIES have determined that it is mutually beneficial to cooperate jointly in the design and construction of distributed green street structural control measures within the SMB 6-01 and SMB 5-02 analysis regions of the Beach Cities WMP Area; and WHEREAS, each PARTY identified a project site(s) within its owned and maintained rightsof-way for a distributed green street project(s) within the SMB 6-01 and/or SMB 5-02 analysis regions and these green street project sites together comprise the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT as shown in Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT are to improve coastal water quality by providing pollutant load reduction through (1) capture of the 85th percentile 24-hour rainfall runoff volume from the tributary area, (2) treatment and infiltration of stormwater and associated pollutant loads, (3) reduction of peak runoff rate and total volume of stormwater discharged to Santa Monica Bay, and (4) retrofitting of impervious areas in public parkways and rights-of-way to provide urban greening benefits; and WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (REGIONAL WATER BOARD) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105, NPDES No. CAS004004 (Regional MS4 Permit); and
WHEREAS, the Regional MS4 Permit became effective on September 11, 2021, and identified the PARTIES as permittees that are responsible for compliance with the Regional MS4 Permit requirements; and
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 2 of 18
WHEREAS, the Regional MS4 Permit provides for Permittees to collaboratively develop Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) to implement the requirements of the Regional MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES submitted the revised Beach Cities Watershed Management Program (Beach Cities WMP) to the REGIONAL WATER BOARD on June 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, the revised Beach Cities WMP was conditionally approved by the Executive Officer of the REGIONAL WATER BOARD via letter dated April 28, 2023, that directed the PARTIES to submit a final WMP that satisfies the conditions of approval and to begin implementation of the WMP immediately; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES further revised the WMP to meet the conditions of approval and resubmitted it to the REGIONAL WATER BOARD on July 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Beach Cities WMP is applicable to the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Area (Beach Cities WMP Area) consisting of all the incorporated areas served by the municipal separate storm sewer systems(MS4) of the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Torrance for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watersheds excluding the Machado Lake Watershed, and also including the infrastructure of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) within the Beach Cities WMP Area; and WHEREAS, the Beach Cities WMP identifies distributed green street structural control measures that, when implemented together with regional structural watershed control measures and baseline and enhanced minimum control measures, are predicted by the reasonable assurance analysis (RAA) to achieve compliance with water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) set forth in the REGIONAL MS4 Permit for the Beach Cities WMP Area; and WHEREAS, the Beach Cities WMP identifies the Herondo Storm Drain sub watershed (SMB 6-01 analysis region) and the 28th Street Storm Drain sub watershed (SMB 5-02 analysis region) as high priority areas for implementing distributed green street structural control measures in order to meet compliance deadlines for WQBELs; and
WHEREAS the PARTIES entered into a MOU (DESIGN MOU) for the Implementation of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT on July 9, 2020 which expired on July 9, 2023 with the stated purpose of establishing an understanding of shared responsibility among the PARTIES for Preliminary Engineering and Final Design of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT; and WHEREAS, design plans for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT were completed under the DESIGN MOU whereby an ENGINEERING CONSULTANT was hired to perform preliminary engineering and final design services; and
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 3 of 18
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that solicitation and award of a single contract for construction of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT will be beneficial to the PARTIES; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that continuing services from the ENGINEERING CONSULTANT for bid phase support and services during construction identified as optional tasks in the design contract will be beneficial to the PARTIES; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that hiring of a CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT to manage the construction of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT will be beneficial to the PARTIES; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that hiring of an INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACTOR to perform the required construction inspections for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT will be beneficial to the PARTIES; and
WHEREAS the CITY OF TORRANCE in partnership with the other PARTIES submitted a successful application to the California State Coastal Conservancy and Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission and was awarded a Proposition 12 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Grant (PROP 12 SMBR GRANT) for $2,000,000 for the design and construction of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the CITY OF TORRANCE in partnership with the other PARTIES submitted a successful funding application to the Safe, Clean Water Regional Infrastructure Program and has been awarded funding (SCW REGIONAL FUNDS) of $5,366,953 for the construction of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that hiring of a MONITORING CONTRACTOR to conduct the post-construction project performance monitoring and reporting to meet the requirements of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT and the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT will be beneficial to the PARTIES; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES entered into a MOU on December 26, 2013, which was amended on July 1, 2020, to share costs and collaborate in the revision and continuing implementation of the Beach Cities Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP MOU) to comply with Regional MS4 Permit requirements; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the total cost for construction of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT shall be determined based on a public works competitive bidding process; and
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 4 of 18
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that in the event the total cost for completion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT, including construction, construction management, inspection services, and post-construction project performance monitoring and reporting, [PROJECT COMPLETION COST] exceeds available external funding that the balance will be funded by the PARTIES based on each PARTY’s proportional share of the PROJECT COMPLETION COST for the project site(s) within each PARTY’s owned and maintained rights-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the PARTIES agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOU.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to establish an understanding of proportional responsibility among the PARTIES for the completion and maintenance of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT and to utilize Prop 12 SMBR GRANT funds and SCW REGIONAL FUNDS awarded for completion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT.
Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES shall fully cooperate with one another to attain the purposes of this MOU and to fund any remaining project completion costs necessary to complete the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT.
Section 4. Voluntary. This MOU is voluntarily entered into by the PARTIES for implementation of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT.
Section 5. Term. This MOU shall become effective on the date of execution by all the PARTIES (EFFECTIVE DATE) and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the EFFECTIVE DATE, with the option to extend the term by two additional years if approved by all PARTIES in writing.
Section 6. The PARTIES agree:
a. Lead Agency for Beach Cities Green Streets Project Implementation. The role of LEAD AGENCY for the implementation of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT shall be assumed by the City of TORRANCE. The PARTIES agree that the LEAD AGENCY may amend contracted work so long as the LEAD AGENCY notifies the PARTIES of the proposed changes in writing and receives prior written approval from the PARTIES. The PARTIES shall endeavor to respond to the LEAD AGENCY in a timely manner. b. Construction Management Services. A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR will be hired by the LEAD AGENCY on behalf of the PARTIES to manage the construction of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT.
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 5 of 18
c. Inspection Services. An INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACTOR will be hired by the LEAD AGENCY on behalf of the PARTIES to perform the required construction inspections for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT. Each PARTY has the option to perform additional in-kind Public Works inspections to ensure that construction is completed consistent with each PARTY’S local construction standards. d. Monitoring. A MONITORING CONTRACTOR will be hired by the LEAD AGENCY on behalf of the PARTIES to perform three years of post-construction performance monitoring and prepare the final report for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT to meet the requirements of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT and the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS. e. Project Completion Cost. To work cooperatively to fund the remaining PROJECT COMPLETION COSTS necessary to complete the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT after allocating the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT and the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS and any other external sources of funding that are secured. PROJECT COMPLETION COSTS will be based on a public works competitive bidding process for construction and professional services proposals.
f. Allocation of Grant Funding. The PROP 12 SMBR GRANT and the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS will be allocated according to each PARTY's proportional share of the PROJECT COMPLETION COST for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT. g. Payment of LOCAL MATCH. To fund PROJECT COMPLETION COSTS for the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT not otherwise covered by external funding (LOCAL MATCH) based on each PARTY’s proportional share of the total PROJECT COMPLETION COST for the project site(s) within their jurisdiction in accordance with the cost share formula detailed in Table 1 of Exhibit C. Payment of each PARTY’s LOCAL MATCH to the LEAD AGENCY shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice from the LEAD AGENCY. For illustrative purposes, an example calculation of each PARTY’s LOCAL MATCH is shown in Table 2 of Exhibit C using the formula in Table 1 of Exhibit C and the DESIGN CONSULTANT 100% design engineer’s estimate for construction costs shown in Exhibit B and estimates of construction management, inspection services, and monitoring costs.
Actual LOCAL MATCH will be calculated using results of construction bids and professional services proposals.
h. Documentation. To make a full-faith effort to cooperate with one another by timely providing to the LEAD AGENCY all requested information and documentation in their possession and available for release that is deemed necessary by the PARTIES to achieve the purposes of this MOU, including reporting requirements and documentation of inkind services as required by the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT and SCW REGIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT.
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 6 of 18
i. Permitting. To issue no-fee encroachment permits for work to be done in each PARTY’s respective jurisdiction.
j. Compliance with Terms of PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT. The PARTIES to this MOU acknowledge that while the City of Torrance is the sole grantee under the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT, the intent of the MOU is for all PARTIES as sub-grantees to comply with the terms and conditions of the PROP 12 GRANT AGREEMENT. If the PARTIES individually or jointly fail to execute their responsibilities to implement the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT or any component thereof, the City of Torrance may be deemed in violation of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT (see Section 9.f below) and required to repay funds received through the PROP 12 SMRC GRANT AGREEMENT with interest and penalties. The PARTIES agree that should any component of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT not be implemented and as a consequence the City of Torrance is deemed by the State Coastal Conservancy to be in violation of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT, any grant funds that must be repaid or forfeited as well as interest and penalties due shall be paid by the PARTY(IES) that fail to implement that component of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREET PROJECT.
k. Compliance with Terms of SCW REGIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT. The PARTIES to this MOU acknowledge that while the City of Torrance is the recipient under the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT, the intent of the MOU is for all PARTIES to comply with the terms and conditions of the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT pursuant to the Los Angeles Region Safe, Clean Water (SCW) Program ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code) and the SCW Program Implementation Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code). If the PARTIES individually or jointly fail to execute their responsibilities to implement the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT or any component thereof and as a consequence the City of Torrance is deemed in violation of the SCW REGIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT (see Section 9.f below) and required to repay any SCW REGIONAL FUNDS disbursed, the PARTIES agree that any SCW regional funds and interest shall be repaid by the PARTY(IES) that fail to implement that component of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREET PROJECT. The PARTIES further agree that no PARTY shall abandon, substantially discontinue use of, lease or dispose of any significant component during the useful life of 30 years of the of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT without prior written approval of the other Parties hereto and prior written approval of the LACFCD and that such approval may include a condition to repay a pro rata amount of all disbursed SCW REGIONAL FUNDS together with interest on said amount accruing from the date of abandonment, substantial discontinuance, lease or disposal of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT component. l. Compliance with LACFCD PEIR. The PARTIES shall comply with all mitigation measures applicable to the project that are in the LACFCD Enhanced Watershed Management
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 7 of 18
Programs Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), which was certified by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAFCD) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act on May 26, 2015, and may be found at https://pw.lacounty.gov/lacfcd/ewmppeir/.
m. Compliance with CEQA. The PARTIES to this MOU acknowledge that while the City of Torrance is the LEAD AGENCY, the intent of the MOU is for all PARTIES to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project site(s) within their jurisdiction.
n. Operations and Maintenance. Each PARTY agrees to cooperate with the LEAD AGENCY to implement the approved Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and to perform the appropriate O&M for each of the project(s) within its jurisdiction to ensure good working order throughout the useful life of the project(s).
o. Funding Acknowledgement Signs. The PARTIES agree to include acknowledgement of both the State Coastal Conservancy and Safe Clean Water Regional funding support in its project-related press releases, contacts with the media, and social media postings, and on its website.
p. Maintenance of Funding Acknowledgement Signs. The PARTIES agree to allow the CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR to install and maintain a sign visible from the nearest public roadway at each project site or in a prominent location at the PARTIES’ headquartersidentifying the project, acknowledging California State Coastal Conservancy assistance and displaying the California State Coastal Conservancy’s logo, and the logos for Proposition 12 and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. The signs shall acknowledge funding from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Proposition 12), as required by the California Natural Resources Agency’s “Sign Guidelines.” Signage shall also include the Safe, Clean Water Program color logo and the following disclosure statement: “Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Safe, Clean Water Program.” At a minimum the sign shall be 2’ x 3’ in size. The PARTIES agree to maintain one (1) signage for the duration of construction and one (1) signage upon completion of construction.
Section 7. The LEAD AGENCY agrees:
a. Administration. To collect and deposit funds in a separate account dedicated to this MOU and to allocate funds in accordance with this MOU. To administer the CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACT, and POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING CONTRACT, and to carry out the
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 8 of 18
terms of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT (Exhibit E) and SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Exhibit F).
b. Invoice. To invoice the other PARTIES for their respective shares of any LOCAL MATCH in accordance with Exhibit C Table 1. In-kind services to be provided by each PARTY shall not be invoiced. The payments will be invoiced following receipt of the CONSTRUCTION bids and the selection of CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION SERVICES, and POSTCONSTRUCTION MONITORING CONTRACTORS and will be due to the LEAD AGENCY within 45 days of receipt of invoice. In the event the LOCAL MATCH requirement exceeds the amounts shown in Exhibit C, Table 1, the Parties acknowledge and agree that they will request additional funding from their respective City Councils 30 days prior to the expiration of the bids. Once City Council approval is obtained, each PARTY will remit payment within sixty (60) days from the date of that approval. c. Final Accounting. To provide an accounting upon conclusion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT and to return any unused portion of any LOCAL MATCH deposited with the LEAD AGENCY. In the event of a shortfall, the LEAD AGENCY will invoice the PARTIES for the LOCAL MATCH to cover the shortfall consistent with the cost share formula in Table 1 of Exhibit C.
d. PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT. To administer the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT consistent with the grant requirements to facilitate full reimbursement of grant funds for completion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT. A copy of the amended PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT is provided as Exhibit E. e. SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT. To execute the SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT as expeditiously as possible following the execution of this MOU, and to distribute copies of the executed SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT to the PARTIES within ten (10) business days of receiving the executed SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT from the LACFCD. A copy of the Draft SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT is provided as Exhibit F.
f. Contracted Services. To include a Beach Cities WMG representative on the City’s Selection Committee for award of CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION SERVICES, and POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING CONTRACTS.
g. Expenditure. To utilize the funds deposited by the LACFCD from the SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT with the CITY OF TORRANCE only for the completion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT and to notify all PARTIES in writing if contracted work is to be amended.
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 9 of 18
Section 8. Indemnification
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the PARTIES agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each other and Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission from any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, and regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses, or any injury or damage of any kind whatsoever, whether actual, alleged or threatened, attorney fees, court costs, and any other costs of any nature without restriction incurred in relation to, as a consequence of, or arising out of, the performance of this MOU, and attributable to each PARTY's own fault. Following a determination of the percentage of fault of each PARTY, and/or liability by agreement between the PARTIES, or a court of competent jurisdiction, the PARTY responsible for liability will indemnify the other PARTY to this MOU for the percentage of liability determined.
b. In light of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an agreement (as defined in Section 895 of said Code), each of the PARTIES hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, shall assume the full liability imposed upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees by law for injury caused by any act of omission occurring in the performance of this MOU to the same extent that such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said code. To achieve the above stated purpose, each of the PARTIES indemnifies, defends, and holds harmless the other PARTIES and the California State Coastal Conservancy and Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission for any liability, cost, or expense that may be imposed upon the PARTIES solely by virtue of said Section 895.2.
The provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as if incorporated herein.
c. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the PARTIES agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the LACFCD and their elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability and expense arising from any act or omission of the PARTIES, their officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants or contractors in conjunction with PARTIES’ performance under or pursuant to this MOU, including defense costs, legal fees, claims, actions, and causes of action for damages of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage, and attributable to each PARTY's own fault. Following a determination of the percentage of fault of each PARTY, and/or liability by agreement between the PARTIES, or a court of competent jurisdiction, the PARTY responsible for liability will indemnify the other PARTY to this MOU for the percentage of liability determined.
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 10 of 18
Section 9. Termination, Default and Unilateral Withdrawal a. Termination: This MOU may be terminated upon the express written agreement of all PARTIES. If this MOU is terminated, then all PARTIES must agree on the equitable redistribution of remaining funds deposited, if there are any, or payment of invoices due at the time of termination.
b. If this MOU is terminated upon express written agreement of all PARTIES, then each PARTY shall also be responsible for the payment of its own fines, penalties and costs incurred as a result of the non-performance of the Beach Cities WMP, the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT and/or the SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the LOCAL MATCH requirement exceeds the amounts shown in Exhibit C, Table 1, and any PARTY is unable to secure City Council approval for additional funding, such PARTY may withdraw from this MOU without incurring penalties, fines, interest, or additional costs. The withdrawing PARTY shall notify the other PARTIES and the LEAD AGENCY in writing within thirty (30) days of its City Council’s decision not to approve additional funding. Upon such withdrawal, the withdrawing PARTY shall be released from all future obligations, liabilities, or responsibilities under this MOU, and any funds already deposited by the withdrawing PARTY shall be equitably redistributed among the remaining PARTIES or used for the PROJECT COMPLETION COSTS as agreed by the remaining PARTIES. c. Default: If a PARTY fails to substantially comply with any of the terms or conditions of this MOU, then that PARTY shall forfeit funding already deposited with the Lead Agency, and be responsible for the payment of fines, penalties and costs incurred as a result of the non-performance of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREET PROJECT, but no such forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has first been given notice of its default and 60 days to cure the alleged default.
d. THE LEAD AGENCY shall notify in writing all PARTIES, and may notify the REGIONAL WATER BOARD, within fourteen (14) days of any PARTY failing to cure an alleged default in compliance with the terms or conditions of this MOU. The non-delinquent PARTIES will determine the next course of action.
e. Should a default with this agreement render the City of Torrance in violation of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT and/or the SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT, the PARTY(IES) that default with this agreement shall be responsible for any interest, costs, fines, and penalties and repayment of any grant funds forfeited under the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT or reimbursement of funds under the SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT.
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 11 of 18
f. The PARTIES agree that, except as otherwise provided in Section 10(c), each shall assume full and independent responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the Regional MS4 Permit despite the collaborative approach of the MOU.
Section 10. General Provisions
a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOU, and any request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the PARTIES at the addresses set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The PARTIES shall notify each other within 30 days of any change of contact information, including personnel changes, provided in Exhibit A. Written notice shall include notice delivered via e-mail or fax. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by e-mail; (b) on the third (3rd) business day following mailing by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in Exhibit A. b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOU, the PARTIES hereby designate respective PARTY representatives in Exhibit A. The designated PARTY representatives, or their respective designees, shall administer the terms and conditions of this MOU on behalf of their respective PARTY. Each of the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to sign this MOU on behalf of such PARTY.
c. Maintenance of Project BMPs. The PARTIES agree to use, manage, maintain and operate the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT throughout the term of PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT and the SCW REGIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT consistent with the purposes for which the funding agreements were made and in accordance with the approved O&M Plan. Each party shall assume all operation and maintenance costs for their own facilities and structures only; neither the California State Coastal Conservancy nor the LACFCD shall be liable for any cost of maintenance, management, or operation.
The PARTIES may be excused from the obligations under this section only upon the written approval of the PARTIES. For purposes of this MOU, “operation costs” include direct costs incurred for material and labor needed for operations, utilities, insurance, and similar expenses. “Maintenance costs” include ordinary repairs and replacements of a recurring nature necessary to prolong the life of capital assets and basic structures, and the expenditure of funds necessary to replace or reconstruct capital assets or basic structures.
d. Mitigation. The PARTIES agree that, without the written permission of the Executive Officer of the California State Coastal Conservancy, the PARTIES each shall not use or allow the use any portion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT funded by the
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 12 of 18
PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT for mitigation (in other words, to compensate for adverse changes to the environment elsewhere) of any portion of the project. In providing permission, the Executive Officer may require that all funds generated in connection with any authorized or allowable mitigation on any portion of the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT shall be remitted promptly to the California State Coastal Conservancy. As used in this section, mitigation includes, but is not limited to, any use of the project in connection with the sale, trade, transfer or other transaction involving carbon sequestration credit or carbon mitigation.
e. Inspection. Throughout the term of the PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT, the California State Coastal Conservancy shall have the right to inspect the BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT areas to ascertain compliance with its PROP 12 SMBR GRANT AGREEMENT.
f. Relationship of the PARTIES. The PARTIES are, and shall at all times remain as to each other, wholly independent entities. No PARTY to this MOU shall have power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other PARTY unless expressly provided to the contrary by this MOU. No employee, agent, or officer of a PARTY shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent, employee, or officer of another PARTY. g. Binding Effect. This MOU shall be binding upon and shall be to the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each PARTY; provided, however, no PARTY may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without prior written consent of the other PARTIES.
h. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOU may not be amended, modified, or waived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all non-delinquent PARTIES. For purposes of this subsection, a PARTY shall be considered delinquent if that PARTY fails to timely pay an invoice as required by Section 6(g) or fails to substantially comply with the terms and/or conditions of this MOU pursuant to Section 9(c).
i. Law to Govern. This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. j. Drug-Free Workplace. PARTIES signature on this MOU constitutes the certification required by Government Code Section 8355, which requires that all state grantees provide a drug-free workplace by doing all of the following:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the person’s or organization’s workplace and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violations of the prohibition.
