Lomita City Council
September 16, 2025

D. Economic Considerations
The Los Angeles Water Board recognizes that economic information, including cost information, is invaluable for informed decision-making and for the evaluation and improvement of policies and practices. Economic information is also critical for Permittees to manage their assets, implement cost-effective programs, and develop successful funding strategies to achieve overall improvements in water quality within the region.

The Legislature did not define “economic considerations” in California Water Code section 13241. As noted in City of Arcadia I, there is no reported court decision analyzing the “economic considerations” phrase of the statute. In City of Burbank, the California Supreme Court, “without discussion, concluded that in adopting Water Code section 13241 the Legislature intended ‘that a regional board consider the cost of compliance [with numeric pollutant restrictions] when setting effluent limitations in a wastewater discharge permit.’ (Italics added.).” (135 Cal.App.4th at 1415.) While the California Supreme Court assumed “economic considerations” includes costs of compliance, it did indicate that this factor is broader. (City of Burbank, 35 Cal.4th at 618 [noting that when a regional board is considering whether to make pollutant restrictions in a permit more

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *713
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-320
stringent than federal law requires, “California law allows the board to take into account economic factors, including the wastewater discharger's cost of compliance.” (emphasis added.)].) As discussed in the introduction to this Part XIII, in City of Duarte, the Court of Appeal held that “…the Water Control Boards are charged with taking into account economic considerations, not merely costs of compliance with a permit … economic considerations also include, among other things, the costs of not addressing the problems of contaminated water.” (City of Duarte, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at 276.) Since the Los Angeles Water Board has broad discretion in how it considers this factor, the Board interprets this factor as not only requiring a consideration of the costs of compliance, but also other relevant economic factors such as the societal and environmental costs of not adequately controlling MS4 discharges and cost savings associated with capture and beneficial use of stormwater and non-stormwater to offset the need to purchase imported water.

Many of the costs that will be incurred by permittees as a result of implementing the Order are not fundamentally new. MS4 permits, and stormwater and urban runoff management programs to implement MS4 permit requirements, have been in place in the Los Angeles Region for 30 years. Since the MS4 permits issued in the 1990s, Permittees have been required to effectively prohibit non-stormwater (i.e., dry weather urban runoff) discharges that are a source of pollutants to receiving waters. Since the late 1990s and early 2000s, Permittees have been required to ensure that their MS4 discharges do not cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards (also known as “receiving water limitations”) in receiving waters. Costs incurred by Permittees to implement the Order will largely be related to continued efforts to meet these longstanding requirements. Furthermore, all three prior permits included requirements to implement WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of applicable TMDL wasteload allocations. There are only a limited number of new TMDL-related requirements in the Order (see Table F-25). Nonetheless, as described below, the two methods used to project the cost of compliance assume that no costs have been incurred to date (i.e., expenditures incurred to date to implement TMDLs and WMPs/EWMPs have not been subtracted from the total projected costs). This was done for consistency and ease of calculation. As a result, projected costs are conservative overestimates.

The Los Angeles Water Board recognizes that these costs of compliance are significant and that many Permittees have limited resources to implement actions to address their MS4 discharges. Based on the economic considerations below, the Board has structured the permit as flexibly as possible to give Permittees the opportunity to sequence actions to address the highest water quality priorities; options to demonstrate compliance; the ability to customize their control measures based on local conditions, including the “minimum control measures”; sufficient time to comply (in many cases decades from the time the TMDL was established); opportunities to request time extensions based on economic factors among others; and the ability to collaborate and pool their resources to implement programs and projects to achieve compliance and to also collaborate and pool their resources to monitor their compliance. The inclusion of a voluntary watershed management program alternative compliance pathway allows Permittees to submit a plan, either individually or in collaboration with other Permittees, for Los Angeles Water Board approval that allows for actions to be customized and prioritized based on specific watershed conditions and needs. The Order also allows Permittees to customize monitoring requirements, which they may do individually, or in collaboration with other Permittees. Permittees can choose to implement the least expensive measures that are effective in meeting the requirements of the Order.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *714
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-321
The Permittees’ choices regarding how to comply can take into account the specific conditions within the watershed, such as:
• Types of pollutants targeted
• Site characteristics (e.g., existing infrastructure, land use, infiltration potential) • Costs of controls
• Compliance schedules
• Current compliance rates
• Other socio-economic factors, technology, inflation, risks, regulatory framework Further, the WMP/EWMP compliance alternative provided in the prior Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and City of Long Beach MS4 Permit, and which is included in the Order, allows Permittees to adapt their programs based on new data and information to be more cost-effective.

The Watershed Management Program proposed by the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group is an example of this. The Los Angeles County Permittees participating in this group are the cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, the County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. On April 21, 2016, the Los Angeles Water Board approved the Group’s EWMP pursuant to the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. At that time, the Group estimated that the cost for the entire program exceeded $1.4 billion. On March 30, 2018, the Group submitted proposed modifications to its approved EWMP pursuant to the adaptive management provisions of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. The proposed revised EWMP entailed extensive and significant modifications to the approved EWMP, including an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis, changes to watershed control measures, and changes to interim compliance deadlines. From March 2018 to December 2018, the Los Angeles Water Board worked closely with the Group on its proposed revisions. On December 17, 2018, the Group submitted its proposed revised EWMP. On April 2, 2019, the Los Angeles Water Board approved the modifications to the Group’s EWMP proposed on December 17, 2018. The Group now estimates the cost of their revised program to be $121.8 million, or approximately 9% of the original estimated cost. The deadlines for completion of these projects are 2026 for the San Gabriel River watershed portion, and 2028 for the Los Angeles River/Rio Hondo watershed portion.372
The Order also does not require permittees to fully implement all requirements within a single permit term; if Permittees demonstrate they are meeting established interim requirements and schedules that demonstrate progress toward final compliance, then they are complying during the term of the Order, i.e., Permittees do not have to comply with many final WQBELs and receiving water limitations during the 5-year term of the Order. Therefore, the costs to achieve final compliance will be spread out and incurred incrementally over several permit terms. Permittees may also request time schedule orders, where justified, to meet WQBELs and receiving water limitations where final compliance deadlines have passed, and Permittees need additional time to achieve compliance. Lastly, the Order includes several reopener provisions whereby the Board 372 Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group, Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Revised Watershed Management Program, May 17, 2019. Note that approximately 30% of the original cost estimate was for implementation in the City of Azusa, which is no longer a participant in this group.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *715
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-322
can modify the Order based on new information gleaned during the term of the Order and/or to modify the Order to reflect revisions to TMDLs, including schedules and final deadlines.

1. Los Angeles Water Board’s Consideration of Projected Costs to Comply with the Order
The following is a high-level estimate of the possible range of projected costs to comply with the Order, including compliance with the WQBELs that have been incorporated consistent with available TMDL wasteload allocations. The Board notes that cost of compliance with the WQBELs is inextricably tied to compliance with the other requirements in the Order, including compliance with receiving water limitations, the prohibition on discharges of non-stormwater, and stormwater management program minimum control measures.
a. Sources of data. The costs of implementing the Order were examined by primarily utilizing three sources of data:
i. Estimates of the cost of complying with TMDL wasteload allocations assigned to MS4 discharges, which the Board developed and considered during the establishment of each TMDL. (Used in Method 1.) These estimates were presented in TMDL Staff Reports. As this indicates, there are instances outside of the Order where the Board previously considered economics as it relates to Permittees’ costs of compliance. In the case of TMDLs, these considerations resulted in many lengthy schedules for TMDL implementation, particularly for pollutants associated with stormwater (i.e., wet weather) discharges from MS4s.

Similarly, the State Water Board considered costs when adopting the Trash Amendments, which included a new water quality objective for trash and implementation provisions, including a discharge prohibition, which have been incorporated into the Order.373
ii. Estimates of the cost of fully implementing Watershed Management Programs and Enhanced Watershed Management Programs developed to comply with MS4 permit requirements. (Used in Method 2.) iii. Annual expenditure and budget data that are self-reported by the Permittees in their annual reports. (Used in Methods 1 and 2.) b. Methods of Estimating Costs and Reported Costs. The Los Angeles Water Board used two methods to estimate a possible range of costs to comply with the Order.