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 13 of 18
b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about all of the following:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.
ii. The person’s or organization’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. iii. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs.
iv. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
v. Requiring that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the drug-free workplace statement and that, as a condition of employment on the grant, the employee agrees to abide by the terms of the statement.
k. Union Organizing. By signing this MOU, the PARTIES each hereby acknowledge the applicability of Government Code Sections 16645 through 16649 to this MOU, and certify that no state funds will be used to assist, promote or deter union organizing. If a PARTY makes expenditures to assist, promote or deter union organizing, the PARTY agrees to maintain records sufficient to show that no state funds, including the funds provided under this agreement, have been used for these purposes, and shall provide these records to the Attorney General upon request.
l. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this MOU, the PARTIES and each of their contractors being paid through grant funds shall not deny the MOU’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. The PARTIES shall each ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. The PARTIES and each of their contractors being paid through grant funds shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the Conservancy to implement such article. The PARTIES shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the State Coastal Conservancy upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or the State Coastal
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 14 of 18
Conservancy shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause. The PARTIES and their contractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 2, §11105.)
m. Severability. If any provision of this MOU shall be determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected, and this MOU shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.
n. Entire Agreement. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement of the PARTIES with respect to the subject matter hereof.
o. Waiver. Waiver by any PARTY to this MOU of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOU shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any PARTY to any breach of the provisions of this MOU shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOU.
p. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall have been delivered to all PARTIES to this MOU.
q. Counsel. All PARTIES have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU shall be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities shall be resolved in a collaborative manner by the PARTIES and shall be rectified by amending this MOU as described in Section 10(h). r. Third Party Beneficiary. The California State Coastal Conservancy is a third-party beneficiary of this MOU.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature of the PARTIES:
[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 15 of 18
CITY OF TORRANCE
By: Date:
George K. Chen, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rebecca Poirier
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 16 of 18
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
By: Date:
Talyn Mirzakhanian
Acting City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Liza Tamura
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Quinn Barrow
City Attorney
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 17 of 18
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
By: Date:
James A. Light, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Eleanor Manzano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Michael W. Webb, City Attorney
Attachmnet 2 - Draft MOU Page 18 of 18
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
By: Date:
Dean Francois
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
PARTIES’ REPRESENTATIVES
1 City of Redondo Beach
Department of Public Works,
Engineering Division
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90266
Geraldine Trivedi
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 697-3195
2 City of Hermosa Beach
Department of Public Works
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Doug Krauss
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 750-3603
Fax: (310) 372-6186
3 City of Manhattan Beach
Public Works Department
3621 Bell Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Katherine Doherty
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 802-5352
4 City of Torrance
Department of Public Works
20500 Madrona Avenue
Torrance, CA 90503
Shin Furukawa, P.E.
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 781-6900
Fax: (310) 781-6902
EXHIBIT B
BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT
100% DESIGN ENGINEER’S COST ESTIMATE BY PARTY
City of Torrance
100% Engineer's Cost Estimate (10/7/2024)
City of Hermosa Beach
100% Engineer's Cost Estimate (10/7/2024)
City of Manhattan Beach
100% Engineer's Cost Estimate (10/07/2024)
City of Redondo Beach
100% Engineer's Cost Estimate (10/7/2024)
EXHIBIT C
BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION COST SHARE FORMULA AND EXAMPLE
*Total amount of external funding
Table 2. Example Beach Cities Green Streets Project Construction Cost Sharea Construction
Estimateb
Inspection
Servicesc
No. of
Monitoring
Locations
Performance
Monitoringd Total Coste
Proportionate
Share of Total
Cost
Proportionate
Share of SCW +
Grant Fundsf
Local Match
Neededh
Torrance $ 2,784,568 $106,476 6 $120,000 $3,011,044 35.9% $2,460,437 $550,607 Hermosa
Beach $953,210 $36,449 2 $40,000 $1,029,659 12.3% $841,373 $188,286 Manhattan
Beach $1,831,228 $70,022 2 $40,000 $1,941,250 23.1% $1,586,268 $354,982 Redondo
Beach $2,221,807 $84,957 5 $100,000 $2,406,764 28.7% $1,966,657 $440,107 Total $7,790,813 $297,903 15 $300,000 $8,388,716 100% $6,854,735g $1,533,981 aAll amounts are estimated and provided for demonstration purposes only. Amounts will be refined based on bids and proposals in order to determine actual local match. bConstruction estimate based on Engineers 100% design cost estimate for each City shown in Exhibit B. cInspection Services cost estimate is apportioned according to each agency's proportionate share of Construction Estimate. dPerformance monitoring is estimated at $100K/year for 3 years. Each City's share is based on the proportionate number of monitoring locations within its jurisdiction eTotal Cost = Construction Estimate + Inspection Services + Performance Monitoring f Proportionate Share of SCW + Grant Funds is based on each City's proportionate share of the Total Cost gTotal SCW + grant funds include secured Safe, Clean Water Regional Infrastructure funding ($5,366,953) and Prop 12 SMBR funding ($1,487,782). Note, 5% of the Prop 12 SMBR funds are being withheld pending project completion by February 28, 2026 and full accounting of advanced payment and request for release of withholding by March 31, 2026. hLocal Match Needed = Total Cost - Proportionate Share of Grant Funds Table 1. Beach Cities Green Streets Project Construction Cost Share Formula Construction
Total
Construction
Management
and Inspection
Services Cost
No. of
Monitoring
Locations
Performance
Monitoring
Cost
Project
Completion
Cost
Proportional
Share of
Project
Completion
Cost
Proportional
Allocation of SCW
+ Grant Funds
Local Match
PARTY a b n (n/N)*X = c a+b+c = d d/D (d/D)Z = y d-y
TOTAL A B N X A+B+X = D 100% Z* D-Z
EXHIBIT D
BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROJECT LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT E and F
BEACH CITIES GREEN STREETS PROP 12 SMBRC GRANT AGREEMENT
WITH AMENDMENT
and
SAFE CLEAN WATER REGIONAL PROJECT TRANSFER AGREEMENT
This page left intentionally blank
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Coastal Conservancy
GRANT AGREEMENT
Grant - Rev 11/20
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2024 in the State of California, by and between:
and
.
The State Coastal Conservancy (“the Conservancy”) and the City of Torrance (“the grantee”) agree to amend their Agreement No. 19-090 as follows:
TERM OF AGREEMENT
This section is modified as follows:
The grantee shall deliver the Request for Disbursement for advance payment to the Conservancy no later than April 2, 2024.
The completion date is extended to February 28, 2026. The termination date is extended to March 31, 2046.
The grantee shall deliver the full accounting of advanced payment and request for the release of the withholding no later than March 31, 2026.
(Continued on following pages)
The provisions on the following pages constitute a part of this agreement.
This agreement has been executed by the parties as shown below.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRANTEE
AGENCY GRANTEE (If other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) State Coastal Conservancy City of Torrance
BY (Authorized Signature) BY (Authorized Signature)
PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Amy Hutzel, Executive Officer Aram Chaparyan, City Manager
ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER
1515 Clay Street, 10th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 286-1015
20500 Madrona Avenue
Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: (310) 781-6900
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
BY THIS DOCUMENT
$-0-
PROGRAM/CATEGORY
Local Assistance
FUND TITLE/PROP NO.
Safe Neighborhood Parks,…(Prop 12)/
CA Drought, Water, Parks,…(Prop 68)
I certify that this
agreement is exempt
from Department of
General Services’
approval.
Erika Gomez
Procurement and
Contracts Manager
PRIOR AMOUNT
ENCUMBERED FOR THIS
AGREEMENT
FUND ITEM CHAPTER STATUTE FISCALYEAR
$2,000,000.00 3760-101-608800009(E)(1) = $100,000.00*
3760-101-000050008(C)(B3622) =$1,900,000.00*
Reap. by Ch. No. 21/21
21 14
2021
2017
21/22
17/18
TOTAL AMOUNT
ENCUMBERED TO DATE PROJECT NAME *Substitution of funds
$2,000,000.00 Beach Cities Green Streets
I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above.
NAME AND SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE
AGREEMENT NUMBER AM. NO.
19-090 2
TAXPAYERS FEDERAL EMPLOYER
IDENTIFICATION NO.
96-6000803
AGENCY
State Coastal Conservancy
GRANTEE’S NAME
City of Torrance
3/29/2024
29th March
Marita Nuval 2/17/2022
17th February
DocuSign Envelope ID: 038AAB41-7E03-4880-8246-7F9C12848064 Regional Program
/\greement No. 2023RPSSMB04
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
AND
City of Torrance
AGREEMENT NO. 2023RPSSMB04
SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM- REGIONAL PROGRAM
This Transfer Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement," is entered into as of 08/19/2024 I 09fl_��D Use Onfv) by and between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, hereinafter referred to as "District," and City of Torrance for Beach Cities Green Streets Project, hereinafter referred to as "Recipient." WHEREAS, District, pursuant to the Los Angeles Region Safe, Clean Water (SCW) Program ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code) and the SCW Program Implementation Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code), administers the SCW Program for the purpose of funding Projects and Programs to increase stormwater and urban runoff capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution in the District;
WHEREAS, Recipient proposes to implement a Funded Activity (as hereafter defined) that is eligible for funding under the SCW Program;
WHEREAS, the Funded Activity is included in a Stormwater Investment Plan (SIP) that has been approved by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors;
WHEREAS, the Board approved a standard template Agreement as required by and in accordance with Section 18 09 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual representations, covenants and agreements in this Agreement, the District and the Recipient, each binding itself, its successors and assigns, do mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions set forth in Sections 16.03 and 18,02 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code shall apply to this Agreement. In addition, the following definitions shall also apply:
"Activity Completion" means that the Funded Activity is complete to the reasonable satisfaction of the District based on review of reports and other documentation as deemed appropriate by the District. If the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project on District Right-of-Way a separate use and maintenance agreement is required. "Activity Costs" means the total costs necessary to achieve Activity Completion. The Activity Costs for the Funded Activity are described in Exhibit A.
"Agreement" means this Transfer Agreement, including all exhibits and attachments hereto. "Budget Plan" means a Recipient's plan for funding Activity Completion, including a description of all sources of funds for Activity Costs and a description of how the SCW Program Contribution will be allocated among the tasks identified in the Scope of Work within each fiscal year. Recipient's Budget Plan is described in Exhibit A. "Days" means calendar days unless otherwise expressly indicated. "Fiscal Year" means the period of twelve (12) months terminating on June 30 of any year "Funded Activity" means the Infrastructure Program Project, or Scientific Study described in Exhibit A- Scope of Work, including the Stakeholder and Community Outreach Plan and all other tasks and activities described in Exhibit A. "Safe Clean Water (SCW) Program Contribution" means the portion of the Activity Costs to be paid for with Regional Program funds provided by the District from the SCW Program as described in the Budget Plan. "Year" means calendar year unless otherwise expressly indicated.
II. PARTY CONTACTS
The District and the Recipient designate the following individuals as the primary points of contact and communication regarding the Funded Activity and the administration and implementation of this Agreement.
0 °'
co
”ø¨¨¸ª© ⁄ÆøÆß
-
8/19/2024
›ªÆ¨·º·½ø¨ª —º ›±³°¥ª¨·±²
¤²™ª¥±°ª ×ºÊ ðÌËflflfiÏÔȤðÌÏfiËðfiÓÏÍÈ⁄Á›ÔÓËÏfiðÍÏ Õ¨ø¨´Ê ‹ª¥·™ªÆªº մ涪½¨Ê ›±³°¥ª¨ª ©·¨¸ ‹±½´Õ·¹²Ê ›ÓðÓÏÛðÍË ‘fl ›±´²¨ß ⁄¥±±º ›±²¨Æ±¥ ‹·¨Æ·½¨Ú°ºº Õ±´Æ½ª ¤²™ª¥±°ªÊ
‹±½´³ª²¨ –ø¹ªÊ ÓÏ Õ·¹²ø¨´ÆªÊ Ô ¤²™ª¥±°ª —Æ·¹·²ø¨±ÆÊ
›ªÆ¨·º·½ø¨ª –ø¹ªÊ Πײ·¨·ø¥Ê ð øªÆªø «²·¹´ª¶
fl´¨±“ø™Ê ¤²ø楪º
¤²™ª¥±°ª×º Õ¨ø³°·²¹Ê ¤²ø楪º
÷³ª Ʊ²ªÊ ¯ÀÛÛðËÊð𘠖ø½·º·½ ÷³ª ¯ÀÕ ˙ ›ø²øºø˜
ÌðÌÔ Ã±ÆÆø²½ª fi¥™º
ñÆÆø²½ªÙ ›fl ÁðÎðÌ
¨ß²·¹´ª¶‡Ã±ÆÆø²½ª›flÚ¹±™
×– flººÆªÊ ÓðÏÚÔÏÎÚÔÓÁÚÔÁð
Œª½±Æº ÃÆø½µ·²¹
Õ¨ø¨´Ê —Æ·¹·²ø¥
ÎÒÓÒÓðÓÏ ËÊÏÈÊÔÍ fl”
ÿ±¥ºªÆÊ Ã¸ªÆªø «²·¹´ª¶
¨ß²·¹´ª¶‡Ã±ÆÆø²½ª›flÚ¹±™
‘±½ø¨·±²Ê ‹±½´Õ·¹²
Õ·¹²ªÆ ¤™ª²¨ Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ÷³ª¨ø³°
›Æø·¹ fi·¥ª¶ªÆ·ø²
›fi·¥ª¶ªÆ·ø²‡Ã±ÆÆø²½ª›flÚ¹±™
–´æ¥·½ …±Æµ ‹·Æª½¨±Æ
Õª½´Æ·¨ß ‘ª™ª¥Ê ¤³ø·¥Ù fl½½±´²¨ fl´¨¸ª²¨·½ø¨·±²
¯“±²ª˜ Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª flº±°¨·±²Ê –ƪ۪¥ª½¨ªº ըߥª
À·²¹ ×– flººÆªÊ ÓðÏÚÔÏÎÚÔÓÁÚÔÁð
Õª²¨Ê ÎÒÔðÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÏÓÊÔÔ fl”
Œªª²¨Ê ÎÒÔðÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÏÓÊÔÈ fl”
·ª©ªºÊ ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÓÎÊÎË fl”
Õ·¹²ªºÊ ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÓÍÊÓË fl”
¤¥ª½¨Æ±²·½ Œª½±Æº ø²º Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ‹·½¥±´ÆªÊ
fl½½ª°¨ªºÊ ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÓÎÊÎË fl”
×‹Ê æÎΪðÁæÌÛøÈøºÛϪªÈÛøϪ½ÛÁðºðÓÈÎÓºÔÔÏ
›±³°ø²ß “ø³ªÊ ›·¨ß ±º ñÆÆø²½ª ›fl
”ª¥ø²·ª ÿ´
”ª¸´‡º°©Ú¥ø½±´²¨ßÚ¹±™
Õª½´Æ·¨ß ‘ª™ª¥Ê ¤³ø·¥Ù fl½½±´²¨ fl´¨¸ª²¨·½ø¨·±²
¯“±²ª˜
Õª²¨Ê ÎÒÓÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÔÌÊÏÔ fl”
Œªª²¨Ê ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÓÍÊÌð fl”
·ª©ªºÊ ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÎÌÊÓÍ fl”
¤¥ª½¨Æ±²·½ Œª½±Æº ø²º Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ‹·½¥±´ÆªÊ
fl½½ª°¨ªºÊ ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÎÌÊÓÍ fl”
×‹Ê ªººÍªÈøºÛðÔÈðÛϺÌÌÛÁÍÁ½ÛÍÁøËκæøÎÏææ
›±³°ø²ß “ø³ªÊ ›·¨ß ±º ñÆÆø²½ª ›fl
ײ –ªÆ±² Õ·¹²ªÆ ¤™ª²¨ Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ÷³ª¨ø³°
¤º·¨±Æ ‹ª¥·™ªÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
fl¹ª²¨ ‹ª¥·™ªÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
ײ¨ªÆ³ªº·øÆß ‹ª¥·™ªÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
›ªÆ¨·º·ªº ‹ª¥·™ªÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
›øÆæ±² ›±°ß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
…·¨²ª ¤™ª²¨ Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ÷³ª¨ø³°
“±¨øÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ÷³ª¨ø³°
¤²™ª¥±°ª Õ´³³øÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
¤²™ª¥±°ª Õª²¨ ÿø¸ªºÒ¤²½Æß°¨ªº ÎÒÓÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÔÌÊÏÔ fl”
¤²™ª¥±°ª À°ºø¨ªº Õª½´Æ·¨ß ›¸ª½µªº ÎÒÔðÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÏÓÊÔð fl” ¤²™ª¥±°ª À°ºø¨ªº Õª½´Æ·¨ß ›¸ª½µªº ÎÒÔðÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÏÓÊÔð fl”
¤²™ª¥±°ª Õ´³³øÆß ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
¤²™ª¥±°ª À°ºø¨ªº Õª½´Æ·¨ß ›¸ª½µªº ÎÒÔðÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÏÓÊÔð fl” ¤²™ª¥±°ª À°ºø¨ªº Õª½´Æ·¨ß ›¸ª½µªº ÎÒÔðÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÏÓÊÔð fl” ›ªÆ¨·º·ªº ‹ª¥·™ªÆªº Õª½´Æ·¨ß ›¸ª½µªº ÎÒÔÌÒÓðÓÏ ÁÊÎÌÊÓÍ fl” –øß³ª²¨ ¤™ª²¨ Õ¨ø¨´ ÷³ª¨ø³°
¤¥ª½¨Æ±²·½ Œª½±Æº ø²º Õ·¹²ø¨´Æª ‹·½¥±´Æª
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Torrance CA (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.
Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the checksystem.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.
How to contact City of Torrance CA:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected] To advise City of Torrance CA of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.
If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences.
To request paper copies from City of Torrance CA
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Torrance CA
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guidesigning-system-requirements.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the checkBy selecting the check- confirm that:
You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and
Until or unless you notify City of Torrance CA as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by City of Torrance CA during the course of your relationship with City of Torrance CA.
Beach Cities Watershed
Management Group
Updated Beach Cities
Enhanced Watershed
Management Program
JUNE 2021
Presented to the Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board Page 2350 of 2658
Beach Cities
Watershed
Management
Group
AGENCY CONTACTS
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Douglas Krauss
(310) 750-3603
City of Manhattan Beach
3621 Bell Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Lourdes Vargas
(310) 802-5320
Los Angeles County
Flood Control District
900 S. Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
Yao Kouwonou
(626) 458-4329
Document and analysis
prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants
City of Torrance
20500 Madrona Avenue
Torrance, CA 90503
John Dettle
(310) 618-3059
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Geraldine Trivedi
(310) 318-0661
Updated Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed
Management Program (EWMP)
Update 2021
Prepared for
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prepared by
Beach Cities Watershed Management Group
(Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District)
June 1, 2021
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction and Background 4
1.1 Updated EWMP Revisions 4
1.2 Beach Cities EWMP Area 6
1.3 EWMP Organization 8
2 EWMP Approach 8
2.1 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices 9
2.1.1 Minimum Control Measures 10
2.1.2 Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures 10
2.1.3 Additional BMPs 10
2.2 BMP Selection and Prioritization 11
2.3 Legal Authority 11
3 Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Area 11
3.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities 11
3.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions 12
3.3 BMP Summary 15
3.3.1 Redevelopment 15
3.3.2 Analysis Region SMB-5-2 15
3.3.3 Analysis Region SMB-6-1 18
3.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration 23
3.5 RAA Results - Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration. 27 4 Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area 27
4.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities 27
4.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions 28
4.3 BMP Summary 31
4.3.1 Redevelopment 31
4.3.2 Copper Brake Pad Reduction 31
4.3.3 Analysis Region DC-N-MB & DC-N-RB 31
4.3.4 Analysis Region DC-S 36
4.3.5 Analysis Region DC-TL 37
4.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration 37
4.5 RAA Results – Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration 42 5 Cost Estimate 42
5.1 BMP Cost Methodology and Assumptions 43
5.1.1 Hard Cost Assumptions 43
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
5.1.2 Soft Cost Assumptions 43
5.1.3 Operations and Maintenance 44
5.1.4 Additional Design Assumptions 45
5.2 Summary of Cost Estimates 45
6 Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework 46
7 Compliance Schedule 48
7.1 Santa Monica Bay WMA 48
7.2 Dominguez Channel WMA 49
8 References 50
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A. History and Regulatory Background
B. Water Quality Prioritization and Source Assessment
C. Minimum Control Measure Customization and Summary
D. RAA Report
E. Project Concept Fact Sheets
F. Background Information on the LACFCD
G. Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy
H. Community Involvement for EWMP Implementation
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Following adoption of the 2012 Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Permit), 1 the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance, together with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG) agreed to collaborate on the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) and Dominguez Channel areas within their jurisdictions (referred to herein as the Beach Cities EWMP Area).
On June 26, 2015, in accordance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a draft EWMP to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). Following public review and comment, as well as multiple reviews by LARWQCB, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a second revised EWMP on February 9, 2016. On April 18, 2016 the Beach Cities’ second revised EWMP was approved by LARWQCB.
Based on the Permit-specified adaptive management process, as well as other relevant changes within the Beach Cities Area, multiple updates to the Beach Cities EWMP have occurred since its original approval in April 2016: one in March 2018, and a second in August 2019.
In addition to regularly adapting the EWMP, Permittees are required to submit an updated EWMP with an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) by June 30, 2021 for review and approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. The updated RAA is required to incorporate both water quality data and control measure performance data, and any other information informing the adaptive management process, gathered through December 31, 2020.
The latest version of the Beach Cities EWMP (June 2021) has been drafted to meet these requirements, along with applicable requirements of State Order WQ 2020-0038, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on November 17, 2020 (SWRCB, 2020).
Additional information related to the history of the Beach Cities EWMP development and the regulatory background upon which it is built can be found in Appendix A.
1.1 Updated EWMP Revisions
This updated Beach Cities EWMP has been developed to build upon and improve the original Beach Cities EWMP. Since the Beach Cities EWMP was first approved in 2016, significant advancements have been made in the state-of-the-practice of stormwater project planning and RAA modeling. Additionally, the Group has gained invaluable experience and insight with respect to implementation of the EWMP, 1 Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
understanding more about both the opportunities and challenges they face in successfully implementing effective stormwater projects.
In particular, the updated Beach Cities EWMP has been updated in the following critical ways:
• Incorporation of newly available, EWMP-specific data. The Beach Cities WMG has been successfully implementing their Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) since 2015, resulting in five years of outfall and receiving water monitoring data from the EWMP Area.
Coupled with the long-term Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring data that has been collected consistently since 2005, the Beach Cities WMG has updated their EWMP to incorporate applicable data. Water quality priorities have been re-evaluated (see Appendix B) based on updated receiving water compliance assessments, as well as paired outfall data that allows for a more-definitive determination of whether MS4 outfalls are causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances. • Utilization of the recently updated, County-wide RAA modeling tool. While the original RAA leveraged the strengths of the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT) to perform the wet weather modeling analysis, the updated RAA uses the newly released WMMS 2 modeling platform to maintain consistency with the majority of RAAs across Los Angeles County. Developed by LACFCD and publicly released in May 2020, WMMS 2 utilizes remote sensing, water quality, and hydrology data collected through 2018 to simulate contaminant loading, runoff volume, and flow rate. WMMS 2 contains two major components: a Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) to determine hydrology and pollutant loading; and a System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) to assist in BMP selection and performance. An advantage of using the WMMS 2 model is the extensive regional calibration effort that has gone into this recent update of the model. Further details of the RAA modeling can be found in Appendix D.
• Thorough calibration of the RAA model. Although WMMS 2 has been calibrated on a regional basis, the default WMMS 2 model was further calibrated and validated using Beach Cities CIMP monitoring data collected through June 30, 2020 to best reflect the baseline hydrology and water quality conditions within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Further details of the RAA calibration process can be found in Appendix D. • A focus on new multi-benefit regional projects. Although distributed BMPs are necessary and beneficial for watershed planning, regional projects are generally more preferable, as they provide multiple benefits, are more cost-effective, and have a higher likelihood of receiving outside funding. Removing projects and programs that were no longer feasible, the Beach Cities WMG is committed to adding new regional, multi-benefit projects, including regional green streets, that seek to enhance water quality, maximize community benefits, and amplify other environmental objectives.
Incorporating these changes, the updated Beach Cities EWMP more accurately reflects the actual water quality and flow conditions in the EWMP Area; provides updated, measurable milestones that can be tracked over time; and identifies implementable, cost-effective solutions to achieve compliance.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
1.2 Beach Cities EWMP Area
This EWMP is applicable to the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (WMA), which consists of all of the incorporated MS4 areas of the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Torrance (excluding the Machado Lake Watershed) and includes the infrastructure of the LACFCD within those jurisdictions (Figure 1).2 This area includes portions of two distinct HUC-12 watersheds, 3 Santa Monica Bay Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed, as summarized in Table 1.
The Machado Lake Watershed, which is addressed by the separate Machado Lake Watershed EWMP developed by City of Torrance, is not part of the Beach Cities WMA or Beach Cities EWMP.
As shown in Figure 1, the Beach Cities WMA is divided into two geographic areas, the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) Watershed and Dominguez Channel (DC) Watershed. The western portion of the Beach Cities WMA consists of approximately 7,800 acres of land that drains to SMB (Table 1). This accounts for 53% of the total Beach Cities WMA, and includes portions of the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and the entirety of the City of Hermosa Beach. This portion of the study area hereinafter is referred to as the SMB WMA.
4 The eastern portion of the Beach Cities WMA is tributary to Dominguez Channel5 (including Torrance Carson Channel 6) and is comprised of approximately 7,024 acres of land (Table 1). This watershed accounts for 47% of the total Beach Cities WMA, and includes portions of the Cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Storm drains from the Cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach drain through the City of Lawndale before discharging to Dominguez Channel. The City of Torrance’s MS4 discharges directly to Dominguez Channel and Torrance Carson Channel (Torrance Lateral).
Collectively, this portion of the study area is hereinafter referred to as the Dominguez Channel WMA. 2 The LACFCD is not responsible for land within the Beach Cities EWMP Area but does own and maintain infrastructure within all three watersheds. Background information on the LACFCD is provided in Appendix F. 3 A HUC-12 watershed is defined by a 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) delineation, which identifies the watershed area based on six levels of classification: regional, sub-region, hydrologic basin, hydrologic sub-basin, watershed, and subwatershed.
4 The Wylie Basin is a retention basin within the SMB WMA with no outlet that is sized to handle events significantly larger than the 85th percentile, 24-hr storm event. Therefore, its drainage area has been excluded from the EWMP RAA.
5 Other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed, including Los Angeles County Unincorporated areas, are addressed by separate EWMP groups.
6 Also known as the Torrance Lateral.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 1. Beach Cities EWMP Area Overview
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 1. Beach Cities Watershed Management Area Summary Participating Agency
Area (acres)
Santa Monica Bay
WMA
Dominguez Channel
WMA
Total Beach Cities
WMA
City of Redondo Beach 2,592 1,252 3,844
City of Manhattan Beach 2,089 363 2,452
City of Hermosa Beach 846 - 846
City of Torrance 2,274 5,409 7,683
Total 7,801 7,024 14,825
1.3 EWMP Organization
This Beach Cities EWMP addresses the Permit-required watershed management program elements for both the SMB and Dominguez Channel WMAs. Because the SMB and Dominguez Channel WMAs have their own unique water quality conditions, their technical evaluations were performed independently and are documented in separate sections in this EWMP. This includes the water quality prioritization, RAA, and BMP identification. Section 2 provides general information on the EWMP approach that is applicable to both WMAs. Section 3 summarizes the technical aspects of the EWMP specific to Santa Monica Bay WMA while Section 4 covers the same technical elements for Dominguez Channel WMA. Section 5 provides the cost opinions associated with EWMP project implementation. In Section 6, an overview of the adaptive management framework the WMG utilizes to actively manage their EWMP is provided.
Building on all of this, Section 7 provides a compliance schedule for the Beach Cities WMG. Lastly, Section 8 includes the references cited in the EWMP.
A large quantity of information in the updated Beach Cities EWMP has been moved to the appendices.
This includes a significant amount of detailed background information, such as regulatory framework, water quality prioritization, minimum control measure customization, RAA details, financial strategy, and more. The goal of this approach is to simplify and streamline the information presented within the main body of the EWMP, while still providing the technical details and thoroughness required by such a significant regulatory plan. The hope is that all users, including the permittees, regulators, residents, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders will find the updated Beach Cities EWMP to be more user-friendly.
2 EWMP APPROACH
The EWMP is a planning document intended to lay out a framework of activities that will comply with water quality requirements. Therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate that selected BMPs are reasonably expected to meet defined goals and objectives. This demonstration of performance is described through a technically robust and rigorous RAA. Through this analysis, the Beach Cities WMG identified and evaluated BMP implementation scenarios within the Beach Cities EWMP Area for each Waterbody Pollutant Combination (WBPC) identified.
The EWMP approach, including model selection, data inputs, critical condition selection, calibration performance criteria, and output types is consistent with the LARWQCB Reasonable Assurance Analysis
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014) and also leverages previous efforts where relevant models have already been developed. The individual water quality targets, BMPs, RAAs, schedules, and costs for each of the watersheds are summarized in watershed-specific sections that follow.
Details of the RAA, including model selection, calibration, and execution can be found in Appendix D.
2.1 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices
The Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify strategies, control measures, and BMPs to implement within their EWMP Area. Specifically, the Permit specifies that BMPs are expected to be implemented so that MS4 discharges meet effluent limits as established in the Permit and to reduce impacts to receiving waters from stormwater and non-stormwater runoff. This expectation assumes the implementation of both types of BMPs – non-structural and structural – by the Beach Cities WMG.
The objectives of selecting and incorporating BMPs into the Beach Cities EWMP include:
1. Preventing and/or eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the MS4 that are a source of pollutants from the MS4 to receiving waters;
2. Achieving all applicable interim and final WQBELs and/or RWLs pursuant to corresponding compliance schedules; and
3. Ensuring that discharges form the MS4 do not cause or contribute to exceedances of RWLs.
The Permit defines BMPs as “practices or physical devices or systems designed to prevent or reduce pollutant loading from stormwater or non-stormwater discharges to receiving waters.” Structural BMPs involve the construction of a physical control measure to alter the hydrology or water quality of incoming stormwater or non-stormwater. There are two categories of structural BMPs, defined by the runoff area treated by the BMP: regional BMPs 7 and distributed BMPs. Regional BMPs are designed to treat runoff from a large drainage area expected to include multiple parcels and various land uses. These may include infiltration basins, treatment plants, and subsurface flow wetlands, among others.
Distributed BMPs are designed to treat runoff from smaller drainage areas and are normally installed to collect runoff close to the source from a limited number of parcels. Distributed BMPs typically include drywells, swales, bioretention facilities, biofiltration facilities, and cisterns, among others.
Non-structural BMPs prevent or reduce the release of pollutants or transport of pollutants within the MS4 drainage area but do not involve construction of physical facilities. Non-structural BMPs are often implemented as programs or strategies which seek to reduce runoff and/or pollution close to the source.
Examples include but are not limited to: street sweeping, downspout disconnect programs, pet waste cleanup stations, irrigation ordinances, or illicit discharge elimination. Minimum control measures 7 The term “regional BMP” does not necessarily indicate that the project can capture and retain the 85th percentile storm, as described in the Permit. The term “regional EWMP project” is therefore used for those regional BMPs that are expected to be able to capture and retain the 85th percentile storm.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
(MCMs) as set forth in the Permit are a subset of non-structural BMPs even though some MCMs include measures that require the implementation of structural BMPs by both public and private parties.
In accordance with the Permit, the following types of BMPs were considered in the development of the Beach Cities EWMP.
2.1.1 Minimum Control Measures
The Beach Cities WMG has assessed the MCMs defined in the Permit to identify opportunities for focusing resources on the high priority issues in each watershed. The Permit requires the permittees to implement prescribed MCMs in each of six categories/programs: Public Information & Participation Program (PIPP), Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Planning & Land Development, Development Construction, Public Agency Activities, and Illicit Connection & Illicit Discharges Elimination. These measures include procedures such as outreach programs, inspections, and reporting requirements designed to reduce runoff-related pollution within each permittees’ MS4 area. MCMs in each of these categories have been effectively implemented by the Beach Cities WMG for years. In some cases, MCM program enhancements have been implemented to address watershed priorities for TMDL implementation. Details on the selected MCMs, including proposed modifications to any programs, are provided in Appendix C.
2.1.2 Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures
The Permit requires Permittees to identify non-stormwater discharges that cause or contribute to exceedances of RWLs, and to then identify and implement BMPs to effectively eliminate the source of pollutants. These BMPs may include measures to prohibit non-stormwater discharge to the MS4, additional structural BMPs to reduce pollutants in the non-stormwater discharge, diversion to a sanitary sewer for treatment, or strategies to require the non-stormwater discharge to be separately regulated under a general NPDES permit.
In the SMB Watershed, eight low flow diversions have been implemented successfully along the coast to effectively divert significant non-stormwater discharges and prevent them from reaching the ocean.
Additionally, due in part to setbacks for smaller outfalls, non-stormwater discharges to the ocean are known to be non-existent. The effectiveness of these measures is consistently confirmed by observations made during weekly and daily shoreline monitoring.
Since initiation of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG has attempted to eliminate non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges using a suite of structural BMPs and non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced IDDE efforts, enhanced education/outreach, and inspection/ enforcement to prevent sources of non-stormwater flow). To-date, monitoring has shown that the WMG has been successful at this endeavor, and although dry weather flows do still exist in some outfalls draining to Dominguez Channel, particularly within Torrance Carson Channel, the Group has successfully demonstrated that these discharges are considered conditionally exempt.
2.1.3 Additional BMPs
In addition to the MCMs and non-stormwater discharge measures, the Beach Cities WMG considered numerous additional BMPs to achieve compliance with Permit-specified WQBELs and/or RWLs. Some
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
of these BMPs have already been implemented, while others have been identified as part of the updated EWMP process.
2.2 BMP Selection and Prioritization
In order to demonstrate reasonable assurance of achieving water quality priorities, BMP opportunities were identified and evaluated in a prioritized manner. Prioritization was based on BMP effectiveness for the pollutants of concern (BMPs that had greater treatment efficiency for the pollutant of concern in a particular analysis region were prioritized over other BMPs); implementation feasibility as determined by the Beach Cities WMG; and cost (low cost BMPs were prioritized first).
The RAA process was then carried out in an iterative manner to demonstrate that implementation of the selected BMPs will result in the attainment of applicable Permit-specified WQBELs, and will also prevent discharges from causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable RWLs.
Details on how each BMP was accounted for in the RAA can be found in Appendix D. A summary of existing and proposed BMPs within each watershed can be found in the respective watershed section of the EWMP.
2.3 Legal Authority
The Beach Cities WMG Permittees have the necessary legal authority to implement the BMPs identified in the EWMP. Table 2 includes the water quality ordinance for each agency with a reference link.
Table 2. Beach Cities Water Quality Ordinances
City Water Quality Ordinance
Hermosa Beach Chapter 8.44 - Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations Manhattan Beach Chapter 5.84 – Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Redondo Beach Title 5 Chapter 7 - Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Torrance Division 4 Chapter 10 – Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control LACFCD Flood Control District Code, Chapter 21 - Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control 3 SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
3.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities
As part of the EWMP process, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. The list of water body pollutant combinations (WBPCs) defined in the original Beach Cities EWMP has been updated based on the most recent updates to applicable TMDLs and 303(d) listings, as well as CIMP monitoring data collected through June 2020. The updated WBPC list for SMB is summarized in Table 3.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 3. Water Body Pollutant Combinations – Santa Monica Bay Category Water Body Pollutant – Applicable
Condition Reason for Categorization
1: Highest
Priority Santa Monica Bay
(including SMB
Beaches)
Bacteria – Wet and Dry Weather SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDL (LARWQCB, 2012b)
Trash/Debris – Wet and Dry
Weather
SMB Debris TMDL (LARWQCB,
2010)
DDTs – Wet and Dry Weather SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL (USEPA, PCBs – Wet and Dry Weather 2012)
2: High
Priority
Mercury– Wet and Dry Weather 2014-2016 303(d) list Arsenic– Wet and Dry Weather Details related to the identification, prioritization, and potential sources of each of the SMB WBPCs can be found in Appendix B. Unless otherwise noted, all WBPCs identified in Table 2 have been addressed as part of the updated RAA.
3.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions Consistent with the original Beach Cities EWMP RAA, baseline and target load reduction analyses were performed for each analysis region in the Santa Monica Bay WMA. Figure 2 illustrates these analysis regions. Appendix D provides details on how the analysis regions were determined.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 2. Santa Monica Bay Analysis Region Overview
The process for establishing pollutant target load reductions (TLRs) necessary to meet water quality objectives for the SMB WBPCs is detailed in Appendix D. Based on monitoring data collected throughout the SMB WMA as part of the Beach Cities CIMP efforts, fecal indicator bacteria (i.e., fecal coliform) is the only WBPC for which a TLR was estimated; all other WBPCs have TLRs of zero.
Appendix A provides more information on the selection and modeling of WBPCs.
A summary of estimated baseline loads and TLRs for fecal coliform in each analysis region in the SMB WMA is provided in Table 4. For non-zero TLRs, an equivalent 24-hour runoff management volume was estimated as the maximum daily diverted volume needed to achieve the TLR during the critical condition (i.e., throughout the modeled year). Both load-based TLR and the equivalent 24-hour runoff management volume are considered eligible Beach Cities EWMP compliance metrics. Appendix D provides detailed information on the process to calculate TLRs and 24-hour management volumes.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 4. Wet Weather Fecal Coliform TLRs for Santa Monica Bay WMA Analysis
Region
Critical
Condition
Baseline Load
(1012 MPN/ year)
Final Target Load Reduction
Absolute TLR
(1012 MPN/ year)
% of
Baseline
Load
TLR Equivalent
24-Hour
Management
Volume (ac-ft)
SMB-5-01
90th
percentile
water year
1.7 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
SMB-5-02 111.9 59.0 54% 67.1
SMB-5-03 7.5 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
SMB-5-04 2.6 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
SMB-5-05 39.0 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
SMB-6-01 112.1 54.7 49% 51.2
SMB-6-02 16.2 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
SMB-6-03 10.0 CIMP data shows compliance with final allowable exceedance days. No RAA required to demonstrate
SMB compliance. -6-04 4.1
SMB-6-05 15.3 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
SMB-6-06 1.2 Anti-Degradation 0% 0
For analysis regions with SMBBB TMDL compliance monitoring locations (CMLs) that have antidegradation-based allowable exceedance days for wet weather, a target load reduction of zero was assumed, consistent with the TMDL’s approach that acknowledges that historic bacteria exceedance rates for each of these analysis regions are lower than that of the reference beach, on average. This assumption applies for seven of the 11 total SMBBB TMDL CMLs in Beach Cities SMB WMA – i.e., SMB-5-1, SMB-5-3, SMB-5-4, SMB-5-5, SMB-6-2, SMB-6-5, and SMB-6-6. Historic wet weather monitoring data at these sampling locations through TMDL Year 2019 confirm this understanding, as the long-term exceedance rate at all seven sites varies between 7 and 24%, below the long-term wet weather exceedance rate at the reference beach (26%).
Consistent with the original Beach Cities EWMP, a zero percent TLR was calculated in the analysis region draining to SMB-6-3. Based on all SMBBB monitoring data collected at this CML through TMDL Year 2019, 8 the wet weather exceedance rate (21%) remained lower than the average wet weather exceedance rate at the reference watershed (26%). Additionally, over the past ten years, this site only had one year (TMDL Year 2017) that exhibited more measured wet weather exceedance days (4) than the allowable exceedance days (3). This year had more rainfall and wet days than TMDL Year 2011, which is the 90th percentile year.
Similarly, a zero percent TLR was also calculated in the analysis region draining to CML SMB-6-4.
Based on all SMBBB monitoring data collected at this CML through TMDL Year 2019, the wet weather exceedance rate (20%) remained lower than the average wet weather exceedance rate at the reference watershed (26%). Additionally, over the past ten years, this site only had one year (TMDL Year 2011) 8 TMDL Year 2019 is defined as November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2019. As of the drafting of the updated EWMP, this was the latest TMDL Year for which a complete data set was available.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
that exhibited more measured wet weather exceedance days (5) than the allowable exceedance days (3).
This year was the 90th percentile year. Further, SMB-6-4 is an open beach CML with no major MS4 outfall at the sampling location.
3.3 BMP Summary
As discussed in Section 2 and Appendix D, BMPs were identified and accounted for in the RAA to demonstrate attainment of applicable water quality targets. Because the RAA was calibrated using local water quality and flow data through June 2020, only BMPs implemented or planned to be implemented after this date were modeled in the RAA. A summary of these BMPs, including modeled programmatic (i.e., redevelopment) and structural measures, are provided herein.
3.3.1 Redevelopment
The original Beach Cities EWMP assumed land-use specific redevelopment rates based on both literature and local records. Since this time, the Beach Cities WMG has completed five years of implementation and has quantified redevelopment projects triggering low impact development (LID) requirements each year in the annual watershed report. Over the course of this five-year period, the WMG observed a total annual redevelopment rate of 0.08% for applicable land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, education, and transportation). Of the implemented LID projects, 95.6% implemented bioretention, infiltration, or otherwise full capture of the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm, in accordance with local LID ordinances. The remaining 4.4% of projects used flow-through treatment BMPs to treat a volume equivalent to 1.5 times the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm.
LID was assumed to be implemented at a rate of 0.08% for all applicable land uses, assuming implementation from July 2020 until the end of the compliance schedule. All LID BMPs constructed through June 2020 were assumed to be accounted for in the model via the calibration process.
An example of a LID redevelopment project in the SMB WMA is the Beach Cities Health District redevelopment project. The redevelopment project will include sufficient stormwater retention BMPs to fully capture and retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from a total of 10.5 acres of on-site drainage. Projects such as these will further increase the stormwater runoff managed within the SMB WMA.
3.3.2 Analysis Region SMB-5-2
Analysis Region SMB-5-2, which discharges at 28th Street in Manhattan Beach, is one of two priority watersheds for the Beach Cities in the SMB WMA. In addition to existing projects and LID implementation, a single, large-scale regional project near the watershed outfall has been identified for implementation, along with a green street project that is currently in design.
3.3.2.1 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project
The City of Manhattan Beach is implementing the 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project to capture stormwater flows within the 28th Street storm drain system. The project will capture and infiltrate runoff from approximately 1,520 acres and includes two phases.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
• Phase 1 project concept includes 48 infiltration drywells at the 26th Street Parking Facility, which is opportunely located downstream in the 28th Street storm drain system, 200 feet from the beach and outfall. A diversion structure installed in the 28th Street storm drain will direct flows through a pretreatment unit and into drywells for infiltration under the parking facility. Additional improvements at the parking facility will include permeable pavement and trees for surface greening.
• Phase 2 project concept includes an infiltration trench along the beach at 28th Street and will only be constructed if additional pollutant load reduction is needed following performance evaluation of Phase 1.