Method 1: In the first method, the Los Angeles Water Board analyzed cost estimates that the Board had developed during the adoption of TMDLs and documented in TMDL Staff Reports. Note that for this method, we conservatively assume that no costs have already been incurred by Permittees. However, we know that Permittees have incurred costs associated with implementation of their programs such that the remaining cost for achieving final compliance under the Order is some fraction (less than 100%) of the original cost estimate.
373 State Water Board Resolution 2015-0019. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. Web. 20 June 2019.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *716
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-323
Method 2: In the second method, for Permittees in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Water Board staff compiled cost estimates of implementing structural BMPs presented in Watershed Management Programs and Enhanced Watershed Management Programs. For Permittees in Ventura County, Los Angeles County Permittees’ anticipated costs were used to project costs to implement similar Watershed Management Programs in Ventura County. Note that in this method, similar to above, we apply the conservative assumption that little to no money has been spent during the prior and current permit terms to implement projects in the Watershed Management Programs and Enhanced Watershed Management Programs that were approved in 2015-2016 or, in the case of Ventura County Permittees, to implement projects to achieve TMDLs that were first incorporated into the 2009 Ventura County MS4 Permit.

Additional EWMP Development Costs: Estimates from Methods 1 and 2 were considered along with Ventura County’s initial costs of developing EWMPs and WMPs. Ventura County currently does not participate in any EWMP or WMP but may develop EWMPs (now referred to as WMPs) in the next permit term. Ventura County conducted its own analysis in order to estimate development costs.374
Additional Stormwater Management Program Costs: Estimates from Methods 1 and 2 were considered along with Permittees’ annual reported costs for existing elements of their stormwater management programs. These annual reported costs were tabulated based on the reported costs of implementing their stormwater management programs as well as costs associated with program management, monitoring programs, and a category described as “Other.” Most of these annual reported costs are incurred in addition to structural BMP costs calculated in Methods 1 and 2. In these annual reported costs, some Permittees reported costs for capital projects, Regional Projects, Green Streets, and Restoration Projects, which were removed to avoid double counting. As noted below, there is wide variability in the Permittees’ reported cost of compliance, which is not easily explained.375
c. Method 1: Projected Costs from TMDL Staff Reports
As noted above, in the first method for estimating the projected cost to comply with the Order, the Los Angeles Water Board used its analyses regarding costs of TMDL compliance.

As noted earlier, for the most part, the TMDL provisions in the Order are not new but rather continuing requirements from the prior three permits. Of the 45 TMDLs incorporated in the Order, only three are new for Los Angeles County Permittees, including the City of Long Beach, and six are new for Ventura County Permittees (see Table F-25). Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Water Board acknowledges Permittees will need to complete additional implementation actions during the term of the Order to make progress 374 Larry Walker Associates, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate,” dated June 1, 2017.
375 See Attachment (PG Environmental. Technical Memorandum: WA 1-67 – Task D – Revised Cost Analysis and Identification of Representative Permittees with Relatively Higher Costs. April 8, 2018; PG Environmental. Technical Memorandum: WA 1-67 – Task D3 – Analysis of Costs for Select MS4 Permittees. June 29, 2018.)

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *717
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-324
towards, and ultimately achieve, compliance with the TMDL provisions where final compliance deadlines have not yet passed and/or compliance has not yet been achieved.

As also noted earlier, the Board previously considered the cost of complying with TMDL wasteload allocations assigned to MS4 discharges during the establishment of each TMDL. The costs of complying with these TMDLs, including the WQBELs derived from the TMDL WLAs, which are incorporated into the Order, are not additive. For example, the costs estimated for compliance with a TMDL for one pollutant in a watershed, such as metals, can be applied to the costs to achieve compliance with a TMDL for another pollutant in the same watershed, such as pesticides, because the same implementation strategies can be used for both pollutants. Several MS4 permittees have recognized this opportunity in the multi-pollutant TMDL implementation plans they have submitted (e.g. Ballona Creek Metals/Bacteria TMDLs and Machado Lake Pesticides/Nutrients TMDLs). In other words, the estimated cost of complying with the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL can apply to metals, pesticides, PCBs, and bacteria. The costs for complying with trash TMDLs are based on different implementation strategies (e.g., full capture devices), but those strategies are effective at removing metals and toxic pollutants as well.376 Thus, the costs estimated for each TMDL should not be added to determine the cost of compliance with all TMDLs. The staff reports for the various TMDLs include this explanation, and also discuss the cost efficiencies that can be achieved by treating multiple pollutants. Further, as noted earlier, the Board’s consideration of the cost of compliance in establishing each TMDL has resulted in lengthy implementation schedules to achieve water quality standards. These implementation schedules have been used to establish compliance schedules in the Order.

The Los Angeles Water Board compiled the cost of complying with TMDL wasteload allocations assigned to MS4 discharges in a staff memo titled “2020 Regional MS4 TMDL Compliance Costs,” dated July 17, 2020 (TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo). Using costs estimated during the establishment of TMDLs, the TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo estimated the total capital cost of implementing the 45 TMDLs included in the Order to be $5.0B with total annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $419.2M, yielding a total 20-year cost of $13.4B in 2019 dollars, undiscounted. This estimate is broken down by watershed in Table F-28, below. The estimated cost by Permittee is available in the Administrative Record for the Order.
376 In connection with the Statewide Trash Amendments, the Los Angeles Water Board sent Permittees California Water Code Section 13383 Orders directing Permittees to notify the Los Angeles Water Board regarding how they intended to comply with the statewide trash control provisions. In so doing, Permittees have proposed a variety of implementation strategies (e.g., full capture devices as well as institutional controls), some of which may be effective at removing other pollutants as well and therefore may offset the cost of compliance with the TMDLs.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *718
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-325
Table F-28. Estimated Costs of Implementing TMDLs Through the Order by Watershed (millions, 2019 dollars).

Watershed Capital Cost
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost
Total 20-Year
Cost
Ballona Creek $466.27 $61.40 $1,694.26
Calleguas Creek $46.35 $2.90 $104.30
Dominguez Channel $259.13 $1.21 $283.30
Los Angeles River $2,297.78 $287.38 $8,045.42
Los Cerritos Channel $322.24 $14.51 $612.42
Machado Lake $18.87 $1.82 $55.27
Malibu Creek $255.35 $6.46 $384.59
Marina Del Rey $44.49 $0.04 $45.34
Miscellaneous Ventura
Coastal $4.86 $0.27 $10.32
San Gabriel River $536.42 $26.82 $1,072.83
Santa Clara River $163.65 $8.18 $327.35
Santa Monica Bay $561.56 $5.73 $676.20
Ventura River $27.81 $2.47 $77.24
Total Cost $5,004.77 $419.20 $13,388.85
Source: Los Angeles Water Board analysis of TMDL Staff Reports The TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo includes costs already incurred and costs expected to be incurred over the course of the TMDL implementation periods.

The TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo does not include costs incurred from implementing the six stormwater management program elements, commonly referred to as “minimum control measures” or “MCMs.” Implementation of these requirements can be effective in reducing TMDL pollutants. For example, bacteria discharges can be reduced by implementing the effective prohibition on non-stormwater discharges as required by Clean Water Act section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) and an illicit discharge detection and elimination program as required by “minimum control measures” established under 40 C.F.R. section 122.26(d)(2)(iv), which could largely, if not entirely, implement bacteria TMDLs, particularly during dry weather. The Order would include these requirements even in the absence of TMDLs, and their costs are therefore not included in the TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo. For purposes of considering Permittees’ cost of compliance, this estimate also does not include monitoring and reporting costs, which are included in Permittees’ annual reported costs presented further below, or costs for non-MS4-related TMDL implementation methods, such as dredging.

The projected cost estimates in the TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo were calculated by adding the costs estimated for each TMDL when they were established, accounting for costs which overlap in order to avoid double

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *719
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-326
counting. Many BMPs will implement multiple TMDLs at the same time so the cost of the BMP does not need to be included multiple times for each TMDL.

For example, a BMP such as an infiltration project in the Los Angeles River watershed will reduce both bacteria and metals, as required by the Los Angeles River bacteria and metal TMDLs, therefore the cost is represented only once in this cost estimate.

For each watershed, TMDLs with overlapping BMPs and geography were identified, and the TMDL most costly to implement was chosen to represent the set of overlapping TMDLs. Where appropriate, MS4-related costs for the set of overlapping TMDLs were then added to costs of non-overlapping TMDLs implemented in the same watershed. For example, BMPs that implement trash TMDLs were assumed to not affect the progress of meeting other TMDLs. Therefore, for example, in the case of the Los Angeles River Watershed, the cost of implementing the bacteria and metal TMDLs (overlapping TMDLs) were added to the cost of implementing the trash TMDL (non-overlapping TMDL).

The TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo relied on cost estimates as included in the staff reports for Los Angeles Water Board-established TMDLs or the cost estimates as included in the staff reports for Los Angeles Water Boardestablished programs of implementation for U.S. EPA-established TMDLs. In some cases, costs for U.S. EPA-established TMDLs without Los Angeles Water Board-established programs of implementation were represented by an overlapping Los Angeles Water Board-developed TMDL. In other cases, the TMDL was based on “existing conditions,” meaning that pollutant limits were based on existing pollutant concentrations, which were attaining water quality standards, and no additional costs were included in the TMDL Staff Report Cost Memo for that TMDL. When ranges were given for potential costs, the average of the range was used. When multiple implementation options were presented in the TMDL Staff Report, the mid-priced treatment option was chosen, or if only two options were available, the more expensive option was used. For certain TMDLs, where a preferred method of compliance was presented or where a certain compliance option was the overwhelmingly selected option for compliance by MS4 Permittees (e.g., catch basin inserts for trash), the costs of that preferred method were used. All costs were adjusted to 2019 dollars based on the Federal Reserve GDP Implicit Price Deflator.377
d. Method 2: Projected Costs from EWMPs and WMPs
As noted above, in the second method for estimating projected costs of complying with the Order, for Permittees in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Water Board compiled projected cost estimates contained in Watershed Management Programs and Enhanced Watershed Management Programs.378 Permittees developing Watershed Management Programs were 377 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product: Implicit Price Deflator [GDPDEF], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF, April 14, 2020.
378 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works provided a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Permittees’ projected cost estimates from September 2015. Upon review by Board staff, discrepancies were found in their total projected cost estimate values, and thus, LA County’s projected cost estimate values are

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *720
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-327
not required to include a financial strategy; therefore, for some individual and group programs implementation cost estimates were not available. In these cases, “NR” is included in the tables below. For Permittees in Ventura County, Watershed Management Programs from similar jurisdictions in LA County were used to project compliance costs.379
i. Los Angeles County Permittees
Of the 87 Los Angeles County Permittees, the majority (83 out of 87380) elected to develop and implement Watershed Management Programs or Enhanced Watershed Management Programs as a compliance pathway for MS4 permit requirements. Of these 83 Permittees, most (80381) have chosen to collaboratively develop and implement these programs. There are 12 Enhanced Watershed Management Programs and 7 Watershed Management Programs that are being implemented by groups of Los Angeles County Permittees. These programs include estimates of the projected costs associated with their full implementation.

For EWMPs, Board staff calculated total costs over a 20-year timeframe, as shown in Table F-29. Most groups presented breakdowns of capital and O&M costs. Some groups reported cost ranges, therefore low and high estimates were calculated. Values were converted to 2019 dollars using the Federal Reserve GDP Implicit Price Deflator. A few EWMPs explicitly reported dollar years, but most did not. For those that did not, staff assumed that the dollar year was the same as the year that the plan was submitted or the year that the most recent plan revision was submitted. Capital costs range from $34.5M for North Santa Monica Bay to $6.5B for Upper LA River. Annual O&M costs range from $1.15M for North Santa Monica Bay to $123.4 for Upper LA River. Total costs for all EWMPs were estimated to be $19.8B to $19.9B in 2019 dollars, undiscounted.

Table F-29. Permittees’ Projected Cost Estimates for EWMP Full Implementation (millions of dollars, 2019$).

EWMP Group Capital
(Low)
Capital
(High)
Annual
O&M
(Low)
Annual
O&M
(High)
Total 20-
Year Cost
(Low)
Total 20-Year
Cost (High)
Ballona Creek $2,892.12 $2,892.12 $82.55 $82.55 $4,543.09 $4,543.09 not presented in this document. Instead, staff independently compiled cost estimates from Permittees’ EWMPs and WMPs, as noted above.
379 Larry Walker Associates, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate,” dated June 1, 2017.
380 The cities of Compton, Gardena, Irwindale, and Rolling Hills opted not to develop and implement a Watershed Management Program or Enhanced Watershed Management Program. The City of Azusa has chosen to not continue its participation in a Watershed Management Program; however, the $1.46B cost estimate in Table F-29, below, includes the estimate developed for the original program, of which they were a participating Permittee.
381 The cities of El Monte, La Habra Heights, and Walnut each opted to develop an individual Watershed Management Program that only addresses their jurisdictional area. The City of Long Beach participates in several Watershed Management Programs with other Los Angeles County Permittees. Additionally, it developed an individual Watershed Management Program for the nearshore areas that are exclusively within its jurisdiction.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *721
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-328
EWMP Group Capital
(Low)
Capital
(High)
Annual
O&M
(Low)
Annual
O&M
(High)
Total 20-
Year Cost
(Low)
Total 20-Year
Cost (High)
Dominguez Channel $1,340.65 $1,340.65 $15.39 $15.39 $1,648.41 $1,648.41 Malibu Creek $201.54 $201.54 $3.86 $3.86 $278.71 $278.71 Marina del Reya $368.12 $368.12 $2.39 $2.39 $415.91 $415.91 North Santa Monica Baya $34.51 $34.51 $1.15 $1.15 $57.55 $57.55 Palos Verdes Peninsula
Cities $90.00 $129.50 $1.34 $1.52 $116.80 $159.90
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel
Riverb NR NR NR NR $121.80 $121.80
Santa Monica Bay J2 &
J3a $660.02 $660.02 $4.82 $4.82 $756.38 $756.38
South Bay Beach Cities $46.13 $95.48 $2.15 $3.33 $89.04 $162.00 Upper LA Riverc $6,541.98 $6,541.98 $123.38 $123.38 $9,009.65 $9,009.65 Upper San Gabriel River $1,216.34 $1,216.34 $44.31 $44.31 $2,102.59 $2,102.59 Upper Santa Clara Riverd $669.12 $669.12 NR NR $669.12 $669.12 Total $19,809.06 $19,925.11
a. Some EWMPs presented total O&M costs over 20 years. These values were divided by 20 to calculate annual O&M costs.
b. Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River presented total costs including 20 years of O&M but did not present the breakdown between capital and O&M costs.
c. Upper LA River presented varying O&M costs in their EWMP. These values were averaged to obtain an annual O&M cost.
d. Upper Santa Clara River explicitly did not present O&M costs and assumed that they would be managed with existing resources.

Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis
WMP costs were not presented with breakdowns between capital and O&M costs, nor was it clear in most WMPs over what timeframe their projected costs would occur. Only the East San Gabriel Valley Cities and Long Beach Nearshore WMPs mentioned any analysis timeframes, which were 22 years and 5 years, respectively. Therefore, only raw total costs from WMPs are presented in Table F-30. Consistent with EWMP costs, WMP costs were also converted to 2019 dollars using the Federal Reserve GDP Implicit Price Deflator. Total costs for WMPs were estimated to be $1.1B to $1.4B.

Table F-30. Permittees’ Projected Cost Estimates for WMP Full Implementation (millions of dollars, 2019$).

WMP Group Total Cost
(Low)
Total Cost
(High)
Alamitos Bay NR NR
East San Gabriel Valley
Citiesa,b $55.96 $55.96

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *722
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-329
WMP Group Total Cost
(Low)
Total Cost
(High)
LA River Upper Reach
2 c $226.57 $226.57
Long Beach Nearshorea $318.56 $392.89
Los Cerritos Channel $356.18 $356.18
Lower LA River $168.19 $314.15
Lower San Gabriel
River $37.15 $69.34
Santa Monica Bay J7 NR NR
Total $1,163 $1,415
a. East San Gabriel Valley Cities and Long Beach Nearshore were the only groups to mention an analysis timeframe. East San Gabriel Valley Cities estimated costs over 22 years; Long Beach Nearshore estimated costs over 5 years.
b. Costs for East San Gabriel Valley Cities are from their Adaptive Management Report Addendum from December 2019. Their
original WMP costs were $251.4M to $545.3M.

In a presentation to the Los Angeles Water Board on March 2, 2017, the LA River Upper Reach 2 WMP Permittees shared that their order-ofmagnitude estimate for the capital cost of their six regional projects decreased from approximately $210M to $102M after evaluating site conditions. This reduced the overall cost of fully implementing the WMP by one third from approximately $300M to $200M.

Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis
The total estimated projected cost for each individual Los Angeles County Permittee participating in one or more of the 19 WMPs/EWMPs is provided where possible in Table F-31. Seven of the 12 EWMPs and three of the eight WMPs reported costs by jurisdiction. If the individual Permittee is an EWMP member, its costs usually comprise capital costs plus 20 years of O&M. Some EWMPs, however, presented capital costs only when they presented their costs by jurisdiction, which is noted in Table F-31. Also noted are WMP costs, which did not present any breakdown between capital and O&M costs. A few WMPs presented an analysis timeframe, which is also noted in Table F-31.

Table F-31. Permittees’ Projected Cost Estimates for WMP/EWMP Full Implementation, by Permittee (millions, 2019$)
Los Angeles County
Permittee Total Cost Description
Agoura Hills $86.72 Capital cost only
Alhambra $268.53 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Arcadia NR

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *723
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-330
Los Angeles County
Permittee Total Cost Description
Artesia $0.69
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Azusa --
Baldwin Park $187.52 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Bell $53.12
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Bell Gardens $45.42
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Bellflower $3.19
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Beverly Hills $169.35 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M Bradbury NR
Burbank $305.93 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Calabasas $180.10 Capital cost only
Carson $252.88 Capital cost only
Cerritos $4.13
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Claremont NR
Commerce $56.37
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Compton --
Covina $146.13 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Cudahy $33.61
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Culver City $220.80 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Diamond Bar $5.26
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Downey $29.73
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Duarte NR
El Monte NR
El Segundo $174.69 Capital cost only
Gardena --
Glendale $423.25 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Glendora $224.17 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Hawaiian Gardens $1.27
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Hawthorne $154.76 Capital cost only
Hermosa Beach NR
Hidden Hills $15.16 Capital cost only
Huntington Park $53.77
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *724
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-331
Los Angeles County
Permittee Total Cost Description
Industry $475.80 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Inglewood $231.94 Capital cost only
Irwindale --
La Cañada Flintridge $96.49 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M La Habra Heights NR
La Mirada $4.56
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
La Puente $132.80 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
La Verne NR
Lakewood $2.02
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Lawndale $32.28 Capital cost only
Lomita $50.29 Capital cost only
Long Beach $432.26
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Los Angeles Cityb
$7,259.29 Capital cost plus partial O&M
Los Angeles County
and Los Angeles
County Flood Control
Districtb $2,474.05 Capital cost plus partial O&M
Lynwood $28.63
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Malibu NR
Manhattan Beach NR
Maywood $33.50
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Monrovia NR
Montebello $207.34 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Monterey Park $189.11 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M Norwalk $2.95
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Palos Verdes Estates NR
Paramount $22.93
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Pasadena $407.00 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Pico Rivera $18.60
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Pomona NR
Rancho Palos Verdes NR
Redondo Beach NR
Rolling Hills --

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *725
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-332
Los Angeles County
Permittee Total Cost Description
Rolling Hills Estates NR
Rosemead $166.51 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
San Dimas NR
San Fernando $40.50 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
San Gabriel $127.77 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
San Marino $93.98 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Santa Clarita $394.27 Capital cost only
Santa Fe Springs $4.02
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
Santa Monica $913.36 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Sierra Madre NR
Signal Hill $6.62
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
South El Monte $108.77 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M South Gate $50.42
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
South Pasadena $60.98 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M Temple City $92.44 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M
Torrance NR
Vernon $38.70
WMP cost, breakdown, and timeframe
unknown
Walnut NR
West Covina NR
West Hollywood $98.66 Capital cost plus 20 years of O&M Westlake Village $32.45 Capital cost only
Whittier $12.12
WMP cost, breakdown unknown, 10-
year timeframe
a. Individual Permittee projected cost estimates are not reported (“NR”) for those Permittees participating in the North Santa Monica Bay, Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities, Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River, and South Bay Beach cities EWMPs, as well as the Alamitos Bay, East San Gabriel Valley Cities, Los Cerritos Channel, and Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Group 7.

Costs are also not available for the cities with individual WMPs, except for Long Beach. For Permittees that are not participating in a WMP or EWMP, “—” is indicated. b. Bellflower, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Flood Control District, and Signal Hill costs are underestimates because some EWMP/WMP groups that include them did not break down costs by jurisdiction.

Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis
ii. Ventura County Permittees
While the prior Ventura County MS4 Permit (Order No. R4-2010-0108) included requirements to implement WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of TMDL wasteload allocations assigned to MS4 discharges, it did not include provisions allowing Ventura County

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *726
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-333
Permittees to develop and implement watershed management programs as a compliance pathway for permit requirements. Therefore, Permittee estimates of projected costs specific to the watershed areas in Ventura County are not generally available. However, Ventura County Permittees have estimated projected costs based on information contained in EWMPs developed in Los Angeles County. The analysis and estimates are presented in a technical memorandum prepared by Larry Walker Associates for Ventura County Permittees, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate,” dated June 1, 2017.

The EWMPs considered include those for the Upper Santa Clara River, Malibu Creek (the portion within Los Angeles County only), Santa Monica Bay J2 and J3, Upper San Gabriel River, and North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds. According to the technical memorandum, these EWMPs were selected given their similarity to land use characteristics in Ventura County and to capture the various approaches to selecting the EWMP control measures used in Los Angeles County. As described in the technical memorandum, capital costs per acre of urban area treated were extracted from each of these Los Angeles County EWMPs. A series of unit cost summary statistics were computed including average (mean), median, 25th percentile and 75th percentile. The urban MS4 jurisdictional area for each Ventura County Permittee was multiplied by the 25th percentile unit cost and was assumed to represent the low end of the range of anticipated capital costs. Similarly, the urban MS4 jurisdictional area was multiplied by the 75th percentile unit cost and was assumed to represent the high end of range of expected capital costs. Based on this analysis, total projected capital cost estimates range from $272M to $2.0B in 2019 dollars for full implementation through 2040. The total estimated projected cost for each individual Ventura County Permittee is provided in Table F-32.

Table F-32. Ventura County Permittees’ Projected Capital Cost Estimates for Full Implementation through 2040, by Permittee (millions, 2019$).

Permittee
25th
percentile
EMWP
Costs
75th
percentile
EWMP
Costs
Average
EWMP
Costs
Median
EWMP
Costs
Camarillo $23.40 $173.46 $88.56 $49.07
Fillmore $3.56 $26.39 $13.47 $7.47
Moorpark $13.00 $96.37 $49.20 $27.26
Ojai $5.71 $42.34 $21.62 $11.98
Oxnard $41.89 $310.56 $158.55 $87.85
Port Hueneme $3.55 $26.35 $13.45 $7.45
Ventura $33.43 $247.82 $126.52 $70.10
Santa Paula $6.90 $51.15 $26.11 $14.47
Simi Valley $42.20 $312.84 $159.71 $88.49
Thousand Oaks $53.86 $399.29 $203.85 $112.95

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *727
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-334
Permittee
25th
percentile
EMWP
Costs
75th
percentile
EWMP
Costs
Average
EWMP
Costs
Median
EWMP
Costs
Unincorporated
County $44.93 $333.06 $170.04 $94.21
Watershed
Protection Districta
- - - -
Total Projected
Cost Estimate $272.42 $2,019.62 $1,031.08 $571.29
Note: O&M costs and land acquisition costs (if they are necessary) are not included in the estimates.
a. A projected cost estimate could not be computed for the Ventura County Watershed Protection District using this method, since the land area within the Watershed Protection District is already accounted for in the jurisdictional area of the 10 cities and unincorporated area of Ventura County.

Source: Larry Walker Associates, June 1, 2017, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate”
The technical memorandum also separately included estimates of projected operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the capital projects anticipated in the table above for each Ventura County Permittee. Total O&M costs range from $9.5M to $119.2M, as shown in Table F-33.

Table F-33. Ventura County Permittees’ Projected Annual O&M Cost Estimates for Capital Projects (millions, 2019$).

Permittee Watershed(s)
Low Annual
O&M Cost
Estimate
High Annual
O&M Cost
Estimate
Camarillo Calleguas Creek
Watershed (CCW) $0.82 $10.23
Fillmore
Lower Santa Clara
River Watershed
(LSCRW)
$0.13 $1.56
Moorpark CCW $0.46 $5.69
Ojai Ventura River
Watershed (VRW) $0.20 $2.50
Oxnard LSCRW, CCW,
Coastal $1.47 $18.32
Port Hueneme CCW $0.12 $1.56
Ventura LSCRW, VRW $1.17 $14.62
Santa Paula LSCRW $0.24 $3.02
Simi Valley CCW $1.48 $18.46

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *728
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-335
Permittee Watershed(s)
Low Annual
O&M Cost
Estimate
High Annual
O&M Cost
Estimate
Thousand Oaks CCW, MCW $1.89 $23.56
Unincorporated
County

LSCRW, CCW,
VRW, Malibu
Creek Watershed
(MCW), Coastal
(Countywide)
$1.57 $19.65
Total - $9.54 $119.16
Source: Larry Walker Associates, June 1, 2017, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate”
Combining low and high estimates of capital costs and O&M costs yields total 20-year cost estimates of $463.2M to $4.4B for Ventura County, as shown in Table F-34.