According to RAA modeling, the project is estimated to provide 83.1 acre-feet of 24-hour management volume capacity during the critical condition (90th percentile wet year). The project is currently in the design stage and has submitted a Safe Clean Water Regional Infrastructure application for design and construction funding (Manhattan Beach, 2020). An overview plan of the project is provided in Figure 3, and a concept factsheet of the project is provided in Appendix E.
Figure 3. Project Overview – 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project
3.3.2.2 Beach Cities Green Streets 1 (Manhattan Beach 19th Street) Following project identification in the original Beach Cities EWMP, the WMG initiated design of green infrastructure elements in a targeted neighborhood in the SMB-5-2 watershed. Green street elements will be installed along 19th Street between Sepulveda Boulevard and Pine Avenue in the City of Manhattan Beach to address a 31-acre tributary area consisting of single-family residential and commercial land uses.
The project is currently in design with the design objective of achieving full capture of the 85th percentile,
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
24-hr design storm from the tributary area. A map showing the project drainage area is provided in Figure
4. Figure 4. Project Overview – Beach Cities Green Streets Project in SMB-5-2 Since the project is designed to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from the tributary area, the entire tributary area has been removed from the RAA model.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
3.3.3 Analysis Region SMB-6-1
Analysis Region SMB-6-1, which discharges to the beach via a storm drain that runs along Herondo Avenue on the border of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach, is the second of two priority watersheds for the Beach Cities in the SMB Watershed. In addition to LID implementation, a selection of green street projects are currently in design; Torrance is enhancing and expanding three existing stormwater detention basins to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event from their combined tributary area; and three additional projects have been identified for implementation.
3.3.3.1 Beach Cities Green Streets Project
Following project identification in the original Beach Cities EWMP, the WMG has initiated design of distributed green infrastructure elements in six distinct areas of the SMB-6-1 watershed. In total, the Beach Cities Joint Green Streets Project will capture, treat, and/or infiltrate runoff from approximately 167 acres, including tributary areas from all four Beach Cities member cities. The project is intended to be a multi-benefit project that will address multiple WBPCs, including trash, bacteria, and more. It will also include neighborhood greening elements, where feasible. Locations and approximate drainage areas of the Green Streets project sites in the SMB-6-1 analysis region are shown in Figure 5, with brief descriptions of each provided below:
• Beach Cities Green Streets 2 (Manhattan Beach Artesia Blvd): The proposed green street project will be located along the northern side of Artesia Blvd between S. Herrin Street and S. Redondo Avenue. The project area consists of high-density residential land use totaling 7 acres. • Beach Cities Green Streets 3 (Redondo Beach Anita Street): The proposed green street project will be constructed in residential areas along Anita Street, between Flagler Lane and N. Lucia Avenue and compose approximately 16 acres of drainage area. • Beach Cities Green Streets 4 (Redondo Beach Ford Avenue): The project will be constructed in high-density residential and commercial areas along Belmont Lane, Pullman Lane, Ford Avenue, Goodman Avenue, and Steinhart Avenue, composing approximately 31 acres of total tributary area.
• Beach Cities Green Streets 5 (Torrance 191st Street): Green street elements will be implemented along 191st Street between Inglewood Avenue and Firmona Avenue, covering a drainage area of 15 acres of commercial corridor.
• Beach Cities Green Streets 6 (Torrance Northwest): Green street elements will be implemented along Kingsdale, Mansel, Grevilea, and Burin Avenues between 182nd Street and 186th Street, covering a drainage area of 51 acres of residential and commercial land uses. • Beach Cities Green Streets 7 (Hermosa Beach): The project area consists of medium to high density residential and commercial development, covering a total drainage area of 47.6 acres.
Improvements are proposed along Hermosa Avenue between 4th Street and Herondo Street, as well as throughout the tributary watershed.
The Beach Cities Green Street Project is currently in design with the design objective of achieving full capture of the 85th percentile, 24-hr design storm from each of the tributary areas.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Since the project is designed to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from each tributary area, the respective tributary areas have been removed from the RAA model. Additional project design information can be found in the Project Concept Report (Torrance, 2019) Figure 5. Project Overview – Beach Cities Green Streets Project in SMB-6-1
3.3.3.2 Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project Following initial enhancements to the Amie, Henrietta, and Entradero Flood Control Basin network completed in 2015, the City of Torrance is moving forward with further improvements to expand the capacity of these basins to fully retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from their combined
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
1,407-acre tributary area, comprising approximately one half of the tributary area to the Herondo Storm Drain system. The scope of this basin expansion project includes:
• Deepening of the existing Henrietta and Entradero Basins to increase storage capacity; • Installation of drywells at Henrietta Basin to improve infiltration; and • Adjustment of pumping levels at Amie Basin to ensure retention of the 85th percentile design storm.
The project, which includes additional benefits such as walking trails and educational material, was recently submitted for funding under the Safe Clean Water Program. Preliminary design of the project is currently in process (City of Torrance, 2020a). A concept factsheet of the project is provided in Appendix E.
Since the project is designed to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from the tributary area, the entire tributary area has been removed from the RAA model.
3.3.3.3 Hermosa Beach 8th Street Green Infrastructure Project In 2020, Hermosa Beach completed a street improvement project along 8th Street, stretching from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive. The street improvement project incorporated distributed Filterra® bioretention units that receive and treat surface runoff from 8.2-acres of area draining to the improved street segment. The project treats runoff in both the SMB 5-5 and SMB 6-1 subwatersheds, but was only quantified in the RAA for the portion of the project that is tributary to analysis region SMB-6-1 (a total of
4.4 acres).
3.3.3.4 Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project
Fulton Playfield is an open green space in the City of Redondo Beach at the southeast intersection of Ripley Avenue and Rindge Lane, located in the upper portion of the SMB-6-1 watershed. The playfield, which is owned and operated by the City of Redondo Beach, is adjacent to an 8.5-foot by 10-foot LACFCD storm drain (BI 6502 Line A) that runs under Ripley Avenue and connects directly to the Herondo Storm Drain on 190th St. An underground flood control retention basin underlies the western half of the playfield and provides approximately 6.4 acre-feet of passive storage to help relieve flooding during storm events. Approximately 440 acres of the City of Redondo Beach and 25 acres of the City of Manhattan Beach are tributary to the basin.
The Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project proposes to add infiltration elements to the existing flood control basin in order to transform it into a multi-benefit regional project while maintaining its flood control capacity and function. Infiltration will be accomplished via the addition of drywells to the eastern portion of the playfield. The project will include a control system for the inlet-outlet structure of the basin to manage and optimize the storage and infiltration capacity of the project. The total 24-hour management volume provided by these distributed BMPs will be 29 acre-feet. The City of Redondo Beach will coordinate with LACFCD to advance the design of this project as expeditiously as possible.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
The Project will also incorporate a variety of other benefits. Parkway greening via the installation of rain gardens is proposed along the east side of Ripley Avenue to capture and treat street flows that aren’t currently tributary to the Project. Park enhancements at the playfield, such as playground equipment or outdoor exercise equipment, are being considered. Additionally, as Valor Christian Academy is directly upstream of the Project, cooperation with the school will be prioritized.
The City of Redondo Beach is currently preparing a Feasibility Study for the project to apply for Safe Clean Water regional project funding. An overview of the project is illustrated in Figure 6. A concept plan of the project as envisioned is provided in Appendix E.
Figure 6. Project Overview – Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project
3.3.3.5 Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells, porous gutters, porous crosswalks, porous parking lanes, bioswales, etc.) within the Herondo Storm Drain watershed. The total 24-hour management volume provided by these distributed BMPs will be at least 16.3 acre-feet.
An overview of the project is illustrated in Figure 7. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of drywells to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 7. Project Overview – Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project
3.3.3.6 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells
The City of Hermosa Beach is planning to implement a series of drywells within the SMB-6-1 watershed.
Based on initial screening, drywells are proposed east of Pacific Coast Highway, between 1st Street and 10th Street.9 The total 24-hour management volume to be provided by these BMPs is estimated to be 8.1 acre-feet.
Project overview is illustrated in Figure 8. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of drywells to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change.
9 A drywell is a bored, drilled, or driven shaft or hole whose depth is greater than its width. A drywell may either be a small excavated pit filled with aggregate or prefabricated storage chamber or pipe segment.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 8. Project Overview – Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells
3.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration Load reduction calculations for the Beach Cities SMB WMA are summarized in Table 5. Through the RAA, the collective load reductions achieved by all existing and proposed BMPs achieved applicable TLRs and TLR-equivalent 24-hour management volumes within each analysis region. As a result, reasonable assurance is demonstrated for the Santa Monica Bay WMA. The 24-hour management volume of each project is shown in Figure 9 both by project category and agency. To spatially represent the RAA output, the 24-hour management volume is illustrated in Figure 10. As shown in the figure, analysis regions with a zero calculated TLR (e.g., anti-degradation areas) were assigned a 0 acre-feet 24-hour stormwater management volume. The 24-hour management volume of a regional project was spatially represented by its drainage area. Drainage areas to 85th percentile, 24-hour design capture projects are shown as hatched polygons, indicating these areas demonstrate compliance through the alternative compliance path of full 85th percentile, 24-hour design stormwater capture.
Details on BMP load quantification and 24-hour management volume calculation for the Santa Monica Bay WMA are provided in Appendix D.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 5. Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA RAA Summary
Analysis
Region
Fecal Coliform Target Load Reduction
(TLR) BMP Load Reduction (LR) Summary
1012
MPN/yr
% of
Baseline
Load
TLR
Equivalent
24-Hour
Management
Volume
(ac-ft)
LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Project Cumulative LR Assurance
Achieved?[1]
% of
Baseline
Load
24-Hour
Volume
(ac-ft)
% of
Baseline
Load
24-Hour
Volume
(ac-ft)
% of
Baseline
Load
24-Hour
Volume
(ac-ft)
% of
Baseline
Load
24-Hour
Volume
(ac-ft)
SMB-5-
01 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a SMB-5-
02 167.5 54% 67.1 0.3% 0.4 65% 82.7 0% 0 65.2% 83.1 Yes SMB-5-
03 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a SMB-5-
04 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a SMB-5-
05 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a SMB-6-
01 137.1 49% 51.2 0.3% 0.3 27.5% 28.9 23.5% 24.6 51.3% 53.8 Yes SMB-6-
02 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a SMB-6-
03 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance, as monitoring data show WLAs are being met n/a SMB-6-
04 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance, as monitoring data show WLAs are being met n/a SMB-6-
05 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a SMB-6-
06 No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance for anti-degradation sites (WLAs already met) n/a [1] Reasonable assurance is achieved if cumulative load reduction is greater than the TLR
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 9 . Project-Specific 24-Hour Management Volume in Santa Monica Bay WMA
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 10. 24-Hour Management Volume for the Santa Monica Bay WMA As shown in Table 5, reasonable assurance of compliance is demonstrated for the two priority watersheds within the Beach Cities SMB WMA based on full implementation of the suite of projects identified. A schedule identifying implementation milestones for each project is provided in Section 7.1.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
3.5 RAA Results - Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration.
According to monitoring and observation data collected through the Beach Cities CIMP, low flow diversions have proven effective at intercepting and diverting non-exempt dry weather flow from SMB.
Therefore, reasonable assurance of compliance during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities SMB WMA.
4 DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
4.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities
As part of the EWMP process, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. The list of WBPCs defined in the original Beach Cities EWMP has been updated based on the most recent updates to applicable TMDLs and 303(d) listings, as well as CIMP monitoring data collected through June 2020. The updated WBPC list for Dominguez Channel WMA is summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Water Body Pollutant Combinations – Dominguez Channela Category Water Body Pollutant – Applicable
Condition Reason for Categorization
1: Highest
Priority
Dominguez Channel
Freshwater
Toxicityb – Wet Weather
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors
Toxics TMDL (LARWQCB, 2011)
Total Copper – Wet Weather
Total Lead – Wet Weather
Total Zinc – Wet Weather
Dominguez Channel
Estuary (including
Torrance Carson
Channel)
Total Copper – Wet Weather
Total Lead – Wet Weather
Total Zinc – Wet Weather
Total Cadmium – Wet Weather
Total DDT – Year-Round
Total PAHs – Year-Round
Total PCBs – Year-Round
2: High
Priority
Dominguez Channel
(including Torrance
Carson Channel)
Indicator Bacteria 2014-2016 303(d) List
3. Medium
Priority
Dominguez Channel
Freshwater Benzo(a)pyrene – Wet Weather
Historical exceedance of applicable
receiving water limits (California Toxic
Rule Human Health Criteria) where
MS4 discharge may be causing or
contributing to the exceedance
a Does not include WBPCs applicable the Beach Cities WMA within the Machado Lake Watershed, which is addressed by the separate Machado Lake Watershed EWMP developed by City of Torrance. b Toxicity is not directly tied to any single pollutant or group of pollutants that can be readily modeled; rather, it is the result of a wide-array of loading from multiple pollutants from various sources. As a result, toxicity will not be modeled as part of the updated EWMP, consistent with the original EWMP. It is assumed that the implementation of various BMPs and resultant control of other pollutants of concern will sufficiently address in-channel toxicity. c EPA banned diazinon on December 31, 2005. Data from 2006-2010 show no diazinon exceedances in Dominguez Channel.
Based on these results, no diazinon TMDLs have been developed at this time.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Details related to the identification, prioritization, and potential sources of each of the Dominguez Channel WBPCs can be found in Appendix B. Unless otherwise noted, all WBPCs identified in Table 3 have been addressed as part of the updated RAA.
4.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions Figure 11 illustrates the modeled analysis regions in the Dominguez Channel WMA. Analysis Regions DC-N-MB, DC-N-RB, and DC-S represent the portions of the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, respectively, draining to Dominguez Channel above Vermont Avenue (i.e., Dominguez Channel Freshwater). Analysis Region DC-TL is the portion of the City of Torrance that drains to Torrance Lateral, which continues to the Dominguez Channel Estuary. Appendix D provides additional details related to the analysis regions.
Figure 11. Dominguez Channel WMA Analysis Region Overview The process for establishing pollutant TLRs necessary to meet water quality priorities for the modeled WBPCs in Dominguez Channel is detailed in Appendix D. A summary of estimated baseline loads and TLRs for each analysis region and WBPC in the Dominguez Channel WMA is provided in Table 7.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Similar to the Santa Monica Bay WMA TLRs, a TLR-equivalent 24-hour management volume was developed for each non-zero TLR. For each analysis region, the largest 24-hour management volume was selected as the target compliance metric, since management of the largest volume will result in management of all others. 10 Both load-based TLRs and the equivalent 24-hour runoff management volumes are considered eligible Beach Cities EWMP compliance metrics. Appendix D provides detailed information on the process to calculate TLRs and 24-hour management volumes. 10 Total copper was not included in the assessment of the largest 24-hour management volume, since significant load reductions will be achieved via the copper brake pad reduction (see Section 4.3.2). As a result, the management volumes needed to meet applicable copper TLRs using structural BMPs are significantly reduced.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 7. Dominguez Channel WMA Wet Weather TLRs
Analysis
Region
(Receiving
Water)
Pollutant Critical Condition Baseline Load
Target Load Reduction
Absolute
% of
Baseline
Load
TLR Equivalent 24-
Hour Management
Volume (ac-ft)
DC-N-MB
(Dominguez
Channel
Freshwater)
Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 1.3 lb/day 1.1 lb/day 82% 7.3 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 6.9 lb/day 5.3 lb/day 76% 6.7[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 46.1 1012 MPN/yr 19.0 1012 MPN/yr 41% 2.4 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 2.6E-03 lb/day 1.8E-03 lb/day 70% 4.0 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
DC-N-RB
(Dominguez
Channel
Freshwater)
Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 4.1 lb/day 3.3 lb/day 81% 24.3 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 22.0 lb/day 16.3 lb/day 74% 22.3[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 149.8 1012 MPN/yr 53.0 1012 MPN/yr 35% 9.7 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 7.7E-03 lb/day 5.2E-03 lb/day 67% 12.8 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
DC-S
(Dominguez
Channel
Freshwater)
Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 4.0 lb/day 3.0 lb/day 76% 27.1 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 18.4 lb/day 11.9 lb/day 65% 22.2[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 393.8 1012 MPN/yr 179.1 1012 MPN/yr 45% 15.3 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 1.0E-02 lb/day 5.5E-03 lb/day 55% 18.7 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance DC-TL
(Torrance
Lateral and
Dominguez
Channel
Estuary)
Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 11.5 lb/day 10.4 lb/day 91% 36.8 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 65.1 lb/day 57.4 lb/day 88% 35.8[1] Total Cadmium 90th percentile daily load 0.15 lb/day 0.13 lb/day 87% 35.2 E. coli 90th percentile water year 360.8 1012 MPN/yr 175.3 1012 MPN/yr 49% 16.2 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 2.0E-02 lb/day 1.3E-02 lb/day 67% 34.1 Total PAHs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Total PCBs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance.
Total DDTs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. [1]Bold value is the representative (“controlling”) 24-hour management runoff volume for each analysis region.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
4.3 BMP Summary
As discussed in Section 2 and Appendix D, BMPs were identified and accounted for in the RAA to demonstrate attainment of applicable water quality targets. Because the RAA was calibrated using local water quality and flow data through June 2020, only BMPs implemented or planned to be implemented after this date were accounted for in the RAA. A summary of these BMPs, including programmatic and structural measures, is provided herein.
4.3.1 Redevelopment
Redevelopment in the Dominguez Channel WMA was accounted for in the same manner as it was in the SMB Watershed. See discussion in Section 3.3.1 and Appendix D.
An example of LID redevelopment project in the Dominguez Channel WMA is the Manhattan Village Mall. The mall is undergoing significant renovations that include a rainwater harvesting and use system, as well as a biofiltration system. The rainwater harvesting system is sized to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from a total of 13.7 acres of on-site drainage area. Projects such as these will further increase the stormwater runoff managed within the Dominguez Channel WMA.
4.3.2 Copper Brake Pad Reduction
As was the case in the original Beach Cities EWMP, a load reduction was assumed for copper due to the phased elimination of copper in brake pads. In 2010, California Senate Bill 346 (SB 346) was enacted to eliminate nearly all use of copper in brake pad manufacturing. In 2013, TDC Environmental prepared a technical study for the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) describing the expected percent reduction for copper as a result of the passage of SB 346 (TDC Environmental, 2013). The TDC study identified three possible implementation scenarios, the least aggressive of which estimated that a 52% load reduction in copper will be achieved by 2032 due to the brake pad phase-out.
Since the referenced study assumed a 21.2% reduction in urban runoff copper by 2020, and the RAA model was calibrated with local water quality data through June 2020, the load reduction accounted for in the updated RAA was estimated as a weighted fraction of 52%. The difference in estimated total load reduction between 2020 and 2032 (i.e., 52% - 21.2%, or 30.8%) was divided by the assumed remaining load in 2020 (100% - 21.2%, or 78.8%) to estimate the remaining expected load reduction due to the copper brake pad phase-out. Therefore, a 39.1% load reduction was assumed for copper in the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA.
To avoid double-counting load reductions, this reduction was applied to the copper load before accounting for future BMP load reductions (i.e., 39.1% was applied to the baseline loads before all other BMP load reductions were accounted for, since BMP performance is dependent on influent loads).
4.3.3 Analysis Region DC-N-MB & DC-N-RB
Analysis regions DC-N-MB and DC-N-RB include discharges from the cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach to Dominguez Channel respectively. Both analysis regions also drain to the Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
4.3.3.1 Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project
The Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project is a multi-benefit stormwater project proposed at Alondra Park, a large park located in the unincorporated County area of EI Camino Village that consists of two park areas and a golf course. The park is due east of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.
The proposed project has been strategically located in the 13.5-acre park space in the northwest corner of the site. The Project provides the opportunity to capture dry weather flows and stormwater and improve water quality by diverting flows from the LACFCD District Project No. 12 Drain in Manhattan Beach Boulevard and the LACFCD Alondra Park Drain into underground storage galleries totaling 34-acre-feet in total capacity.
The captured flows are proposed to be diverted from the galleries into an existing sewer system. During storm events when flows are higher than sewer capacity, water will be treated before being diverted back to the storm drain. The diversion structure and storage galleries will intercept and store dry weather flows and approximately a 0.1-inch storm from the 4,945-acre watershed tributary to Alondra Park.
Two existing baseball fields will be restored to new condition and a brand-new soccer field will be installed after the underground storage is constructed, providing enhanced active recreation spaces.
Bioswales with native plants will replace existing turf areas along Manhattan Beach Boulevard, providing new habitat and a natural way to slow and treat stormwater and dry weather runoff. The parking lots will be reconstructed with permeable pavement and bioswales. New trees will be planted throughout the park to provide shade and bolster the performance of other green infrastructure.
The cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach collectively account for approximately 1,424 acres (29%) of the tributary area to the Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project. As project partners, they will receive a portion of water quality benefits from the overall project, proportional to their drainage area and additional funding that may be provided. At the time of this updated EWMP, Manhattan Beach was estimated to receive 1.76-acre-feet of storage credit and Redondo Beach was estimated to receive 5.29- acre-feet of storage credit. The project has been modeled in the Beach Cities RAA assuming these proportional volumes for each city.
Additional information for the project can be found in the Alondra Park Regional Project Safe Clean Water Feasibility Study Report (Los Angeles County, 2019). A high-level project concept is illustrated in Figure 12.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 12. Project Overview – Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project
4.3.3.2 Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project The City of Manhattan Beach is planning to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells) within the DC-N-MB analysis region to meet the city’s allocation of the TLR. Based on initial screening, infiltration BMPs are proposed on 33rd Street west of N. Aviation Boulevard, or on N. Aviation Boulevard north of Marine Avenue. RAA results (see Section 4.4) show that the total 24-hour management volume provided by these BMPs will be 5.2 acre-ft.