Table F-34. Ventura County Permittees’ Projected Total Cost Estimates for Capital Projects (millions, 2019$).

Permittee
25th
percentile
EMWP
Costs
75th
percentile
EWMP
Costs
Low
Annual
O&M Cost
High
Annual
O&M Cost
Low Total
20-Year
Cost
High Total
20-Year
Cost
Camarillo $23.40 $173.46 $0.82 $10.23 $39.78 $378.16
Fillmore $3.56 $26.39 $0.13 $1.56 $6.06 $57.53
Moorpark $13.00 $96.37 $0.46 $5.69 $22.11 $210.07
Ojai $5.71 $42.34 $0.20 $2.50 $9.71 $92.31
Oxnard $41.89 $310.56 $1.47 $18.32 $71.22 $677.01
Port Hueneme $3.55 $26.35 $0.12 $1.56 $6.03 $57.45
Ventura $33.43 $247.82 $1.17 $14.62 $56.84 $540.25
Santa Paula $6.90 $51.15 $0.24 $3.02 $11.73 $111.49
Simi Valley $42.20 $312.84 $1.48 $18.46 $71.73 $681.98
Thousand
Oaks $53.86 $399.29 $1.89 $23.56 $91.57 $870.45
Unincorporated
County $44.93 $333.06 $1.57 $19.65 $76.38 $726.07
Total
Projected
Cost Estimate
$272.42 $2,019.62 $9.54 $119.16 $463.17 $4,402.77

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *729
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-336
Permittee
25th
percentile
EMWP
Costs
75th
percentile
EWMP
Costs
Low
Annual
O&M Cost
High
Annual
O&M Cost
Low Total
20-Year
Cost
High Total
20-Year
Cost
Source: Larry Walker Associates, June 1, 2017, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate”; Los Angeles Water Board Analysis e. WMP Development Costs
In addition to costs of implementing structural BMPs, Permittees in Ventura County may incur initial costs to develop WMPs. Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach have already undergone the development process for EWMPs and WMPs under their permits for 2012 and 2014, respectively. Thus, we present development costs for only Ventura County. Although Ventura County currently does not have any WMPs, the County estimated potential development costs were they to participate in the WMP process, as shown in Table F-35. Costs were inflated to 2019 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator and assumed to be incurred in the next permit period. Potential development costs were based on the development process in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, which included creating a Work Plan (for EWMPs), preparing a draft WMP or EWMP, and preparing a final WMP or EWMP. Groups were also required to submit Notices of Intent and, in the case of Permittees developing an EWMP, Memoranda of Understanding to the Board at the beginning of the development process. Additionally, Permittees incur costs to develop companion CIMPs. While this process has been streamlined in this Order (e.g., elimination of Work Plan and MOU requirements, reduction in requirements for Notices of Intent), the projected costs were not reduced.

Table F-35. Ventura County WMP Development Costs (millions, 2019$).

Watershed Overall
Coastal watersheds $0.26
Calleguas Creek Watershed (CCW) $0.26
Lower Santa Clara River Watershed
(LSCRW) $0.26
Malibu Creek Watershed (MCW) $0.68
Ventura River Watershed (VRW) $0.68
Total $2.14
Source: Larry Walker Associates, June 1, 2017, “Preliminary Ventura County MS4 Permit Structural BMP Implementation Cost Estimate”
The Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program estimated development costs of about $260,000 for smaller, less complex watersheds (Coastal, CCW, and LSCRW) and $680,000 for more complex watersheds (MCW and VRW). Total estimated WMP development costs for Ventura County are $2.14M.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *730
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-337
f. Costs of Stormwater Management Program
In addition to the estimates of projected costs for TMDL implementation and projected costs from WMPs and EWMPs, it is generally assumed that Permittees will continue to incur costs similar to or less than those they have reported under Order Nos. R4-2010-0108, R4-2012-0175 and R4-2014-0024 to implement their stormwater management programs’ “minimum control measures” and conduct monitoring and reporting.382 These costs have been reported by Permittees in their Annual Reports and, therefore, are captured by the cost estimates in Table F-36 and Table F-37. For LA County, annual total costs were averaged over three fiscal years, FY16/17-18/19. Over this more recent period, the cost reporting was more consistent across Permittees and reflects the costs, inclusive of enhanced “minimum control measures” in WMPs and EWMPs and CIMPs, almost all of which were approved by FY15/16. For Ventura County, annual total costs were averaged over the term of the prior permit, from FY10/11-FY18/19. Structural BMP costs were removed from the tabulation, as these costs are accounted for in Methods 1 and 2. Due to different cost reporting formats for Ventura County and LA County, capital costs were omitted for Permittees in Ventura County, whereas for Permittees in LA County, costs for Distributed Projects and Green Streets, Regional Projects, and Restoration Projects were omitted. i. Ventura County Permittees: For Ventura County Permittees, these projected annual stormwater program costs are provided in Table F-36 based on the average anticipated budgets reported in the Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program Annual Reports during the term of the prior permit (i.e., FY10/11 through 18/19).383 Costs for each year were converted to 2019 dollars using the Federal GDP Implicit Price Deflator then averaged to calculate projected annual costs.

Table F-36. Estimated Annual Costs Incurred by Ventura County MS4 Permittees for Stormwater Programs (2019$)
Permittee Watershed(s)
Projected Annual
Stormwater Program
Costsa
Camarillo CCW $1,442,616.9
Fillmore LSCRW $191,449.1
Moorpark CCW $509,800.0
Ojai VRW $124,773.8
Oxnard LSCRW, CCW,
Coastal
$2,170,929.7
Port Hueneme CCW $435,384.0
382 For example, instrumenting outfalls with autosamplers is not a recurring activity and was conducted under the prior permits. Additionally, the Order’s minimum control measures provide more flexibility to the Permittees for implementation, relative to the prior permits, allowing Permittees to explore more costeffective and efficient approaches to implementing their stormwater management programs. 383 These estimates were calculated by Los Angeles Water Board staff based on a review of the Ventura County Permittees’ Annual Reports.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *731
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-338
Permittee Watershed(s)
Projected Annual
Stormwater Program
Costsa
Ventura LSCRW, VRW,
Coastal
$1,601,130.5
Santa Paula LSCRW $130,806.0
Simi Valley CCW $2,057,068.4
Thousand Oaks CCW, MCW $1,427,586.4
Unincorporated
County

LSCRW, CCW, VRW,
MCW, Coastal
$2,851,452.0
Watershed
Protection District

LSCRW, CCW, VRW,
MCW, Coastal
$3,073,985.6
Total - $18,252,525.2b
a. Projected costs based on analysis period FY10/11 through 18/19. b. Note that the total includes a separate line item for “Principal Co-Permittee” that was identified in the Annual Reports. As discussed in Part II.C of this Fact Sheet, the Principal Co-Permittee designation given to VCWPD is not being carried over to the Regional MS4 Permit. Where the anticipated budget for the Principal Co-Permittee addresses ongoing requirements under the Regional MS4 Permit, it is assumed that those will either be incurred by VCWPD or will be divided among all Ventura County Permittees in some manner.

Source: Los Angeles Water Board analysis of Ventura County Permittees’ Annual Reports
ii. Los Angeles County Permittees: For Los Angeles County Permittees, these projected annual stormwater program costs are provided in Table F-37 based on the average expenditures reported in the Permittees’ Annual Reports from FY16/17-18/19 to account for enhanced MCMs in approved WMPs and EWMPs and monitoring in CIMPs, which were almost all approved by FY15/16. Costs for each year were converted to 2019 dollars using the Federal GDP Implicit Price Deflator then averaged to calculate projected annual costs.

Table F-37. Estimated Annual Costs Incurred by Los Angeles County Permittees for Implementation of Stormwater Programs (2019$)
Permittee Projected Annual
Stormwater Program Costsa
Agoura Hills $677,283
Alhambra $841,390
Arcadia $277,536
Artesia $183,471
Azusa $400,831
Baldwin Park $1,974,599

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *732
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-339
Permittee Projected Annual
Stormwater Program Costsa
Bell $382,957
Bell Gardens $465,451
Bellflower $467,739
Beverly Hills $2,778,077
Bradbury $339,200
Burbank $4,454,050
Calabasas $335,262
Carson $152,071
Cerritos $879,717
Claremont $2,601,725
Commerce $2,007,753
Compton $499,531
Covina $599,559
Cudahy $226,321
Culver City $750,840
Diamond Bar $704,592
Downey $1,153,964
Duarte $372,344
El Monte $843,327
El Segundo $2,324,868
Gardena $601,689
Glendale $749,602
Glendora $363,889
Hawaiian Gardens $137,594
Hawthorne $893,207
Hermosa Beach $763,531
Hidden Hills $121,853
Huntington Park $1,001,928
Industry $1,089,656
Inglewood $2,248,635
Irwindale $656,161
La Canñada Flintridge $255,438

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *733
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-340
Permittee Projected Annual
Stormwater Program Costsa
La Habra Heights $72,521
Lakewood $718,609
La Mirada $106,913
La Puente $4,677,491
La Verne $3,580,505
Lawndale $79,132
Lomita $223,980
Long Beach $3,040,065
Lynwood $726,912
Malibu $1,744,270
Manhattan Beach $4,854,454
Maywood $197,794
Monrovia $405,408
Montebello $4,129,272
Monterey Park $488,995
Norwalk $1,676,191
Palos Verdes Estates $203,724
Paramount $740,156
Pasadena $3,111,035
Pico Rivera $927,212
Pomona $1,898,263
Rancho Palos Verdes $546,507
Redondo Beach $2,210,476
Rolling Hills $112,642
Rolling Hills Estates $407,961
Rosemead $369,839
San Dimas $436,425
San Fernando $206,698
San Gabriel $296,542
San Marino $314,506
Santa Clarita $3,465,294
Santa Fe Springs NR

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *734
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-341
Permittee Projected Annual
Stormwater Program Costsa
Santa Monica $8,792,906
Sierra Madre $302,128
Signal Hill $820,861
South El Monte $253,312
South Gate $2,600,109
South Pasadena $211,808
Temple City $305,325
Torrance $4,382,214
Vernon $1,167,982
Walnut $205,501
West Covina $889,398
West Hollywood $807,661
Westlake Village $303,071
Whittier $633,310
Los Angeles $47,099,437
Los Angeles County $49,739,440
Los Angeles County
Flood Control District $38,748,435
Total $234,810,330
a. Projected costs based on analysis period FY 16/17
through 18/19.

Source: Los Angeles Water Board analysis of Los Angeles County Permittees’ Annual Reports
Using the Stormwater Management Program costs reported by the Permittees, Los Angeles County Permittees expended a high of $315 per capita per year (Bradbury) to a low of $1.66 per capita per year (Carson) over the period 2016-2019.
384 Ventura County Permittees expended a
high of $21.49 per capita per year (Camarillo) and a low of $4.35 per capita per year (Santa Paula) over the period 2010-2019. 385
384 For calculations, see Stormwater_Management_Program_Cost_Analysis_LAC_Final.xlsx in the Administrative Record; the cities of Industry, Irwindale and Vernon were not considered when presenting this range of per capita cost due to their very low populations relative to their land area. 385 For calculations, see Ventura_Storwmater_Management_Program_Cost_Final.xlsx in the Administrative Record

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *735
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-342
g. Summary of total costs estimated from Method 1, Method 2, and Stormwater Management Program Costs
A summary of total cost estimates of complying with the Order is presented in Table F-38 for Method 1 and Table F-39 for Method 2. Costs from Methods 1 and 2 were added to WMP development costs (for Ventura County Permittees) and Stormwater Management Program costs (for all Permittees).

Calculating costs using Method 1, which analyzed structural BMP costs estimated in Staff Reports at the time of TMDL development, yielded a total compliance cost of about $13.4B for structural BMPs. Combined with WMP development and Stormwater Management Program costs, total costs were estimated to be $18.5B. With Method 2, which analyzed structural BMP costs presented in EWMPs and WMPs, total costs ranged from about $21.4B to $25.7B for structural BMPs. Adding WMP development and Stormwater Management Program costs yielded a total cost of $26.5B to $30.8B.

Table F-38. Total 20-Year MS4 Costs Estimated from Method 1 (millions, 2019$) Method 1 Costs TMDL Staff
Report Costs
WMP
Development
Stormwater
Management
Program
Total
Projected
MS4 Costs
LA County ─ ─ $4,696.21 ─
Ventura County ─ $2.14 $365.05 ─
Total $13,388.85 $2.14 $5,061.26 $18,452.24
Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis
Table F-39. Total 20-Year MS4 Costs Estimated from Method 2 (millions, 2019$) Method 2 Costs EWMP/WMP Costs WMP
Development
Stormwater
Management
Program
Total Projected MS4
Costs
Low High Low High
LA County $20,972,06 $21,340.11 ─ $4,696.21 $25,668.27 $26,036.32 Ventura County $463.17 $4,402.77 $2.14 $365.05 $828.22 $4,767.82 Total $21,435.23 $25,742.88 $2.14 $5,061.26 $26,498.62 $30,806.27 Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis

2. Uncertainties in Projected Costs of Compliance
As set forth above, the projected costs, and actual costs, to implement stormwater programs are a significant issue for Permittees. However, it has been, and continues to be, difficult to ascertain the cost at a planning level of fully implementing decades-long stormwater and urban runoff management programs, especially where significant flexibility has been provided to the Permittees to comply both with regard to the manner of compliance and the timeframes for achieving compliance, including permit provisions that allow Permittees to request modifications to both how they achieve compliance and the timeframes for doing so.

There are myriad reasons for this, including but not limited to:

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *736
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-343
• Innovations in BMPs over time that reduce costs and/or increase pollutant removal;
• Changes in consumer products that reduce or eliminate pollutants in MS4 discharges;
• Limitations of modeling used to identify BMPs that need to be implemented to achieve required water quality outcomes, requiring water quality data for verification/periodic recalibration;
• Imprecise data at the planning stage on site-specific conditions for siting BMPs, which can significantly affect BMP sizing requirements as well as the types of BMPs that can be used at a site; and
• Evolving science and evaluation of local conditions that may support sitespecific water quality objectives. a. Actual Costs: Implementation of Water Quality Improvements Through EWMPs and WMPs
As noted earlier, costs are difficult to reliably estimate at the planning stage.

Data collected thus far from some Los Angeles County Permittees participating in WMPs and EWMPs indicate that these initial planning-level projected costs were sometimes over-estimated. For example, Permittees implementing the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 WMP found that sitespecific conditions (namely, infiltration rates) for their regional BMPs were much more favorable than anticipated, allowing them to significantly reduce the BMP footprint size. This, in turn, reduced the estimated cost of their proposed regional BMPs by half from $209M to $102M.386
Several other examples illustrate the same point:
• Ladera Park Stormwater Capture Project (Ballona Creek EWMP): The projected construction cost in the EWMP was $7M, while the actual construction cost was $4.9M, a savings of 30%.387
• Roosevelt Park Stormwater Capture Project (Upper LA River EWMP): The projected construction cost was $33M, while the actual construction cost was $9M, a savings of over 70%.388
• Carriage Crest Stormwater Capture Project (Dominguez Channel EWMP):