A project concept is illustrated in Figure 13. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of infiltration BMPs to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 13. Project Overview – Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project
4.3.3.3 Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project Glen Anderson Park is multi-use park in the City of Redondo Beach, located adjacent to Lincoln Elementary School between Rindge Lane, Farrell Avenue, and Vail Avenue. The park has significant green space in addition to baseball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and a playground. The park, which is owned and operated by the City of Redondo Beach, is adjacent to a 78-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain (LACFCD BI 0729) that runs under Vaile Avenue. Approximately 480 acres of area within the DC-N-RB analysis region is tributary to this storm drain at the point it flows past Glen Anderson Park.
The Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project will provide infiltration via an underground infiltration basin or a series of drywells, or a combination of both. Pretreatment will be provided following diversion from the Vail Avenue storm drain. Based on RAA results (see Section 4.4), the total 24-hour management volume provided by the project will be 9.4 acre-ft.
A project concept is illustrated in Figure 14. A detailed concept plan of the project as envisioned is provided in Appendix E.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 14. Project Overview – Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project
4.3.3.4 Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells, porous gutters, porous crosswalks, porous parking lanes, bioswales, etc.) within the DC-N-RB analysis region to meet the remainder of the city’s allocation of the TLR. Based on RAA results (see Section 4.4), the total 24-hour management volume provided by these BMPs will be 8.3 acre-ft.
A project concept is illustrated in Figure 15. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of infiltration BMPs to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 15. Project Overview – Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project
4.3.4 Analysis Region DC-S
This analysis region includes discharges from the City of Torrance to Dominguez Channel.
4.3.4.1 Torrance Parkway BMPs
As discussed in the original Beach Cities EWMP, the City of Torrance is committed to implementing distributed green street BMPs within the watershed to meet RAA requirements. Specific BMP technologies are currently being evaluated, but may include catch basin inlet filters (media filtration devices with a variety of media types and configurations such as cartridge filters, vertical bed filters, etc.), bioretention units, or drywells, where deemed feasible.
The City of Torrance has applied for Safe Clean Water funding under the Technical Resources Program to prioritize catch basins for implementation (City of Torrance, 2020b).
Collectively, the Torrance Parkway BMPs will be implemented by the City of Torrance at a level that meets the EWMP compliance management volume determined in the RAA (see Section 4.4). A concept factsheet for the proposed Torrance Parkway BMPs is provided in Appendix E.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
4.3.5 Analysis Region DC-TL
This analysis region includes discharges from the City of Torrance to Torrance Lateral (i.e., Torrance Carson Channel).
4.3.5.1 Torrance Parkway BMPs
The City of Torrance will implement the same distributed parkway BMP approach in the DC-TL analysis region as is being applied to the DC-S analysis region.
4.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration Load reduction calculations for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA are summarized in Table 8.
Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated in all analysis regions. The 24-hour management volumes of the projects are shown in Figure 16 as stacked columns. The figure also breaks down the 24-hour management volume by agency. To spatially represent the RAA output, the 24-hour management volume is illustrated in Figure 17. Drainage areas to 85th percentile, 24-hour design capture projects are shown as hatched polygons, indicating these areas achieve compliance through the alternative compliance path of full 85th percentile, 24-hour design stormwater capture. In addition, areas covered under separate stormwater permits (e.g. Caltrans right-of-way, Torrance Refinery) are shown as hatched polygons, as they were not included in the RAA.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 8. Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA RAA Summary Analysis
Region[1]
Pollutant
Final Target Load
Reduction
BMP Load Reduction Summary
Non-Structural BMP LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance
Achieved?[3]
Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
DC-N-MB
(DC Freshwater)
Total Copper 1.1 lb/day 82% 0.5 lb/day 39% 0.01 lb/day 0.9% 0.2 lb/day 16% 0.4 lb/day 33% 1.1 lb/day 89% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a Total Zinc 5.3 lb/day 76% 0 lb/day 0% 0.1 lb/day 0.9% 1.6 lb/day 23% 3.7 lb/day 54% 5.4 lb/day 78% Yes E. coli 19.0
1012
MPN/y
r
41% 0 1012
MPN/yr 0% 0.3 1012MPN/y 0.7% 8.7 1012MPN/yr 19% 19.5 1012MPN/yr 42% 28.5 1012
MPN/
yr
62% Yes
Benzo[a]
pyrene
1.8 E-03 lb/day 70% 0 lb/day 0% 2.4E-05 lb/day 0.9% 4.9E-04 lb/day 19% 1.4E-03 lb/day 56% 2.0E-03 lb/day 76% Yes 24-Hour
Management
Need
6.7[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.1 ac-ft 0.9% 1.9 ac-ft 29% 5.2 ac-ft 77% 7.2 ac-ft 100 % Yes
DC-N-RB
(DC Freshwater)
Total Copper 3.3 lb/day 81% 1.6 lb/day 39% 0.04 lb/day 0.9% 0.5 lb/day 13% 1.3 lb/day 32% 3.4 lb/day 85% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a Total Zinc 16.3 lb/day 74% 0 lb/day 0% 0.2 lb/day 1.0% 4.1 lb/day 19% 12.4 lb/day 56% 16.7 lb/day 76% Yes E. coli 53.0 1012
MPN/ 35% 0 1012MPN/y 0% 1.1 1012MPN/y 0.7% 49.5 1012MPN/yr 33% 19.1 1012MPN/yr 13% 69.7 1012
MPN/
yr
47% Yes
Benzo[a]pyre
ne
5.2 E-03 lb/day 67% 0 lb/day 0% 7E-05 lb/day 1.0% 2E03 lb/day 25% 4E-03 lb/day 48% 6E-03 lb/day 73% Yes 24-Hour
Management
Need
22.3[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.2 ac-ft/ 1.0% 15.5 ac-ft 69% 8.3 ac-ft 37% 24.0 ac-ft 100 % Yes
DC-S
(DC Freshwater)
Total Copper 3.0 lb/day 76% 1.5 lb/day 39% 0.1 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 1.4 lb/day 36% 3.0 lb/day 76% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a Total Zinc 11.9 lb/day 65% 0 lb/day 0% 0.2 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 11.7 lb/day 64% 11.9 lb/day 65% Yes E. coli 179.1 1012
MPN/y 45% 0 10^12 MPN/yr 0% 2.2 1012 MPN/yr 0.6% 0 10^12 MPN/yr 0% 176.9 10^12 MPN/yr 45% 179.1 1012
MPN/
yr
45% Yes
Benzo[a]pyre
ne
5.5 E-03 lb/day 55% 0 lb/day 0% 9.4E-05 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 5.5E-03 lb/day 54% 5.5E-03 lb/day 55% Yes
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Analysis
Region[1]
Pollutant
Final Target Load
Reduction
BMP Load Reduction Summary
Non-Structural BMP LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance
Achieved?[3]
Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % 24-Hour
Management
Need
22.2[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.3 ac-ft 1.1% 0 ac-ft 0% 21.9 ac-ft 99% 22.2 ac-ft 100 % Yes
DC-TL
(DC Estuary and Torrance Lateral)
Total Copper 10.4 lb/day 91% 4.5 lb/day 39% 0.1 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 5.8 lb/day 51% 10.4 lb/day 91% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a Total Zinc 57.4 lb/day 88% 0 lb/day 0% 0.6 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 56.8 lb/day 87% 57.4 lb/day 88% Yes Total
Cadmium 0.13 lb/day 87% 0 lb/day 0% 1.0E-3 lb/day 0.7% 0 lb/day 0% 0.13 lb/day 87% 0.13 lb/day 87% Yes E. coli 175.3
1012
MPN/y
r
49% 0 1012
MPN/y 0% 2.1 1012MPN/yr 0.6% 0 1012MPN/yr 0% 173.2 1012MPN/yr 49% 175.3 1012
MPN/
yr
49% Yes
Benzo[a]pyre
ne
1.3 E-02 lb/day 67% 0 lb/day 0% 2E-04 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 1.3E-02 lb/day 66% 1.3E-02 lb/day 67% Yes Total PAHs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a 24-Hour
Management
Need
35.8[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.3 ac-ft 1.0% 0 ac-ft 0% 35.5 ac-ft 99% 35.8 ac-ft 100 % Yes
Total DDT CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a Total PCB CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance n/a [1] Corresponding receiving water is also listed. DC = Dominguez Channel. [2 ] Please see Table 13 on how the representative 24-hour management volume was selected for each analysis region. [3] Reasonable assurance is achieved if cumulative load reduction is greater than the TLR
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 16. Project Specific 24-Hour Management Volume in Dominguez Channel WMA
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Figure 17. 24-Hour Management Volume Mapping in Dominguez Channel WMA As shown in Table 8, reasonable assurance of compliance is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA based on full implementation of the suite of projects identified. A schedule identifying implementation milestones for each project is provided in Section 7.2.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
4.5 RAA Results – Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration
The Beach Cities WMG has attempted to eliminate non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges using a suite of structural BMPs and non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced IDDE efforts, enhanced education/outreach, and inspection/enforcement to prevent sources of nonstormwater flow). To date, monitoring has shown that the WMG has been successful at this endeavor, and although dry weather flows do still exist in some outfalls draining to the DC, particularly within Torrance Lateral, the WMG has successfully demonstrated through source investigations that these discharges may be considered conditionally exempt.
In parallel to the ongoing effort of eliminating dry weather MS4 discharges, the Beach Cities WMG has also planned to utilize structural BMPs to intercept dry weather runoff. In both the Manhattan Beach portion and Redondo Beach portion of the Dominguez Channel WMA, monitoring data has demonstrated a lack of persistent dry weather flows. In addition, the Alondra Park Regional Stormwater Capture Project is anticipated to intercept and fully treat all tributary intermittent non-stormwater flows, including those from Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Within the City of Torrance’s portion of the Dominguez Channel WMA, significant dry weather source investigations were complete and revealed that persistent non-stormwater discharges were the result of exempt and conditionally exempt sources. The City of Torrance is also committed to targeting non-stormwater discharge sources when implementing the Torrance Parkway BMP distributed projects, thereby treating non-stormwater sources that may be causing or contributing to downstream impairments. A summary of these results is provided in Table 9. Therefore, reasonable assurance of compliance during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) WMA.
Table 9．Dry Weather RAA Results – Dominguez Channel WMA Analysis
Region
Is dry weather flow
currently nonexistent and/or
sufficiently treated or
diverted?
Are sufficient
structural BMP
proposed to intercept,
treat or divert 100% of
dry weather runoff?
Is dry weather
reasonable
assurance
demonstrated?
DC-N-MB Yes Proposed Yes
DC-N-RB Yes Proposed Yes
DC-S No Proposed Yes
DC-TL No Proposed Yes
5 COST ESTIMATE
This section provides estimates of the financial resources that may be required to attain compliance with the MS4 Permit’s RWLs and WQBELs. Planning-level cost estimates associated with implementation of the proposed structural BMPs within the Beach Cities WMG area are provided based on RAA results.
Cost estimates are presented as an aid for decision makers and contain considerable uncertainties. Given the iterative and adaptive nature of the EWMP and the many variables associated with the projects, the
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
budget forecasts are subject to change based on site-specific BMP feasibility assessment findings, preliminary and final BMP designs and landscaping, BMP effectiveness assessments, results of outfall and receiving water monitoring, and special studies such as those that might result in site specific objectives which could modify water quality objectives or TMDL Waste Load Allocations for a specific WBPC.
A financial strategy and details regarding potential funding sources and programs to support the financial resources required for the structural BMPs being proposed in the EWMP are provided in Appendix G.
These funding sources and programs may be utilized depending on applicability and feasibility.
5.1 BMP Cost Methodology and Assumptions
5.1.1 Hard Cost Assumptions
Costs estimated for structural BMPs include “hard” costs for tangible assets and are determined using a line item unit cost approach, which separately accounts for each material cost element required for the installation of a given BMP. Quantities for each line item were calculated based on BMP storage/treatment volumes and typical design configurations. Unit costs were derived from past projects based in Southern California, recent construction cost/bid information, and vendors. Since the majority of proposed BMPs were located on publicly owned land to reduce land acquisition costs to the extent possible, land acquisition costs were not considered as part of this analysis.
5.1.2 Soft Cost Assumptions
Structural BMP cost opinions also include “soft” costs, which include considerations such as design and permitting. Soft costs are project costs that cannot be calculated on a unit cost basis. For conceptual cost estimating, these costs are generally calculated as a percentage of total capital costs. The soft costs considered for each BMP were:
• Utility Realignment — Costs associated with the relocation of utilities that are located within the proposed BMP footprint or inhibit construction activities. • Mobilization and Demobilization – The costs associated with activation/deactivation of equipment and manpower resources for transfer to/from a construction site until completion of the contract. • Planning, Permitting, Bond, and Insurance Costs – Cost, including planning and permit fees and personnel hours, of obtaining required permits for BMP installation. Examples of permits needed may include erosion and sediment control, stormwater, construction, and public space permits. Potential bond and insurance costs are also included.
• Engineering and Planning – Costs associated with BMP and site design, as well as access for maintenance, environmental mitigation, buried objects, safety/security, traffic control, limited space, and site restoration.
• Construction Management – The costs associated with management and oversight of the construction of the BMP, from project initiation until completion of the contract.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Estimated soft costs as percent of total project capital costs are presented in Table 10. These percentages were based on literature, best professional judgment, and data from past projects (Brown and Schueler, 1997; International Cost Engineering Council, 2014).
Table 10．Range of Soft Costs for Proposed Structural BMP Projects as a Percent of Capital Cost Item
Cost Range
Low High
Utility Realignment 0% 3%
Mobilization/Demobilization1 3% 10%
Planning, permitting, bond, and insurance costs 5% 10%
Engineering and Planning 14% 40%
Construction Management 8% 15%
1 $2,000 minimum fee
5.1.3 Operations and Maintenance
Based on past projects completed in Southern California, recent construction cost/bid information, and information from vendors, annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were assumed to be 2% percent of the capital cost for all proposed structural BMPs. Annual Monitoring costs were assumed to be
1.5% of capital costs, but were only assumed to apply for three full years.
O&M opinions for drywells and infiltration basins include cleaning and removal of debris from inlet and drainage pipes, removal of sediment and trash from intake and debris shields, cleanout of trash and accumulated sediment from primary settling chambers, and removal of standing water when observed during dry weather. O&M for green streets includes repairs to eroded areas, incremental landscape maintenance, media and gravel replacement once clogged and surface scarification is no longer effective, removal of trash and debris, and removal of aged mulch with installation of a new layer. O&M costs have been summarized as annual costs, though all activities are not necessarily performed every year of operation.
Additional maintenance will be necessary after the estimated project lifecycle, assumed to be 20 years.
Extended maintenance for drywells and other subsurface infiltration systems includes excavation and washing of all drain rock on a 25-year cycle, and is estimated to be approximately 60 percent of capital costs. All drainage elements should be replaced on a 50-year cycle, at approximately 125 percent of capital costs. Green streets should be excavated, disposing of existing soil media, and backfilled with new soil media every 25 to 50 years at approximately 90 percent of capital costs.
Typical maintenance for trash exclusion devices includes removal of trash and sediment, and catch basins should be cleaned at a minimum of once or twice per year. Trash exclusion devices can be plugged if they are overloaded with sediment or debris, greatly reducing their efficiency. Inspection and cleanout are recommended after major storm events, or storms with a rainfall intensity of greater than one inch in 12 hours.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
5.1.4 Additional Design Assumptions
Additional design details were assumed for the purpose of the cost estimation presented herein, including, but not limited to:
• The percentage of excavated material requiring hauling; • The type and length of BMP inflow and outflow conveyance structures; • The type and quantity of vegetation required for the post-BMP condition; • The percentage of the parcel area requiring hydroseeding for the post-BMP condition; • The type of pre-treatment used for each BMP.
5.2 Summary of Cost Estimates
Table 11 summarizes the total cost estimates for each proposed structural BMP, which are composed of the cost to construct or implement each structural BMP plus the associated annual O&M and monitoring costs, with combined costs for proposed structural BMPs by analysis region and by watershed. Not included in these costs are the annual monitoring costs for implementing the CIMP or the costs associated with implementing baseline and enhanced MCMs.
From the analysis of potential costs in this section as summarized in Table 11, it is clear that projected costs of implementing the EWMP are substantial and that availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP.
The Beach Cities agencies are relying heavily on funding of projects through LA County’s Safe Clean Water Program (SCW Program). The SCW Program is designed to prioritize multi-benefit water quality improvement projects identified in regional EWMPs or related watershed plans, including the structural BMPs proposed in the Beach Cities EWMP. Funding applications are reviewed annually for partial or full funding. Additional information is provided in Appendix G.
In addition, the Beach Cities WMG individually and collaboratively are committed to pursue funding sources at a State, regional, and local level. These potential sources of funding are discussed in greater detail in Appendix G.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 11．Cost Estimates for Proposed Structural BMPs by Analysis Region Analysis
Region Project Capital Cost Annual
O&M Cost4
Monitoring
Cost5 Low High
SMB-6-1
Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project $1,995,000 $2,625,000 $45,000 $35,000 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells $1,615,000 $2,125,000 $35,000 $30,000 Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed
Infiltration Project $3,230,000 $4,250,000 $70,000 $55,000 Beach Cities Green Streets Project1 $4,900,000 $4,900,000 $20,000 $55,000 Torrance Basins Enhancement &
Expansion Project1 $5,300,000 $5,300,000 $30,000 $80,000 SMB-6-1 Total $17,040,000 $19,200,000 $200,000 $255,000 SMB-5-2 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration
Project1 $17,800,000 $17,800,000 $155,000 $50,000
DC-N-MB
Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel
Distributed Infiltration Project $1,615,000 $2,125,000 $35,000 $30,000 Alondra Park Stormwater Capture
Project- Manhattan Beach Portion2 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 $14,800 - DC-N-MB Total $3,855,000 $4,365,000 $49,800 $30,000
DC-N-RB
Glen Anderson Park Regional
Infiltration Project $3,135,000 $4,125,000 $65,000 $50,000 Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel
Distributed Infiltration Project $2,090,000 $2,750,000 $45,000 $35,000 Alondra Park Stormwater Capture
Project- Redondo Beach Portion2 $6,730,000 $6,730,000 $44,500 - DC-N-RB Total $11,955,000 $13,605,000 $154,500 $85,000
DC-S Torrance Parkway BMPs3 $5,200,000 $6,900,000 $115,000 $95,000 DC-TL Torrance Parkway BMPs3 $8,500,000 $11,100,000 $180,000 $155,000 EWMP Total $64,350,000 $72,970,000 $854,300 $670,000
1 Cost estimates taken from SCW Program Feasibility Study. As a result, no range is estimated. For the Beach Cities Green Streets Project, costs are not broken down by project sit and therefore cannot be allocated by analysis region. Since the majority of project sites are within the SMB-6-1 analysis region, the project cost has been accounted for here. 2 Cost estimate based on SCW Program cost allocation by contributing agency as of March 2021. 3 Cost estimate based on per acre-foot cost for other distributed infiltration projects within the Beach Cities EWMP. 4 Assumed to apply annually for the duration of the project life cycle. 5 Assumed to apply annually for the first three years of the project life cycle. 6 ASSESSMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Adaptive management is a critical component of the EWMP implementation process, and regular EWMP updates are required by the Permit. The CIMP will continue to gather additional data on receiving water conditions and stormwater/non-stormwater quality and flow. These data will continue to support adaptive management at multiple levels, including: (1) tracking improvements in water quality over the course of EWMP implementation, and (2) generating data not previously available to support model updates.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Furthermore, over time, the experience gained through intensive BMP implementation will provide lessons learned to support modifications to the control measures identified in the EWMP.
The adaptive management process also includes a schedule for developing and reporting on the EWMP updates, the approach to conducting the updates, and the process for implementing any modifications to the RAA and EWMP to reflect the updates.
The adaptive management approach for the Beach Cities EWMP area is designed to address the EWMP planning process and the relationship between monitoring, scheduling, and BMP planning. The adaptive management process outlines how the EWMP will be modified in response to monitoring results, updated modeling results, and BMP implementation. It is designed to accomplish three goals:
1. Clarify the short-term and long-term commitments of the Beach Cities WMG within the EWMP.
2. Provide a structured decision-making process for modifications to the EWMP based on the results of monitoring data.
3. Propose a structure for evaluating compliance with water-quality based permit requirements within an adaptive structure.
As previously outlined, the schedule and milestones for the EWMP have been designed around meeting the interim and final TMDL requirements for applicable WBPCs. While the EWMP identifies actions that will lead to compliance with the final TMDL limitations, the specific actions taken will be informed by monitoring data collected under the CIMP, special studies that may be conducted during implementation, and any applicable regulatory changes that could influence the remaining interim and final milestones and schedule.
Monitoring data will be utilized to measure progress towards achieving RWLs and WQBELs. An evaluation of monitoring data will be carried out periodically to determine if modifications to the EWMP are necessary. Modifications that are warranted because final milestones are achieved more quickly than anticipated can be made at any time (i.e. no more actions are needed if fewer control measures result in meeting RWLs and/or WQBELs). Modifications that are warranted because insufficient progress is being made will be noted in the annual report and an updated schedule for implementation will be provided.