The projected construction cost was $8.7M for a BMP capacity of 9 acrefeet. During design, the BMP capacity was increased by threefold to 27 acre-feet. Additionally, the BMP type was modified from an infiltration project to a diversion to the adjacent wastewater reclamation facility. The actual construction cost for the BMP was $15.6M.389 This equates to a reduction in the cost per acre-foot from $967,000 to $578,000. 386 Presentation by CWE and Tetra Tech on behalf of Permittees in the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 WMP, “Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Watershed Management Area: Watershed Management Program Implementation Status Update,” presented at March 2, 2017 meeting of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Note that the Permittees had proposed six regional BMPs; given favorable site conditions, the group was able to eliminate one of these BMPs, while still addressing permit requirements.
387 Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works, “DRAFT: EWMP Planning Cost vs. Actual Cost for Unincorporated County Projects,” handout at July 17, 2019 meeting with Los Angeles Water Board staff. 388 Ibid.
389 Ibid.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *737
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-344
Permittees also have discretion in deciding how to comply with permit requirements, including requirements to comply with WQBELs and receiving water limitations. What is practicable in one community may not work in another because of differences in population, land use, hydrology, pollution sources, water uses, municipal infrastructure, and community priorities, among other things. For example, as discussed earlier, Permittees participating in the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River EWMP were prompted to adapt their program to address an error in the initial modeling that overestimated the necessary load reduction for lead, which was identified when reviewing monitoring data, and to be more practicable for their communities by changing the suite of BMPs to be implemented while still addressing permit requirements. These changes reduced the estimated cost by over 90% from $1.4B to $121.7M.390 In other cases, however, site conditions may have been less favorable than anticipated, which can increase the cost. For example, the cost estimate for the Gates Canyon Stormwater Capture Project in the Malibu Creek EWMP was $4.1M, while the actual construction cost was twice that amount at $8.5M. This increase was because the original concept included an infiltration basin but due to geological constraints the project was modified to a water harvesting system with emergency bypass dry wells.391
Furthermore, some EWMPs present assumed land acquisition costs in their cost functions that equate to $5.6M-$6.1M per acre for BMPs installed on private parcels392, which would not need to be incurred if Permittees engage in public-private partnerships as municipalities elsewhere in the U.S. have begun doing within the last several years (further discussed in Part XIII.D.2.d of this Fact Sheet). This would result in substantial cost savings. b. Difficulties in Estimating Costs
Many of the disparities between estimated and reported costs such as those described above are due to the difficulties in reliably estimating costs at the planning stage. Additionally, as noted earlier, reported costs of compliance for the same program element can vary widely from permittee to permittee. To date, standardized methods to estimate the costs of stormwater pollution reduction approaches, particularly on a watershed or subwatershed scale, have not been developed. While there are appropriate grounds for differences among MS4 permits, differences of a very wide margin are not easily explained.393 As noted, some cost estimates have been over-reported. In other 390 Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group, “Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Revised Watershed Management Program,” May 17, 2019. It is noted that $379M of the original cost, about 30%, was attributable to EWMP implementation in the City of Azusa, which discontinued its participation in the revised WMP.
391 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, “DRAFT: EWMP Planning Cost vs. Actual Cost for Unincorporated County Projects,” handout presented at July 17, 2019 meeting with Los Angeles Water Board staff.
392 Ballona Creek, Malibu Creek, Upper LA River, Upper Santa Clara River assumed a land acquisition cost of $129 per square foot, or $5.6M per acre. Upper San Gabriel River assumed a land acquisition cost of $139.01 per square foot, or $6.1M per acre.
393 Radulescu, Dan, and Xavier Swamikannu. Review and Analysis of Budget Data Submitted by the Permittees for Fiscal Years 2000-2003. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 2003. p. 2. Web. 20 June 2019.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *738
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-345
cases, costs are reported that Permittees would have incurred regardless of their MS4 permit requirements. Not all reported program costs are solely attributable to compliance with requirements of the MS4 permit. Many program components, and their associated costs, existed before the first MS4 permits were issued in the 1990s. A 2005 State Water Board study found that certain reported costs included activities that provide separate and additional municipal benefits such as street sweeping and storm drain and channel cleaning and that the inclusion of these activities and their associated costs was not uniform across municipalities. These costs along with others like solid waste/litter collection costs are not solely or even principally attributable to MS4 permit compliance since these practices have long been implemented by municipalities. Also, some stormwater control measures may be integrated into multi-benefit projects serving many objectives (e.g., a public park whose mowing maintenance schedule is designed to maximize stormwater retention). Other measures may start out as stormwater control measures only to become expected by residents for their other benefits (e.g., dog waste bags at public parks). Therefore, the program cost related to complying with MS4 permit requirements is often some fraction of the total reported costs.

The State Water Board study also noted inherent limitations in the cost data quality. The most significant data quality limitation cited is that the costs provided by the municipalities were not sufficiently detailed or referenced to provide opportunity for independent review of the accuracy and completeness of the cost data. Similarly, the costs presented in the prior MS4 permits in the Los Angeles Region were not presented with supporting data or references so that they can be independently reviewed. Los Angeles Water Board staff often had to seek additional information and clarification from Permittees regarding their reported costs.394
Note that these issues were evaluated in detail in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Fact Sheet and in the State Water Board study. A key finding of the State Water Board study was that a significant portion (greater than 50%) of the costs attributed to stormwater compliance activities also provides additional municipal benefits.395 The remainder of program costs was either pre-existing or resulted from enhancement of pre-existing programs.396 The County of Orange found that an even lesser amount of program costs was solely attributable to MS4 permit compliance, reporting that the cost attributable to implementation of its Drainage Area Management Plan is less than 20 percent of the total budget. The remaining 80 percent is attributable to pre-existing programs.397
Despite these problems, the Board has endeavored to estimate the possible range of costs of compliance with the Order, including WQBELs as presented in Part XIII.D.1 above.
394 See select Annual Report review letters, for example. 395 Currier, Brian K., Joseph M. Jones, Glenn L. Moeller. “NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey, Final Report,” Prepared by California State Water Resources Control Board, California State University Sacramento, Office of Water Programs, January 2005.
396 Ibid., p. 58.
397 County of Orange, 2000. A NPDES Annual Progress Report. p. 60.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *739
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-346
c. Improvements in Cost Estimation & Reporting
There are several initiatives in progress to address the challenges of accurately quantifying and reporting the costs to implement stormwater programs, including an effort undertaken by the State Water Board’s Office of Research Planning and Performance (ORPP)398 to provide guidance on estimation of costs to implement TMDLs and consistent tracking and reporting by municipalities of costs of permit compliance. The Environmental Finance Center (EFC)399 at California State University, Sacramento recently compiled existing resources on stormwater infrastructure costs and developed suggested guidance to explain best practices for estimating costs. EFC’s effort evolved from the State Water Board study in 2005 and includes estimates of costs for permit compliance activities, technical resources that assist stormwater managers, and project costs for both green and grey infrastructure.

ORPP’s guidance describes methods for obtaining information on compliance approaches and associated costs and for completing an independent analysis of costs. The guidance strives to promote greater consistency and transparency related to estimation of costs to implement TMDLs. ORPP notes that, even with improved guidance, precise cost estimation remains challenging and the level of precision possible may be low in many cases. For example, industry-wide, there is no uniform database of projects’ components and costs to date.

ORPP’s guidance as well as the EFC’s initiative and others are improving the basis for cost reporting by municipalities and, as a result, the Water Boards’ consideration of economics in issuing permits. Los Angeles Water Board staff has participated in developing the ORPP guidance and has provided input on the EFC’s initiative, and has considered this information when drafting the Order and associated reporting requirements in Attachments E (Monitoring and Reporting Program or MRP) and H (Annual Report Form). Using this guidance, section 2 (Program Expenditures) of Attachment H requires that all Permittees report costs in a uniform manner based on clearly defined program categories and cost elements. See, also, Table 2.2 in Attachment H. d. Increasing cost-effectiveness through public-private partnerships Estimated compliance costs as presented in this Fact Sheet are based on current and past compliance methods. However, Permittees in the Los Angeles region could use relatively new financing and contracting mechanisms that fall under the umbrella of pay-for-performance, a form of public-private partnership, to contribute towards meeting MS4 requirements more cost-effectively while also implementing multi-benefit green infrastructure on private property without needing to acquire private land, which a number of local jurisdictions in the U.S. have done. These pay-for398 State Water Board, Office of Research Planning and Performance (ORPP), Guidance for Future Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Municipal Storm Water Cost Estimation, April 16, 2019; State Water Board, ORPP, Guidance for Obtaining Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4) Compliance Costs, December 19, 2019.
399 Environmental Finance Center at Sacramento State. 2020 May. Estimating Benefits and Costs of Stormwater Management, Part II: Evaluating Municipal Spending in California. https://www.efc.csus.edu/reports/efc-cost-project-part-2.pdf

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *740
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-347
performance models, also known as pay-for-success, incentivize contractors to find private properties on which to construct green infrastructure, leading to more distributed stormwater capture and benefits, as well as lower costs and faster project timelines than traditional BMP implementation. For example, Philadelphia’s Green Acres Retrofit Program encourages contractors to develop portfolios of multiple projects, spreading out risk, and property owners can reduce their stormwater fee if they accept a project on their property.

Another example is Prince George’s County’s Clean Water Partnership, a community-based public-private partnership that prioritizes local minorityowned contractors and develops a local workforce specializing in green infrastructure. These municipalities have used public-private partnerships to supplement gray stormwater infrastructure with green infrastructure, which could also reduce the need for gray infrastructure. By adapting elements of existing public-private partnerships from other parts of the U.S., Permittees in the Los Angeles region have opportunities to green urban landscape and meet MS4 requirements more quickly, cost-effectively, and in the manner that works best locally.