If at any point during the implementation period any of the Permit conditions are modified in response to a regulatory action, TMDL modification, or local studies, the receiving water and outfall monitoring data will be compared to the new RWLs and WQBELs. The same procedure will be followed for evaluating the data and adapting the EWMP, but the new RWLs and WQBELs will be used for the analysis.
The process outlined herein applies during the implementation period for the EWMP. At the end of the implementation period for the TMDLs, if the final RWL and/or WQBELs are not being met, either the TMDL must be modified to adjust the schedule or the Beach Cities WMG will need to receive an extension of the compliance deadlines.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
7 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
The following sections present the proposed compliance schedules and project sequencing necessary to meet the final compliance deadlines for the Beach Cities EWMP WPBCs.
7.1 Santa Monica Bay WMA
Within the Beach Cities SMB WMA, bacteria is the only WBPC for which a RAA was performed. All other WBPCs are not currently causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances based on an evaluation of outfall and receiving water data.
The Beach Cities WMG is currently meeting all applicable interim WLAs in the Santa Monica Bay WMA. Therefore, no interim compliance milestones are necessary.
The final wet weather WLA defined in the SMBBB TMDL officially goes into effect in July 2021; however, a Basin Plan Amendment extending the TMDL for three years until July 2024 has been approved by the Regional Board and is pending approval by the State Water Resources Control Board and the State Office of Administrative Law. As discussed by the Beach Cities representatives, other permittees, Regional Board staff, and many other stakeholders during the Regional Board hearing and in comments letters submitted on the TMDL schedule extension, additional time beyond the July 2024 extension will be necessary to complete all of the projects needed to meet the final TLRs. Once the Beach Cities WMG has demonstrated further implementation progress, the WMG anticipates submitting a request via one or more regulatory mechanisms to extend this deadline further.
In light of these assumptions and observations, a project implementation schedule expressed in terms of the 24-hour runoff management volume and project completion date was developed to reasonably assure the Beach Cities WMG will meet final TLRs for bacteria during wet weather in the Santa Monica Bay WMA. The schedule is provided in Table 12.
Table 12. Project Completion Date and 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity in SMB WMA Project Name Responsible
Agencies
Milestone
Completion
Description
Milestone
Completion
(Year)
24-Hour Runoff
Management
Capacity (ac-ft)
28th Street Storm Drain
Infiltration Project Phase 1 Manhattan Beach
Design 2022
81.9 Construction 2024
Torrance Basins Expansion
Project Torrance
Design 2022 85th percentile, 24-
hour storm capture
Construction 2024 (32.2 ac-ft)
Joint Beach Cities Green
Streets Project
Hermosa Beach
Manhattan Beach
Redondo Beach
Torrance
Design 2023
85th percentile, 24-
hour storm capture Construction 2026
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Project Name Responsible
Agencies
Milestone
Completion
Description
Milestone
Completion
(Year)
24-Hour Runoff
Management
Capacity (ac-ft)
Fulton Playfield Infiltration
Project
Redondo Beach
and LACFCD
Feasibility Study 2022
Design 2025 26.0
Construction 2028
Hermosa Beach Distributed
Drywells Hermosa Beach
Siting and feasibility
study 2025
7.7 Construction 2028
Redondo Beach Herondo
Distributed Infiltration
Project
Redondo Beach
Siting and feasibility
Study 2025
17.6 Construction 2028
7.2 Dominguez Channel WMA
The Beach Cities WMG has been implementing the Beach Cities CIMP program since October 2016 and have been analyzing outfall monitoring data in the Dominguez Channel WMA against applicable interim MS4 WLA WQBELs. No exceedances of interim WQBELs have occurred to date. As a result, and as demonstrated by the RAA, no additional stormwater control measures are required to address interim WQBELs. Furthermore, distributed projects collectively addressing 110 acres of target land use out of a total of 1448.5 acres of target land use in the DC-N-MB & DC-N-RB analysis regions have been completed to meet both previous interim milestones of addressing 3% of target land use by 2021 and addressing 7% of target land use by 2026. Additionally, catch basin inserts have been installed in 30 highpriority catch basins within the DC-S & DC-L analysis regions to meet the first interim 2021milestone in those analysis regions.
The final applicable WLAs defined in the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL will be in effect in 2032.
As a result, all proposed stormwater control measures must be implemented by 2032 in order to meet the final TLRs.
A project implementation schedule expressed in terms of the 24-hour runoff management volume was developed to reasonably assure the Beach Cities WMG will meet final TLRs for all WBPCs in the Dominguez Channel WMA.
The estimated project completion time and 24-hour runoff management capacity of proposed projects is summarized in Table 13. The 85th percentile, 24-hour capture projects in the Dominguez Channel WMA are included in Table 13 for informational purposes.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Table 13. Project Completion Date and 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity in DC WMA Project Name Responsible
Agencies
Milestone
Completion
Description
Milestone
Completion
(Year)
24-Hour Runoff
Management
Capacity (ac-ft)
Alondra Park Stormwater
Capture Project
LACFCD
Redondo Beach
Manhattan Beach
Design 2022
7.05[1]
Construction 2023
Manhattan Beach Dominguez
Channel Distributed
Infiltration Project
Manhattan Beach
Feasibility Study 2024
Design 2026 5.2
Construction 2028
Glen Anderson Park Regional
Infiltration Project Redondo Beach
Feasibility Study 2024
Design 2026 9.4
Construction 2028
Redondo Beach Dominguez
Channel Distributed
Infiltration Project
Redondo Beach
Feasibility Study 2027
Design 2029 8.3
Construction 2032
Torrance Parkway BMPs
Phase 1 Dominguez Channel
above Vermont
Torrance
Siting and feasibility
study 2024
Design 2026 21.9
Construction 2028
Torrance Parkway BMPs
Phase 2 Torrance Lateral Torrance
Siting and feasibility
study 2027
Design 2029 35.4
Construction 2032
1 Represents the total volume allocation to Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, collectively, since the full project will be shared among numerous agencies.
8 REFERENCES
Ackerman, D. and K. Schiff, 2003. “Modeling storm water mass emissions to the Southern California Bight.” SCCWRP Report #0390. Journal of Environmental Engineering. April.
American Rivers, The Water Environment Federation, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest, 2012. Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits Community-wide. April.
Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, 2014. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Work Plan for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group. June.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Brown, W., and Schueler, T., 1997. The Economics of Stormwater BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region:
Final Report. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, Maryland. August.
City of Manhattan Beach. 2020. Safe, Clean Water Program Infrastructure Program Feasibility Study Report - 28th Street Storm Drian Infiltration Project. Accessed January 2021 from <https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projects-module-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/13/168 > City of Torrance, 2019. Beach Cities Green Streets Project Conceptual Report.
City of Torrance, 2020a. Safe, Clean Water Infrastructure Program Feasibility Study Report Stormwater Basin Expansion Project. Accessed January 2021 from https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projectsmodule-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/13/145 City of Torrance, 2020b. Safe, Clean Water Program Technical Resources Summary - Prioritization of Parkway BMPs for Dominguez Channel / Harbors Toxics TMDL. Accessed January 2021 from < https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projects-module-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/55/37> International Cost Engineering Council, 2014. (www.icoste.org) LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board), 1995. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). June.
LARWQCB, 2010. Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL. October 25.
LARWQCB, 2011. Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL. May 5.
LARWQCB, 2012a. Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. November 8.
LARWQCB, 2012b. Attachment A to Resolution No. R12-007, Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to revise the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL.
June 7.
LARWQCB, 2014. Guidelines for conducting reasonable assurance analysis in a watershed management program, including an enhanced watershed management program. March 25.
LARWQCB, 2015. Approval, With Conditions, of The Beach Cities Watershed Management Group’s Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program, Pursuant to Attachment E, Part IV.B of The Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001; Order No. R4-2012-0175). August 25.
LARWQCB, 2015b. Final Approved Beach Cities Watershed Management Group’s Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program, Pursuant to Attachment E, Part IV.B of The Los Angeles County
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001; Order No. R4- 2012-0175). November 12.
New Model Colony Builders, LLC (NMC Builders), 2008. New Model Colony Storm Water Quality Treatment Alternatives (DRAFT). Chino, California. September.
Public Policy Institute of California (PICC), 2014. Paying for Water in California.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2004. Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. September.
SWRCB, 2012. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters in California, California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan). Adopted October 16, 2012.
SWRCB, 2020. Order WQ 2020-0038. In the Matter of Review of Approval of Watershed Management Programs and an Enhanced Watershed Management Program Submitted Pursuant to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R4-20120-0175. SWRCB/OCC Files A-2386, A-2477, and A-2508. November.
TDC Environmental, 2013. Estimate of Urban Runoff Copper Reduction in Los Angeles County from the Brake Pad Copper Reductions Mandated by SB 346. February.
Thoe, W., Gold, M., Griesbach, A., Grimmer, M., Taggart, M.L., and A.B. Boehm, 2014. Sunny with a Chance of Gastroenteritis: Predicting Swimmer Risk at California Beaches. Environmental Science and Technology. 49(1), pp 423-431.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. EPA-841-B-05-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 2012. Santa Monica Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads for DDTs and PCBs.
USEPA, 2013a, 2013. “Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia – freshwater.” EPA 822- R-12-001.
USEPA, 2013b. The Importance of Operation and Maintenance for the Long-Term Success of Green Infrastructure. A Review of Green Infrastructure O&M Practices in ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Projects. Office of Water. United State Environmental Protection Agency. PA-832-R-12-007.
USEPA, 2014. Developing an Outreach Strategy. July 1.
(http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Developing-an-Outreach-Strategy.cfm) USEPA, 2015. Stormwater Management Model (SWMM).
Weiss, P. T., J. S. Gulliver and A. J. Erickson, 2007. Cost and Pollutant Removal of Storm-Water Treatment Practices. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 133.
Updated Beach Cities EWMP
June 2021
Werner, I., Deanovic, L.A., Hinton, D.E., Henderson, J.D., de Oliveira, G.H., Wilson, B.W., Krueger, W., Wallender, W.W., Oliver, M.N., Zalom, F.G., 2002. “Toxicity of Stormwater Runoff after Dormant Spray Application of Diazinon and Esfenvalerate (Asana) in a French Prune Orchard, Glenn County, California, USA.
Appendix A
History and
Regulatory
Background
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-1 | Page 2021
HISTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND OF THE BEACH CITIES
EWMP
BEACH CITIES EWMPHISTORY
Following adoption of the 2012 Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit1 (Permit), the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, together with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG) agreed to collaborate on the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) and Dominguez Channel areas within their jurisdictions (referred to herein as the Beach Cities EWMP Area). This EWMP is intended to facilitate effective, watershed-specific Permit implementation strategies in accordance with the Permit and summarizes the SMB and Dominguez Channel-specific water quality priorities identified jointly by the Beach Cities WMG, outlines the program plan, including specific strategies, control measures and best management practices (BMPs)2, necessary to achieve water quality targets (Water QualityBased Effluent Limitations [WQBELs] and Receiving Water Limitations [RWLs]), and describes the quantitative analyses completed to support target achievement and Permit compliance.
In compliance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) a Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop an EWMP on June 28, 2013 with a revised NOI submitted December 17, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Beach Cities WMG received a letter from the Executive Officer of the LARWQCB approving the revised NOI submittal. In compliance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG then submitted a draft EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014. Comments were not received.
Consistent with the draft EWMP Work Plan and in accordance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a draft EWMP to LARWQCB on June 26, 2015. Following public review and comment, as well as review by LARWQCB, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a revised EWMP on January 20, 2016.
After the Group’s submittal of the revised EWMP, additional comments were provided by LARWQCB and modifications were requested. The WMG submitted a second revised EWMP on February 9, 2016 for LARWQCB review and approval.
On April 18, 2016 the Beach Cities second revised EWMP was approved by LARWQCB. The Beach Cities WMG immediately began implementation of the approved EWMP. 1 Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. 2 For simplification, the term “BMP” will be used to collectively refer to strategies, control measures, and/or best management practices. The Permit also refers to these measures as Watershed Control Measures.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-2 | Page 2021
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
As outlined in the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG is required to implement an adaptive management process periodically. The adaptive management process serves as a means to comprehensively evaluate the EWMP and evaluate progress toward achieving:
• Applicable WQBELs/RWLs;
• Improved water quality in MS4 discharges and receiving waters; • Interim milestones; and
• Multi-year efforts that were not completed in the current year and will continue into the subsequent year(s), among other requirements.
Based on the adaptive management process, as well as other relevant changes within the Beach Cities Area, multiple updates to the Beach Cities EWMP have occurred since its original approval in April 2016:
March 2018. In order to investigate the use of centralized high-flow capacity trash device technologies and other approved equivalent systems certified by the State Water Resources Control Board to meet the final Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL RWL for trash, the Beach Cities WMG requested an update to the EWMP implementation schedule.
The schedule modification only affected interim compliance milestones; no changes to final compliance deadlines occurred. Three tables in the EWMP were updated to reflect the revised interim schedules.
August 2019. Following submittal of an Adaptive Management Report in December 2018, the Beach Cities WMG received a letter from the LARWQCB on July 23, 2019, which approved proposed modifications to the Group’s EWMP as set forth in the Adaptive Management Report. Modifications to the EWMP included:
• Changes to Control Measures. The City of Torrance originally proposed to install approximately 200 catch basin inlet filters throughout the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of their city. Upon further evaluation, the City of Torrance found that the use of modular wetlands, drywells, and other similar BMPs may be feasible in some portions of the watershed. As a result, language throughout the EWMP was revised to allow for the use of a larger suite of BMPs in these cases. The EWMP was also revised to discuss the source tracking investigation that the Group initiated in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed
• Changes to Minimum Control Measures. The EWMP was modified to customize the Group’s Public Information and Participation Program to better address watershed priorities by means of direct, targeted outreach to residents . • Changes to Water Body Pollutant Combinations Based on the 303(d) List. The Group revised its EWMP to reflect changes incorporated into the 2014-2016 303(d) list. These changes included the addition of mercury and arsenic to the Category 2 Water Body
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-3 | Page 2021
Pollutant Combination (WBPC) list within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed, and removal of ammonia from the Category 2 WBPC list in the Dominguez Channel Watershed.
• Changes to the Final Target Date for Hermosa Beach Trash TMDL. The Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris TMDL allows municipalities that have adopted smoking, polystyrene, and plastic bag ban ordinances an additional three years (until March 20, 2023) to meet the final TMDL compliance deadline. While the City of Hermosa Beach had passed smoking and polystyrene bans within three years of the original adoption date of the TMDL (by March 20, 2015), the final plastic bag ban ordinance was not adopted until September 1, 2015. During the recent reconsideration of the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL, the City of Hermosa Beach requested to be granted the additional 3 years. After being open for public comment and receiving no objections, this extension was approved by the Regional Board.
EWMP REVISION AND RESUBMITTAL
In addition to periodically adapting the EWMP , Permittees are required to submit an updated EWMP with an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) by June 30, 2021 for review and approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. The updated RAA is required to incorporate both water quality data and control measure performance data, and any other information informing the adaptive management process, gathered through December 31, 2020.
The latest version of the Beach Cities EWMP (June 2021) has been drafted to meet these requirements, as set forth in the Permit.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) are a voluntary opportunity afforded by the Permit for Permittees to collaboratively or individually develop comprehensive watershed-specific control plans and are intended to facilitate Permit compliance and water quality target achievement. WMPs and EWMPs also comprehensively evaluate opportunities for collaboration on multi-benefit regional projects that retain all non-stormwater runoff and runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event while also achieving benefits associated with issues such as flood control and water supply.
Additional details on the regulatory background for NPDES Permit and Water Quality Standards and the Permit specifics of WMPs and EWMPs are provided below.
NPDES PERMIT
The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) established the NPDES Program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. In 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Permitting Program, which established a framework for regulating municipal and industrial discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater that had the greatest potential to negatively impact water quality within waters of the United States. In particular, under Phase I, USEPA required NPDES Permit coverage for discharges from medium and large MS4 servicing populations greater than 100,000 persons. Operators of MS4s regulated under the Phase I NPDES Stormwater Program were required
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-4 | Page 2021
to obtain permit coverage for municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater to waters of the United States.
The LARWQCB designated the MS4s owned and/or operated by the incorporated cities and Los Angeles County unincorporated areas within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County as a large MS4 due to the total population of Los Angeles County. All MS4s within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County are subject to the waste discharge requirements set forth in the Permit. General permit requirements, which are relevant to and must be ensured by WMPs, include (i) a requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4, (ii) requirements to implement controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and (iii) other provisions the LARWQCB has determined appropriate for the control of such pollutants.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLS) The CWA also required that the LARWQCB establish water quality standards for each water body in its region. Water quality standards include beneficial uses, water quality objectives and criteria that are established at levels sufficient to protect those beneficial uses, and an anti-degradation policy to prevent degrading waters. The LARWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan - Los Angeles Region (hereinafter Basin Plan) on June 13, 1994 addressing this portion of the CWA which designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters in the Los Angeles Region. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13263(a), the requirements of the Permit implement the Basin Plan.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters in California, California Ocean Plan (hereinafter Ocean Plan) in 1972 and adopted the most recent amended Ocean Plan on February 4, 2019. The Ocean Plan also establishes water quality objectives and a program of implementation to protect beneficial uses at all MS4 discharge points within Los Angeles County coastal watersheds with the exception of Long Beach.
CWA Section 303(d)(1) requires each state to identify the waters within its boundaries that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are considered impaired and are placed on the state’s “CWA Section 303(d) List”. For each listed water body, the state is required to establish a TMDL for each pollutant impairing the water quality standards in that water body. TMDLs establish the allowable pollutant loadings for a water body and provide the basis upon which to establish water quality-based controls (required by NPDES Permits). The 2014-2016 CWA Integrated Report and updated 303(d) list were approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on October 3, 2017 and by the USEPA on April 6, 2018. Provisions regarding TMDLs are included in NPDES Permits once they have been developed and adopted.
STATE ORDER WQ 2020-0038
Order WQ 2020-0038, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on November 17, 2020, evaluated nine WMPs and one EWMP to determine whether they satisfied the standards of rigor, accountability, and transparency that were established in the MS4 Permit.
Where deemed insufficient in those regards, the Order subsequently ordered the implementation of changes to appropriately satisfy those standards within an assigned schedule. Permittees were required to submit an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis and EWMP for review and approval
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-5 | Page 2021
by the LARWQCB Executive Officer, including updates to bring the plans into conformance with Order WQ 2020-0038 (SWRCB, 2020).
Among other requirements, Order WQ 2020-0038 required all Los Angeles area EWMPs to be updated to address the following:
• EWMPs must be clear as to which components constitute definite, enforceable benchmarks, such that failure to achieve those components means that Permittees are not fully implementing the program and must instead comply immediately with receiving water limitations and WQBELs and other TMDL-specific limitations. • For model calibration purposes, the (E)WMPs and associated RAAs must clearly identify the information considered and how that information was used or why it was not used. • With respect to “limiting pollutants,” Groups must justify their use of certain limiting pollutants to ensure that the use of a limiting pollutant can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of water quality standards for all the water body-pollutant combinations addressed.
• Load reductions associated with “non-modeled” controls must be justified. Permittees must not only meet the dates and requirements for implementation of non-modeled controls (to the extent that Permittees rely on them to form milestones), they must also demonstrate that they have actually achieved the assumed load reduction by the milestone date when that milestone is based entirely off non-modeled controls. • With respect to compliance milestones and scheduling, where anticipated water quality improvements have not occurred despite implementation of the scheduled control measures, the EWMP must be updated to respond.
Order WQ 2020-0038 requires these updates to be incorporated into EWMPs no later than June 30, 2021. The Revised Beach Cities EWMP has been updated to reflect these requirements.
WMPS AND ENHANCED WMPS
The voluntary WMPs and EWMPs allow Permittees to collaboratively or individually develop comprehensive watershed-specific control plans which a) prioritize water quality issues, b) identify and implement focused strategies, control measures and BMPs, c) execute an integrated monitoring and assessment program, and d) allow for modification over time. In general, WMPs and EWMPs are intended to facilitate Permit compliance and water quality target achievement with the goals that: 1) discharges from covered MS4s achieve applicable WQBELs and RWLs and do not include prohibited non-stormwater discharges; and 2) control measures are implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). WMPs and EWMPs are to be developed based on the LARWQCB’s Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) or subwatersheds thereof.
Permittees within a WMA may elect to prepare an EWMP, which is defined in the Permit as a WMP that comprehensively evaluates opportunities for collaboration amongst Permittees and other partners on multi-benefit regional projects that, wherever feasible, retain, 1) all non-stormwater runoff, and 2) all stormwater runoff from the 85th percentile 24 hour storm event while also achieving
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-6 | Page 2021
benefits associated with issues such as flood control and water supply. Where regional projects cannot achieve these standards, the EWMP must demonstrate through a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), that applicable water quality targets are achieved.
The Permit specifies that an EWMP shall:
1. Be consistent with Permit provisions,
2. Incorporate applicable State agency input on priorities and key implementation factors,
3. Provide for meeting water quality standards and other CWA obligations,
4. Include multi-benefit3 regional projects which retain stormwater from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm
5. Include watershed control measures which achieve compliance with all interim and final WQBELs in drainage areas where retention of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm is infeasible with reasonable assurance,
6. Maximize the effectiveness of funding,
7. Incorporate effective innovative technologies,
8. Ensure existing requirements to comply with technology based effluent limitations and core requirements are not delayed, and
9. Ensure a financial strategy is in place.
APPLICABILITY OF EWMP
The agencies of the Beach Cities WMG have been working together since 2004 to implement the previously developed Jurisdictional Groups 5 and 6 Implementation Plan for the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDLs, including a BMP Siting Study (Geosyntec, 2011a) and Dry Weather Source Characterization and Control Study (Geosyntec, 2011b) for two high priority subwatersheds, along with joint implementation of programmatic solutions. Since 2004, the Beach Cities have also been jointly funding receiving water monitoring consistent with the Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan for the SMBBB TMDLs along the shoreline of the Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area. These ongoing efforts by the Beach Cities WMG to comply with the SMBBB TMDLs have been an effective facilitator for the development and implementation of the EWMP.
This EWMP is applicable to the Beach Cities EWMP Area, which consists of all of the incorporated MS4 areas of the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance and includes the infrastructure of the LACFCD within those jurisdictions, with the exception of the Machado Lake Watershed, which is being addressed separately by the City of Torrance, and is not addressed in this EWMP. A small portion of the City of Redondo Beach is located within the Machado Lake Watershed boundary but has successfully requested to be removed from the Machado Lake Implementation Plan and other compliance requirements pertaining to the Machado Lake Watershed.
3 Potential multiple benefits include neighborhood greening, water conservation and/or supply, groundwater recharge, public education and/or awareness, etc.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-7 | Page 2021
The beach areas within the geographic area of the Beach Cities WMG do not have any storm drain infrastructure that collect and discharges beach runoff directly to the receiving water and are therefore considered non‐point sources and not subject to the MS4 Permit or EWMP requirements.
Similarly, the Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach piers are not part of the MS4; they are non‐point sources excluded from the MS4 Permit scope and therefore the EWMP. The Redondo Beach Pier including the King Harbor Marina are included in the geographic scope of the Beach Cities WMG EWMP as these areas are equipped with MS4 infrastructure. The Wylie Sump is a retention basin with no outlet and capacity significantly larger than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.
Therefore, its drainage area has been excluded from the EWMP, with no analyses required.
EWMP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The Permit requires a stakeholder process for collaboration on EWMP development. The development process must:
• Provide appropriate opportunity for stakeholder input; • Include participation in the Permit-wide Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); and • Incorporate applicable State agency input on priority setting and other key implementation issues.
The Beach Cities WMG has conducted outreach to engage the public, LARWQCB staff, and other interested parties to support EWMP development. Input has been incorporated, as appropriate.
These efforts are described in more detail below.
Public Workshops – Original EWMP. For development of the original EWMP, public workshops were held on May 21, 2014 at the Joslyn Center in Manhattan Beach and on May 27, 2015 at the Redondo Beach Public Library. An informational presentation was provided followed by a question and answer period to encourage stakeholder input. Concerns were noted and considered during EWMP development by the Beach Cities WMG.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Beach Cities WMG actively participated in the Los Angeles region TAC and applicable subcommittees throughout the EWMP process.
LARWQCB Presentations. The Beach Cities WMG presented the proposed RAA approach to LARWQCB staff on April 9 and June 6, 2014. LARWQCB staff provided feedback during these meetings and in general they were supportive of the proposed approach. One additional meeting was held on July 31, 2014 to discuss Torrance-specific matters. In addition, the Beach Cities WMG presented the EWMP and progress on implementation to the LARWQCB in July 2018.
Public Website – Revised EWMP. As part of the revision process for the Beach Cities EWMP in 2021, the Beach Cities WMG created a website that highlighted the EWMP update process; provided details for each proposed project; and allowed for public comment to be submitted.
The website was launched in May 2021.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-8 | Page 2021
Public Virtual Webinar – Revised EWMP. The Beach Cities WMG held a public virtual webinar on May 19, 2021 to present the draft Revised EWMP to the Beach Cities communities and receive public input. The webinar was publicized in advance by each of the four Beach Cities.
City Council Review and Adoption. The cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance each presented the draft Beach Cities EWMP (2015) and draft revised Beach Cities EWMP (2021) to their respective city councils for review and adoption. This process is open to the public, and residents are encouraged and invited to share comments related to the EWMP at these council meetings. Voiced concerns and recommendations were noted and considered for inclusion in the final EWMP and final Revised EWMP.
The EWMP also addresses other State agency priorities, including the following:
California Water Action Plan (2016 Update). The California Water Action Plan proposes several statewide actions that are well aligned with the expected benefits of the proposed projects in this EWMP, including:
• Expand Water Storage Capacity and Improve Groundwater Management (infiltration BMPs): This action aims to address the need to expand the state’s storage capacity, whether in surface or groundwater to provide widespread public and environmental benefits. The California Water Action Plan states that “state agencies will work with tribes and federal, regional and local agencies on other actions related to promoting groundwater recharge and increasing storage, including improving interagency coordination, aligning land use planning with groundwater recharge...” The regional and distributed BMP projects proposed in the Beach Cities EWMP may contribute to groundwater recharge and expanding storage capacity throughout the Beach Cities WMG. • Increase Operational and Regulatory Efficiency: Monitoring data collected under the CIMP to measure progress toward achieving RWLs and WQBELs and to determine if modifications to the Beach Cities EWMP are necessary may provide the benefit of increased operational and regulatory efficiency. Improving data availability may also improve coordination of operations of all major water supply, flood control, hatchery facilities, and habitat restoration projects.
2014 Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (GLAC IRWM Plan). The goal of the GLAC IRWM Plan is to achieve sustainable management of water resources in the Greater Los Angeles County. The plan lists several regional objectives to achieve this goal. The Beach Cities EWMP contributes to some of the objectives outlined in the plan, including the following:
• Water Quality: This objective aims to comply with water quality regulations by improving the quality of urban runoff, stormwater, and wastewater. The Beach Cities EWMP contributes to this objective by proposing new distributed and regional stormwater capture opportunities in areas prioritized by statewide and regional regulations and water quality conditions.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-9 | Page 2021
• Open Space and Recreation: This objective aims to protect, restore, and enhance natural process and habitats. Several of the regional EWMP projects (i.e. 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project, Beach Cities Green Streets Project) provide opportunity for expanded habitat and increased green space.
STORMS Storm Water Strategy (California Water Boards, 2016). The Storm Water Strategy assists in achieving the actions identified in the California Water Action Plan, including the aforementioned action of expanding water storage capacity and improving groundwater management. The Storm Water Strategy supports efforts to improve interagency coordination and identify needs for groundwater recharge opportunity. The Storm Water Strategy also lists six overarching objectives. The Beach Cities EWMP contributes to some of these objectives, including the following:
• Increase Stakeholder Collaboration on a Watershed Scale: The Beach Cities WMG agreed to collaborate on the development of this EWMP for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watershed areas within their jurisdictions to facilitate effective, watershedspecific Permit implementation strategies. • Establish Financially Sustainable Storm Water Programs: This EWMP provides an overview of potentially available funding sources for programs and projects proposed in the EWMP. The funding sources identified for consideration are the Safe, Clean Water Program, grants, interagency partnerships, bonds, State Revolving Funds, local funding opportunities, and public private partnerships.
• Increase Source Control and Pollution Prevention: This EWMP identifies non-modeled programmatic source control BMPs that target priority pollutants.
Final Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines (Guidelines) (December 2015). The Guidelines establish guidance for public agencies to develop Storm Water Resource Plans (Plans) consistent with Water Code sections 10561 through 10565. The Water Code states that a Plan is required as a condition to receive funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014, which also applies to Proposition 1 funding. The Guidelines provide guidance such as clarification on the applicability of the Guidelines, appropriate geographic scale of watersheds for stormwater resource planning, guidance on agencies and organizations to be consulted during Plan development, methods for identifying and prioritizing stormwater and runoff capture projects, project scheduling and implementation strategies, and so forth.
A Self-Certified Checklist provided in the Guidelines includes a complete list of the elements of a Stormwater Resource Plan that are considered mandatory per the California Water Code.
Fulfilling the mandatory requirements would make the Beach Cities WMG eligible for Proposition 1 Stormwater Grant funding which would be applied toward the proposed Beach Cities EWMP projects. The mandatory required elements highlighted in the Checklist and Self-Certification are either entirely fulfilled by the Beach Cities EWMP (including appended documents) or will be fulfilled on a project-specific basis (See Appendix I for more details on
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-10 | Page 2021
the Beach Cities Plan). For example, maximizing flood control will be part of detailed design at the project level.
REFERENCES
Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, 2014. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Work Plan for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group. June.
California Natural Resources Agency, the California EPA, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2016. California Water Action Plan 2016 Update California Water Boards, 2016. STORMS Storm Water Strategy: Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water. January 6.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2011a. Structural BMP Siting and Conceptual Design Study, Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation. Produced for SMBBB TMDL Jurisdictional Groups 5 &
6. June.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2011b. Dry Weather Source Characterization and Control Summary, Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation. Produced for SMBBB TMDL Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6. June.
LARWQCB, 2012a. Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. November 8.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2020. Order WQ 2020-0038. In the Matter of Review of Approval of Watershed Management Programs and an Enhanced Watershed Management Program Submitted Pursuant to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R4-20120-0175. SWRCB/OCC Files A-2386, A-2477, and A-2508. November.
Appendix B
Water Quality
Prioritization and
Source Assessment
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-1 | Page 2021
WATER QUALITY PRIORITIZATION FOR THE BEACH CITIES EWMP
As part of the EWMP, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. To accomplish this, the Beach Cities WMG conducted the following for the Beach Cities EWMP Area:
1. Characterized the water quality of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water bodies;
2. Prioritized water body-pollutant combinations (WBPCs); and
3. Assessed sources for WBPCs.
This appendix summarizes the above process for the two watersheds comprising the Beach Cities EWMP Area: Santa Monica Bay (SMB) Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed.
SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED
The western portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area consists of approximately 7,800 acres of land that drains to SMB. This accounts for 53% of the total Beach Cities WMG area, and includes portions of the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and the entirety of the City of Hermosa Beach. The majority of the SMB Watershed consists of residential land uses.
Table B-1 provides a land use breakdown of the Beach Cities EWMP Area by city. Land uses for this watershed are shown on Figure B-1.
Table B-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area - SMB Watershed Land Use Distribution Agency
Agriculture
Com
mercial
Education
Industrial
MF Residential
SF Residential
Vacant
Total (ac)
Total (%)
Hermosa Beach (ac) - 130.0 16.3 13.3 254.5 380.4 51.7 846.1 10.8% Manhattan Beach (ac) - 210.6 120.5 12.8 209.4 1425.9 109.3 2088.6 26.8% Redondo Beach (ac) 25.3 312.2 150.2 99.0 717.6 1184.3 103.7 2592.3 33.2% Torrance (ac) 28.1 246.9 91.6 87.4 335.0 1359.3 125.8 2274.1 29.2% Total (ac) 53.4 899.8 378.6 212.5 1516.4 4349.9 390.5 7801.1 100% Total (%) 0.7% 11.5% 4.9% 2.7% 19.4% 55.8% 5.0% 100% -
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-2 | Page 2021
Figure B-1. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-3 | Page 2021
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION
Beneficial Uses
The Basin Plan (LARWQCB, accessed 2021) identifies receiving waters within the Los Angeles region and sets regulatory objectives for these receiving waters. Within the SMB Watershed, identified receiving water bodies include SMB itself as well as coastal beaches within the Beach Cities WMG Area. Regulations set forth in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2019) are therefore also applicable to the SMB Watershed.
Both the Basin Plan and Ocean Plan regulate waste discharges to protect the quality of surface waters for use and enjoyment by the general public. Regulations set forth in the Basin Plan are based on assigned beneficial uses for each receiving water body. Beneficial use designations for receiving waters within the Beach Cities WMG Area include:
Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN): Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.
Industrial Service Supply (IND): Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well re-pressurization.
Navigation (NAV): Uses of water for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, military, or commercial vessels.
Water Contact Recreation (REC-1): Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, what water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.
Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2): Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.
High Flow Suspension (HFS): Applies to water contact recreational activities associated with the swimmable goal regulated under the REC-1 use, non-contact water recreation involving incidental water contact regulated under the REC-2 use, and the associated bacteriological objectives set to protect those activities.
Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM): Uses of water for commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or other organisms including, but not limited to, uses involving organisms intended for human consumption or bait purposes.
Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM): Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
Marine Habitat (MAR): Uses of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., marine mammals, shorebirds).
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-4 | Page 2021
Wildlife Habitat (WILD): Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE): Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered.
Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR): Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration, acclimatization between fresh and saltwater, or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish.
Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN): Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish.
Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL): Uses of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels) for human consumption, commercial, or sports purposes.
Wetland Habitat (WET): Uses of water that support wetland ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of wetland habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife, and other unique wetland functions which enhance water quality, such as providing flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of naturally occurring contaminants.
According to the Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2019), “The beneficial uses of the ocean waters of the State that shall be protected include industrial water supply (IND); water contact recreation (REC-1) and non-contact recreation (REC-2), including aesthetic enjoyment; navigation (NAV); commercial and sport fishing (COMM); mariculture; preservation and enhancement of designated Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS); rare and endangered species (RARE); marine habitat (MAR); fish migration (MIGR); fish spawning (SPWN) and shellfish* harvesting (SHELL).” Additional beneficial uses are defined as follows:
Mariculture: The culture of plants and animals in marine waters independent of any pollution source.
ASBS: Those areas designated by the State Water Board as ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that maintenance of natural water quality is assured. ASBS are also referred to as State Water Quality Protection Areas – Areas of Special Biological Significance (SWQPA-ASBS).
Table B-2 summarizes the existing beneficial uses for the Santa Monica Bay water bodies in the Beach Cities WMG Area, as designated in the Basin Plan.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-5 | Page 2021
Table B-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area - SMB Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses Water Body
MUNINDNAVREC1REC2HFSCOMMWARMMARWILDRAREMIGRSPWNSHELLWET2 Santa Monica Bay
Nearshore +
Offshore1
E E E E E E E E E E E
Manhattan Beach E E E E E E P E
Hermosa Beach E E E E E E E3 E
King Harbor E E E E E E E E
Redondo Beach E E E E E E E E E E3 E
Torrance Beach E E E E E E E E3 E
E = Existing beneficial use
1 The Preservation of Biological Habitats (BIOL) beneficial use is not included since no Areas of Special Biological Significance are present within the Beach Cities WMG Area. 2 Water bodies designated as WET may have wetlands habitat associated with only a portion of the water body. Any regulatory action would require a detailed analysis of the area. 3 Most frequently used grunion spawning beaches. Other beaches may be used as well.
SMB Watershed Data Analysis
An evaluation of existing water quality conditions, including characterization of stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water quality, was carried out as part of this EWMP revision to support identification and prioritization/sequencing of management actions, to the extent possible based on available data. To evaluate water-quality conditions within the SMB Watershed, a review of previous studies was conducted to characterize receiving water bodies within the Beach Cities WMG Area. Monitoring data analyzed were limited to water quality and flow data collected per the Beach Cities Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP); and bacteria data collected as part of the SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDL Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Program (CSMP). A summary of this analysis is provided below.
WATER BODY-POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION
Receiving waters (and paired outfalls) from the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area were screened for water quality priorities by reviewing TMDLs, the State’s 303(d) list, and additional water quality data. Each identified water quality priority for a given receiving water body was categorized as a waterbody pollutant combination (WBPC). WBPCs were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit.
Category 1 – Highest Priority
WBPCs under Category 1 (highest priority) are defined in the Permit as “water body-pollutant combinations for which WQBELs and/or RWLs are established.” These WBPCs include:
SMB beaches for bacteria (wet and dry weather): These are considered Category 1 due to the SMBBB TMDL. Although the TMDL remains in effect, both Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach (all Jurisdiction 5 sites) were removed from the 2014-2016 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-6 | Page 2021
SMB offshore/nearshore for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethanes (DDTs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): These are considered Category 1 due to the USEPA TMDL for DDT and PCBs for SMB Offshore/Nearshore. However, the TMDL relied on a limited dataset to establish stormwater load allocations, relying on a single study (Curren et al., 2011) from a single creek (Ballona Creek, which is outside the Beach Cities watershed area) to establish MS4 WLAs throughout the entire SMB Watershed. It does not present sufficient data to assign MS4 contributions to the DDT and PCB concentrations observed in SMB; therefore, direct RAA modeling for these pollutants cannot reasonably be conducted at this time without the use of a surrogate (e.g., TSS).
Despite the lack of data for RAA modeling purposes, the load-based WQBELs for DDT and PCBs established by the TMDL were set to be the existing stormwater loads (i.e., based on data used in the TMDL, no MS4 load reduction is expected to be required to achieve TMDL compliance).1 Therefore, it is assumed that no reductions in DDT and PCB loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s are required to meet the TMDL and reasonable assurance of compliance is assumed to be demonstrated without modeling. As discussed below, monitoring data conducted to-date per the Beach Cities CIMP confirms this assumption, as 27 discrete outfall sample events have resulted in no exceedances of either the DDT or total PCBs numeric targets.
SMB Offshore/Nearshore is 303(d)-listed for fish consumption advisory due to DDT and PCBs.
Therefore, the fish consumption advisory will be assumed to be addressed by the DDT and PCB categorization.
SMB Offshore/Nearshore was previously 303(d) listed for toxicity, but USEPA's data evaluation showed only 3 out of 116 samples exhibited toxicity (USEPA, 2012). The WBPC was removed from the 2014-2016 303(d) list.
SMB offshore/nearshore for debris: This is considered Category 1 due to the TMDL for Debris for SMB Offshore/Nearshore. The Permit states, “Pursuant to California Water Code section 13360(a), Permittees may comply with the trash [debris] effluent limitations using any lawful means. Such compliance options are broadly classified as full capture, partial capture, institutional controls, or minimum frequency of assessment and collection… and any combination of these may be employed to achieve compliance.” While trash was not modeled as part of the RAA, the RAA qualitatively described how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the SMB Debris TMDL WQBELs by stating the following: “Compliance with the SMB Debris TMDL will be met through a phased retrofit of full-capture or partial capture systems throughout Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA in combination with institutional measures, e.g., street sweeping with posted no-parking on street sweeping days, to meet each interim and 1 The TMDL states, “Because existing stormwater loads from the watersheds are lower than the calculated total allowable loads to achieve sediment targets, the waste load allocations for stormwater in this TMDL are based on existing load estimates of 28 g/yr for DDT and 145 g/yr for PCBs.” These WLAs are further divided among Los Angeles County MS4, CalTrans, the Construction General Permit, and the Industrial General Permit. The assigned WLAs for the entire LA County MS4 within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed is 27.08 g/yr forDDT and 140.25 g/yr for PCBs, which are equivalent to the TMDL-estimated existing MS4 stormwater loads.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-7 | Page 2021
final compliance deadline. Hence, these constituents do not require a TLR to be calculated and were not modeled as part of the revised RAA” (Beach Cities EWMP, 2021). “Highest Priority” WBPCs have been assigned based strictly on the Permit definition. Not all of these pollutants (e.g., DDT and PCBs) have been definitively linked to MS4 sources. As a result, this categorization and prioritization will continue to be reevaluated based on results from the water quality monitoring efforts conducted under the CIMP.
Category 2 – High Priority
WBPCs under Category 2 (high priority) are defined in the Permit as, “Pollutants for which data indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (State Listing Policy) (SWRCB, 2015) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment.” The following Category 2 WBPCs have been identified in the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area based on the 2016 303(d) list:
SMB offshore/nearshore for Mercury: Although listed on the 2016 303(d) list, no data is available linking MS4 discharges from the Beach Cities EWMP Area with mercury exceedances in Santa Monica Bay. Rather, the listing was based on a limited set of fish tissue and sediment sampling data collected under the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES permit. Two (2) of thirty-two (32) sediment samples exceeded the Basin Plan narrative objective for mercury based on the effects range median for saline waters (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury of 0.71 mg/Kg dry weight (Long et. al., 1995). In addition, two (2) of nineteen (19) fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal of 0.22ppm (Klasing et. al., 2008). This data was collected during 2006 and 2007, more than ten years ago.
Since the listing was finalized, mercury has been added to the Beach Cities CIMP suite of analytes for Santa Monica Bay. To-date, mercury has been analyzed through the Beach Cities CIMP during the past three years, comprising a total of 15 wet weather outfall samples and 18 wet weather receiving water samples. No exceedances of the Ocean Plan Target (0.4 ug/L) have occurred. Therefore, it is assumed that no reductions in mercury loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s is required to meet the Ocean Plan target and reasonable assurance of compliance is assumed to be demonstrated without modeling. The Beach Cities WMG will continue to monitor for mercury in accordance with their CIMP and will revise their WBPC list, as applicable, based on evaluation of the data.
SMB offshore/nearshore for Arsenic: Although listed on the 2016 303(d) list, no data is available linking MS4 discharges from the Beach Cities EWMP Area with arsenic exceedances in Santa Monica Bay. Rather, the listing was based on a limited set of fish tissue sampling data collected under the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES permit. Nineteen (19) of 19 fish tissue samples collected in the Santa Monica Bay exceeded the USEPA Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis for arsenic in fish tissue of 0.0034 ppm (USEPA, 2000). This data was collected during 2006 and 2007, more than ten years ago. Since the listing was finalized, arsenic has been added to the Beach Cities CIMP suite of analytes for Santa Monica Bay. To-date, arsenic has been analyzed through the Beach Cities CIMP during the past three years, comprising a total of 15
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-8 | Page 2021
wet weather outfall samples and 18 wet weather receiving water samples. No exceedances of the Ocean Plan Target (80 ug/L) have occurred. Therefore, it is assumed that no reductions in arsenic loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s is required to meet the Ocean Plan target and reasonable assurance of compliance is assumed to be demonstrated without modeling. The Beach Cities WMG will continue to monitor for arsenic in accordance with their CIMP and will revise their WBPC list, as applicable, based on evaluation of the data.
Category 3 – Medium Priority
WBPCs under Category 3 (medium priority) are defined in the Permit as, ”Pollutants for which there are insufficient data to indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Listing Policy, but which exceed applicable RWLs contained in this Order and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance.” The Beach Cities WMG has been collecting outfall and paired receiving water data in the SMB Watershed per their approved CIMP since 2016. Implementation of the CIMP has resulted in the successful monitoring of 15 wet weather events to-date, with two outfall sites and two receiving water sites monitored per event. Through June 2020, no water quality impairments (besides those discussed above) have been identified.
As a result, there are no Category 3 WBPCs in the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area.
The Beach Cities agencies understand that additional data collected as part of their approved CIMP may result in modifications to WBPCs and water quality priorities. Under these conditions, the Beach Cities EWMP will be updated.
Figure B-2 provides a brief conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-9 | Page 2021
Figure B-2. Process for Categorizing Water Body-Pollutant Combinations
SOURCE ASSESSMENT
The following data sources were reviewed as part of the updated source assessment for the WBPCs listed previously:
• Findings from the Permittees’ Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharge Elimination Programs (IC/ID);
• Findings from the Permittees’ Industrial/Commercial Facilities Programs; • Findings from the Permittees’ Development Construction Programs; • Findings from the Permittees’ Public Agency Activities Programs;
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-10 | Page 2021
• TMDL source investigations;
• Watershed model results;
• Findings from the Permittees’ monitoring programs, including but not limited to, CIMP and TMDL compliance monitoring; and
• Any other pertinent data, information, or studies related to pollutant sources and conditions that contribute to the highest water quality priorities.
The following source assessment is broken down by pollutants applicable to the SMB Watershed.
Indicator Bacteria
The Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDLs for dry and wet weather were the first bacteria TMDLs adopted by the LARWQCB. The SMBBB TMDLs were opened for reconsideration in 2012 and recently in 2021, although the source assessment was not part of these updates. As a result, the general findings from the original source assessment remain unchanged. These findings are summarized in the 2012 Basin Plan Amendment for the reopened SMBBB TMDL (Attachment A to Resolution No. R12-007):
“With the exception of isolated sewage spills, dry weather urban runoff and stormwater runoff conveyed by storm drains and creeks is the primary source of elevated bacterial indicator densities to SMB beaches” (LARWQCB, 2012b).
The SMBBB TMDL source assessment (LARWQCB, 2002) maintained that dry weather urban runoff and stormwater runoff were the primary sources of elevated bacteria concentrations at SMB beaches at the time of the TMDL. Although definitive information regarding the specific sources of bacteria within the watershed was not presented, speculation provided in the dry weather staff report provided some insight into possible sources at the time:
“Urban runoff from the storm drain system may have elevated levels of bacterial indicators due to sanitary sewer leaks and spills, illicit connections of sanitary lines to the storm drain system, runoff from homeless encampments, illegal discharges from recreational vehicle holding tanks, and malfunctioning septic tanks among other things. Swimmers can also be a direct source of bacteria to recreational waters. The bacteria indicators used to assess water quality are not specific to human sewage; therefore, fecal matter from animals and birds can also be a source of elevated levels of bacteria, and vegetation and food waste can be a source of elevated levels of total coliform bacteria, specifically” (LARWQCB, 2002).
Information on non-MS4 sources of surf zone bacteria along specific SMB beaches was provided by the City of Malibu in its comment letter on the SMBBB TMDL reconsideration, based on a comprehensive review of local and Southern California source identification studies (City of Malibu, 2012):
“A number of recent Santa Monica Bay studies have further identified and confirmed natural (non-anthropogenic) sources of fecal indicator bacteria including plants, algae, decaying organic matter, beach wrack and bird feces – implicating these as potentially significant contributors to exceedances (Imamura et al 2011, Izbicki 2012b). Beach sands, sediments and
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-11 | Page 2021
beach wrack have been shown to be capable of serving as reservoirs of bacteria, possibly by providing shelter from UV inactivation and predation by allowing for regrowth (Imamura et al 2011, Izbicki et al 2012b, Lee et al 2006, Ferguson et al 2005, Grant et al 2001, Griffith 2012, Litton et al 2010, Phillips et al 2011, Jiang et al 2004, Sabino et al 2011, and Weston Solutions 2010). In fact, enterococci include non-fecal or “natural” strains that live and grow in water, soil, plants and insects (Griffith, 2012). Thus, elevated levels of enterococci in water could be related to input from natural sources. The phenomenon of regrowth of bacteria from either anthropogenic or natural sources has been suggested by several studies as a possible source of beach bacteria exceedances (Griffith 2012, Litton et al 2010, Weston Solutions 2010, Izbicki et al 2012b, Weisberg et al 2009).”
To address the identification of dry weather bacteria sources within or to the MS4s, the Beach Cities WMG agencies have implemented measures to divert dry weather flows from all storm drains discharging at point zero shoreline monitoring locations. A total of eight low flow diversions are operational within the Beach Cities EWMP area, and have proven to be effective at diverting dry weather flows from reaching the wave wash.
Wet weather bacteria sources are believed to be derived from the entire watershed, and potentially include a mixture of human sources, non-human anthropogenic sources (e.g., pet waste), and nonanthropogenic sources (e.g., birds and other urban wildlife, storm drain biofilms/regrowth, beach sands and wrack). A wet weather stormwater monitoring study by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) investigated bacteria concentrations in stormwater runoff from various land uses in the Los Angeles region (Stein et al, 2007). Results showed that wet weather runoff event mean concentrations (EMCs) for fecal coliform bacteria were highest for agricultural land uses, followed by commercial and educational, single family residential, multi-family residential, open space, industrial, and transportation. In this study, results showed that bacteria concentrations in stormwater are highly variable, with concentrations often varying by one to two orders of magnitude during a single storm, and by up to five orders of magnitude on seasonal and inter-annual scales.
CIMP data collected by the Beach Cities at various outfalls over the past five years confirms that FIB concentrations within MS4 discharges during wet weather are higher than applicable objectives.
However, these results do not distinguish between sources or human health risk.
In 2019, the Beach Cities WMG initiated a screening-level microbial source tracking (MST) investigation at targeted outfalls to determine if human, dog, and bird waste was a source of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in MS4 discharges, and therefore potentially of FIB in the surf zone during discharge events. The investigation was focused on two Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (SMBBB TMDL) shoreline monitoring locations (antidegradation sites SMB 6-2 and SMB 6-5), including the storm drain network tributary to these locations. Preliminary results from these investigations, which include both dry and wet weather sample events, indicate that both dogs and illicit connections/discharges may be two significant sources of bacteria to the MS4 outfalls. As a result of these findings, programmatic controls such as a robust illicit connection and discharge
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-12 | Page 2021
detection and elimination program as well as dog waste outreach programs may have a significant impact on FIB loads within Santa Monica Bay.
DDT and PCBs
The Palos Verdes Shelf portion of Santa Monica Bay is an active EPA Superfund site that is subject to Superfund Remedial Action Objectives which include institutional controls, natural recovery, capping, and monitored attenuation, and are expected to result in improved water quality (USEPA, 2012). From 1947 to 1971, large quantities of DDT were discharged from the Montrose Chemical plant in Los Angeles to the Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), which discharges to the Palos Verdes Shelf. PCBs also entered the JWPCP from several industrial sources in the Los Angeles area. These DDT and PCBs discharges passed through the JWPCP and were deposited on the Palos Verdes Shelf. There have also been reports of recently discovered illegal offshore dumping of waste barrels containing DDT acid sludge between Catalina Island and the Palos Verdes coast.2 There is also concern that the rate of erosion on the southwest portion of the Palos Verdes Shelf could bring previously buried deposits to the surface.
Concentrations of DDT and PCBs deposited in the surface sediments of the Santa Monica Bay have decreased substantially since the early 1970s and during this time period the benthic communities in the Palos Verdes shelf and Santa Monica Bay have improved substantially to the point where impairments to benthic communities are not seen; however, DDT and PCBs are still present at levels of concern for bioaccumulation and human health (USEPA, 2012). This contamination of DDT and PCBs in the sediments of Santa Monica Bay, largely centered on the Palos Verdes shelf, has led to a large number of fish advisories for much of Santa Monica Bay and a commercial fishing ban in the area around the Palos Verdes Shelf. As a result, the USEPA issued the Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL in 2012 and the TMDL objectives were established to meet fish concentrations for human consumption.
With respect to stormwater, the TMDL does not specifically characterize MS4 loadings, though it does recognize that “DDT and PCBs are no longer detected in routine stormwater sampling from Ballona Creek or Malibu Creek.”
Since initiation of implementation of the Beach Cities CIMP in 2016, 15 total storm events have been monitored at a combination of different outfall and receiving water sites across the Beach Cities Area in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. In total, 27 outfall-specific sample events have taken place over that time.3 During no event has an exceedance of either the DDT or total PCBs numeric targets occurred.
2https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/#nt=1col-7030col1-mainnt=00000173- 4a29-dafc-a977-dabb7b330001-liA9promoSmall-1col-7030col1-main 3 The Beach Cities CIMP requires a rotation of outfalls to be utilized for water quality monitoring. Additionally, prior to the 2019-2020 monitoring year, two outfall sites were combined into a single outfall monitoring site. As a result, some years now include monitoring at two outfalls, while other years include monitoring at only one outfall.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-13 | Page 2021
Trash
Source information for trash within SMB is provided by the SMB Nearshore Debris TMDL. A detailed source breakdown is not provided, but other debris TMDLs attribute trash to general areas such as “litter from adjacent land areas, roadways, and direct dumping and deposition” (LARWQCB, 2008) while also attributing trash inputs to point sources such as storm drains.
The plastic pellet portion of the SMB Debris TMDL is not applicable to the Beach Cities WMG, as the respective Agencies have applied and have gained approval to be exempt from this portion of the TMDL.
Arsenic and Mercury
As stated previously, Santa Monica Bay was recently added to the State’s 2014/16 and draft 2018 303(d) list as being impaired by arsenic and mercury based on sediment and fish tissue data. There is currently no data tying these impairments to MS4 discharges from the Beach Cities WMG. Since these listings were first finalized, mercury and arsenic have been added to the Beach Cities CIMP suite of analytes for Santa Monica Bay. To-date, both constituents have been analyzed during nine wet weather sample events at two receiving water monitoring locations and a total of three (rotating) outfalls. No exceedances of the Ocean Plan Target for mercury (0.4 ug/L) or arsenic (80 ug/L) have occurred across these events in either the outfall discharges (15 discrete samples) or receiving water samples (18 discrete samples).
WBPC PRIORITIZATION
Based on the water quality characterization above, the WBPCs have been classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit: highest priority, high priority, and medium priority. This categorization is intended to prioritize WBPCs in order to guide the implementation of structural and institutional BMPs. Table B-3 presents the prioritized WBPCs within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. WBPCs categorized below are subject to change based on future data collected as part of the CIMP or other monitoring program.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-14 | Page 2021
Table B-3. Water Body-Pollutant Combination Prioritization and Pollutant Interim and Final Compliance Targets for Santa Monica Bay Watershed Portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area Category Water
Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization WLA/Target Basis Interim TMDL WLA Final TMDL WLA or Other Target 1:
Highest
Priority
Santa
Monica
Bay
Beaches
Dry
Weather
Bacteria
SMB Beaches Dry Weather
Bacteria TMDL
Daily and Weekly
Sampling Schedule N/A
Summer-Dry Single Sample
Allowable Exceedance Days
(AED)1 met
Winter-Dry period Single
Sample AED1 met
Wet
Weather
Bacteria
SMB Beaches Wet Weather
Bacteria TMDL
Daily and Weekly
Sampling Schedule
50% cumulative
percentage reduction from
total required exceedance
day reduction2
Single Sample and
Geometric Mean AED1 and
GM target met
Santa
Monica
Bay
Trash/
Debris SMB Debris TMDL Annual monitoring
Incremental reduction
from baseline waste load
allocation3 (6815.6
gals/year)
100% reduction from
baseline waste load
allocation3 (6815.6
gals/year)
DDTs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 3-Year Average N/A 27.08 g/year4 PCBs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 3-Year Average N/A 140.25 g/year4 2: High
Priority
Santa
Monica
Bay
Mercury
2016 303(d) list Single Sample
Exceedance N/A
0.4 ug/L5
Arsenic 80 ug/L5
3:
Medium
Priority
Analysis of monitoring data from outfalls and receiving waters do not currently result in the identification of any Category 3 WBPCs 1 Per the Basin Plan Objective REC1 Water Bodies Limit for Bacteria. Please refer to the latest version of the MS4 Permit for allowable exceedance day limits of each subwatershed. 2 Total required exceedance day reduction is defined as the difference between existing exceedance day and the allowable exceedance day for each subwatershed
3 Baseline WLA is the sum of baseline WLA from Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach 4This limit is applicable to all of Santa Monica Bay.
5 Ocean Plan target.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-15 | Page 2021
DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED
The northeastern portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area is tributary to Dominguez Channel4 (including Torrance Carson Channel) and is comprised of approximately 7,024 acres of land, the majority of which is comprised of residential land uses (29.6% single family residential and 10.1% multi-family residential). Industrial land use is the second highest category in the watershed, accounting for 24.9% of all land uses in the watershed. This watershed accounts for 47% of the total Beach Cities EWMP Area, and includes portions of the Cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Storm drains from the Cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach drain through the City of Lawndale before discharging to the freshwater portion of Dominguez Channel. The City of Torrance’s MS4 discharges directly to Dominguez Channel (freshwater) and Torrance Carson Channel (Torrance Lateral). Collectively, this portion of the study area is referred to as the Dominguez Channel Watershed.
Table B-4 provides a land use breakdown of the Beach Cities EWMP Area by city. Compared to the SMB Watershed within the Beach Cities Area, the Dominguez Channel Watershed has significantly lower residential land use (39.7% compared with 75.2% in the SMB Watershed) and significantly higher industrial land use (24.9% compared with 2.7%). Land uses for this watershed are shown on Figure B-3.
Table B-4. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Land Use Distribution Agency
Agriculture
Com
mercial
Education
Industrial
MF Residential
SF Residential
Transportation
Vacant
Total (ac)
Total (%)
Manhattan
Beach (ac) - 109.3 - 77.5 51.0 68.5 - 56.8 363.0 4.7%
Redondo
Beach (ac) 11.3 225.6 15.7 199.5 458.2 259.6 22.2 59.7 1251.8 16.0% Torrance (ac) 94.8 763.4 243.6 1667.3 276.3 1978.4 96.6 288.4 5408.8 69.3% Total (ac) 106.1 1098.3 259.2 1944.3 785.5 2306.5 118.8 404.8 7023.6 100% Total (%) 1.4% 14.1% 3.3% 24.9% 10.1% 29.6% 1.5% 5.2% 100% 4 Other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed, including Los Angeles County Unincorporated areas, are addressed by separate EWMP groups.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-16 | Page 2021
Figure B-3. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Dominguez Channel Watershed
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-17 | Page 2021
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION
Beneficial Uses
As discussed previously, the Basin Plan (LARWQCB, accessed 2021) identifies receiving waters within the Los Angeles region and sets regulatory objectives for these receiving waters. The Basin Plan regulates waste discharges to protect the quality of surface waters for use and enjoyment by the general public. Regulations set forth in the Basin Plan are based on assigned beneficial uses for each receiving water body. Beneficial use designations for receiving waters within the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel Watershed Area are summarized in Table B-5 below.
Table B-5. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses
Water Body
MUNNAVREC1REC2HFSCOMMWARMESTMARWILDRAREMIGRSPWNSHELLWET3 Dominguez Channel P1 P E E P P E
Torrance Lateral2 P1 P E E P P E
Dominguez Channel
Estuary P E E E E E E E E E
E = Existing beneficial use
P = Potential beneficial use
1 Designated under SB 88-63 and RB 89-03. Some designations may be considered for exemption at a later date.
2 Listed in Basin Plan Table 1 as a “major surface water,” tributary to Dominguez Channel Estuary. 3 Water bodies designated as WET may have wetlands habitat associated with only a portion of the water body. Any regulatory action would require a detailed analysis of the area.
The high flow suspension beneficial use, which was approved by the USEPA as a Basin Plan Amendment in 2004, applies to Dominguez Channel and its tributaries. During days on which this beneficial use suspension is in effect, bacteriological objectives applicable to Dominguez Channel and its tributaries are suspended. The high flow suspension applies on days with rainfall greater than or equal to ½ inch and the 24 hours following the end of such an event.
Dominguez Channel Watershed Data Analysis
An evaluation of existing water quality conditions, including characterization of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as water quality of the receiving water bodies within the Beach Cities WMG Area, was carried out as part of this EWMP to support identification and prioritization/sequencing of management actions, to the extent possible based on available data. Analyzed raw monitoring data were limited to data collected as part of the Beach Cities CIMP and the Mass Emission Station monitoring program established by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW).
The Beach Cities WMG has been collecting outfall data in the Dominguez Channel Watershed per their approved CIMP since 2016. Implementation of the CIMP has resulted in the successful monitoring of 15 wet weather events to-date, with two outfall sites monitored per event. Paired
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-18 | Page 2021
receiving water data are collected and analyzed from two relevant monitoring stations by other agencies: the Dominguez Channel Mass Emission Station (Station S28), located in Dominguez Channel at Artesia Blvd on the Torrance city boundary; and Tributary Station “Project No. 1232” (Station TS19), located in Torrance Carson Channel (Torrance Lateral) within the City of Carson.
WATER BODY-POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION
Receiving waters (and paired outfalls) from the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area were screened for water quality priorities by reviewing TMDLs, the State’s 303(d) list, and recent available water quality data. Each identified water quality priority for a given receiving water body was categorized as a WBPC. WBPCs were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit.
Figure B-2 provides a conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. In order to categorize and prioritize the WBPCs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area, relevant TMDLs, 303(d) listings, recent available monitoring data, and water quality objectives from the Basin Plan were considered.
Category 1 – Highest Priority
WBPCs under Category 1 (highest priority) are defined in the Permit as “water body-pollutant combinations for which WQBELs and/or RWLs are established.” These WBPCs include:
Dominguez Channel (above Vermont Avenue) for copper, lead, and zinc in wet weather: These WBPCs are considered Category 1 due to the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxics and Metals TMDL (Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL) (LARWQCB, 2011).
Dominguez Channel for toxicity: This is considered Category 1 due to the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxics and Metals TMDL. Toxicity is not directly tied to any single pollutant or group of pollutants that can be readily modeled; rather, it is the result of a wide-array of loading from multiple pollutants from various sources.
Additionally, toxicity monitoring since 2016 has shown no exceedances of applicable water standards at Dominguez Channel Mass Emissions Station or within Torrance Lateral. As a result, toxicity was not modeled as part of the revised EWMP RAA, consistent with the original EWMP.
It is assumed that the implementation of various BMPs and resultant control of other pollutants of concern will sufficiently address in-channel toxicity.
Dominguez Channel Estuary (Dominguez Channel below Vermont Ave) for copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs: These WBPCs are considered Category 1 due to the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL (LARWQCB, 2011). Copper, lead, and zinc were modeled in the latest iteration of the RAA utilizing calibrated pollutant runoff concentrations in WMMS 2.0. Other pollutants (cadmium, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs) were modeled using TSS as a surrogate, based on collected water quality data at the upstream Beach Cities outfalls.
Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-19 | Page 2021
Category 2 – High Priority
Category 2 (high priority) WBPCs are defined as “pollutants for which data indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (State Listing Policy) (SWRCB, 2015) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment.” Aside from those WBPCs already identified as Category 1, the remaining WBPC list can be condensed by excluding pollutants which are not stormwater related (i.e., MS4 discharges are unlikely to cause or contribute to the impairment) as well as pollutants which are already being addressed (directly or indirectly) by one of the TMDLs. Therefore, the Category 2 WBPCs are limited to the following:
Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for indicator bacteria. This qualifies as a Category 2 WBPC based on the 303(d) listing for indicator bacteria.
Dominguez Channel Estuary for indicator bacteria. This qualifies as a Category 2 WBPC based on the 303(d) listing for indicator bacteria.
Category 3 – Medium Priority
Category 3 (Medium Priority) designations are applied to WBPCs which are not 303(d)-listed but which exceed applicable RWLs contained in the Permit and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance.
As mentioned previously, the Beach Cities WMG has been collecting outfall data in the Dominguez Channel Watershed per their approved CIMP since 2016, with paired downstream receiving water data collected by other agencies. Implementation of the CIMP has resulted in the successful monitoring of 15 wet weather events to-date, with two outfall sites and two receiving water sites monitored per event. Through June 2021, only a single water quality impairment (besides those discussed above) has been identified:
Dominguez Channel Freshwater (not including Torrance Lateral) for Benzo(a)pyrene. This qualifies as a Category 3 WBPC based on historical exceedance of applicable receiving water limits (California Toxic Rule Human Health Criteria) where MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance.
The Beach Cities agencies understand that additional data collected as part of their approved CIMP may result in modifications to WBPCs and/or water quality priorities. Under these conditions, the Beach Cities EWMP will be updated.
Figure B-2 provides a brief conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area.
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;