Public-private partnerships can be more cost-effective than traditional stormwater BMP implementation for several reasons. Public-private partnerships structured under a pay-for-performance model shifts risk from municipalities to private partners.400 While details of specific pay-forperformance models established by different municipalities vary, municipalities essentially pay private contractors for outcomes, such as when BMPs promised to capture a certain amount of stormwater are successfully completed. Municipalities are not involved in the specific design and management of the BMPs. Municipalities may choose to pay only after construction completion, or they may make payments at certain stages of construction. They may also structure payment models to pay contractors for operations and maintenance over certain time intervals if BMPs are shown to still be effective over those time intervals. In addition, because municipalities would solicit bids from multiple parties, this fosters competition and increases cost-effectiveness. For example, Prince George’s County saved more than 40% on costs compared to traditional procurements.401 And Philadelphia pays a maximum of $90,000 per acre on private land in its Greened Acre Retrofit Program, compared to the $250,000-$300,000 per acre for green infrastructure on public land, a savings of 64%-70%.402 Public-private partnerships could also achieve faster BMP construction due to the nature of being located on private property. There would be fewer administrative steps compared to BMP implementation on public land. Also, projects on private property are more likely to be smaller, simpler projects that could be completed much faster than intensive, major projects on public 400 Environmental Incentives. 2017. Pay for Performance Contract Mechanisms for Stormwater Management. 8https://enviroincentives.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Pay-for-PerformanceContract-Mechanisms-for-Stormwater.pdf 401 WaterWorld. 2019. Prince George’s County, Corvias complete stormwater partnership ahead of schedule, under budget. https://www.waterworld.com/environmental/article/16218798/prince-georgescounty-corvias-complete-stormwater-partnership-ahead-of-schedule-under-budget 402 Valderrama, Alisa and Paul Davis. 2015. How Philadelphia’s Greened Acre Retrofit Program is catalyzing low-cost green infrastructure retrofits on private property. Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/philadelphia-green-infrastructure-retrofits-IB.pdf

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *741
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-348
property that require specialized equipment and expertise. Furthermore, there is significantly more land that is private than public. Encouraging public-private partnerships would open up many more available locations for BMPs.

Public-private partnerships can be structured in a way to prioritize certain areas for green infrastructure and steer employment towards communities who need it most. Private properties with more impervious surface already present greater opportunity for green infrastructure installation, and higher levels of impervious surface are often correlated with lower levels of neighborhood income, so contractors would already find more green infrastructure opportunities in lower-income neighborhoods. In Los Angeles County, where property owners are subject to the Measure W parcel tax, the opportunity to reduce the tax could be an incentive for property owners to accept the installation of green infrastructure on their property, particularly for lower-income property owners. However, municipalities can offer further incentives, paying more for projects located in neighborhoods with higher need, as was done in a stormwater credit trading program in Washington, D.C.403 Municipalities can also offer to pay more for local and/or minorityowned contractors, as was done in Prince George’s County, where greater than 80% of contracts went to local minority-owned businesses. This would provide areas with the greatest need, i.e. low-income, often non-white, and disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with opportunities for green jobs and greener neighborhoods.404

3. Sources of Funding for Permittees and Potential Impacts to Funding Sources Due to COVID-19 and Recovery Efforts
Permittees are required to secure the resources necessary to meet the requirements of the Order, including those necessary to achieve the receiving water limitations and WQBELs. As discussed elsewhere in the Fact Sheet, these permit provisions are required by federal regulations. That said, the Los Angeles Water Board recognizes that in light of the recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments around the country are facing significant challenges in financing and constructing stormwater management infrastructure required by the CWA and federal NPDES regulations. However, as of May 2021, the number of vaccinations completed continues to rise both in the region and around the country, and the Biden administration has proposed trillions in new infrastructure spending on top of the $1.9 trillion dollar American Rescue Plan effective in March 2021, all of which improve the outlook for stormwater funding.

The pandemic brought extraordinary hardship, and it hit society unequally. The unemployment rates in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties in the spring of 2020 hit highs of 18.8% and 14.5%, respectively.405 Low-income residents experienced 403 Parrish, Janet. 2018. Off-Site Stormwater Crediting: Lessons from Wetland Mitigation. U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/documents/offsite_stormwater_crediting_lessons_from_wetland_mitigation-2018-04.pdf 404 Clean Water Partnership. 2020, December 11. Community-Based Public Private Partnerships (CBP3s) for Delivering Sustainability, Environmental Justice and Community Health and Resilience. Presentation. https://thecleanwaterpartnership.com/sustainability-seminar-series-community-based-public-privatepartnerships-cbp3s/ 405 FRED. 2021. Unemployment Rate in Los Angeles County, CA. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CALOSA7URN; FRED. 2021. Unemployment Rate in Ventura County, CA. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAVENT2URN

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *742
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-349
higher rates of unemployment than middle- and high-income residents, many of whom were able to work remotely and more easily avoid becoming infected by COVID-19.406 Jobs disappeared in leisure, hospitality, and entertainment, on which Los Angeles County relies heavily. The agricultural industry in Ventura County was also hit hard, and on average received less federal aid compared to growers in other parts of the country.407 Due to systemic inequities, COVID-19 has disproportionately hit African Americans and Latinos nationwide.408 This has occurred in Los Angeles as well, in addition to disproportionate impacts on the local Pacific Islander population.409 Before the pandemic, Permittee municipalities where these underserved communities comprise a significant portion of their populations already had constrained opportunities for revenue generation due to lower average incomes and tax bases.410 Existing disadvantages in resources have been exacerbated by the pandemic because underserved communities bear a heavier burden in healthcare costs and deaths. In Los Angeles, areas with high poverty had almost four times the death rate on average than areas with low poverty.411 Furthermore, African Americans and Latinos were more likely to be laid off or furloughed because of the pandemic.412
Despite the real hardships, at the macro level economic suffering was not as bad as feared in early predictions. As of May 2021, during the course of the pandemic, the federal government has put more than $5 trillion into the economy.413 Congress passed the American Rescue Plan, which extended unemployment benefits, sent stimulus checks to the public, and sent $350 billion to state and local governments, with stormwater infrastructure being one of the many intended uses of this funding.414 President Biden has also ordered that 40% of benefits from federal climate action go to underserved communities as part of the Justice40 initiative.415 406 Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Michael Stepner. 2021. Who Spent Their Last Stimulus Checks? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/08/opinion/stimulus-checks-economy.html 407 Smith, Aaron. COVID-19 Relief Programs Have Kept U.S. Farm Income High but Shortchanged California Producers. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California. https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2021/02/18/v24n3_2.pdf 408 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020, June 25. COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html 409 Lin, Rong-Gong, II. 2020, June 9. “Racism and inequity fuel coronavirus-related death toll among L.A.

County minorities, officials say”. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06- 09/coronavirus-deaths-racism-blacks-latinos-pacific-islanders-inequity 410 De La Cruz-Viesca, Melany, Zhenxiang Chen, Paul M. Ong, Darrick Hamilton, and William A. Darity Jr. 2016. The Color of Wealth. Duke University, The New School, UCLA, Insight Center for Community Economic Development. http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/besol/Color_of_Wealth_Report.pdf 411 Lin, Rong-Gong, II. 2020, June 9. “Racism and inequity fuel coronavirus-related death toll among L.A.

County minorities, officials say”. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06- 09/coronavirus-deaths-racism-blacks-latinos-pacific-islanders-inequity 412 Jan, Tracy and Scott Clement. 2020, May 6. “Hispanics are almost twice as likely as whites to have lost their jobs amid pandemic, poll finds.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/06/layoffs-race-poll-coronavirus/ 413 Casselman, Ben. 2021. America is on a Road to a Better Economy. But Better for Whom?. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/magazine/stimulus-us-economy.html 414 U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2021. Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. 415 White House. 2021. Fact Sheet: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-bidenEXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *743
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-350
As of May 2021, predictions are that the California 2021-2022 budget will have a surplus of $38B-$75B.416 Economists in 2021 have consistently revised their outlooks to be more optimistic, expecting unemployment to return to pre-pandemic levels in 2022.417 As of March 2021, the unemployment rates in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties were 10.9% and 6.4%, respectively.418 While this is a significant improvement compared to the early months of the pandemic, there is still a ways to go to full recovery. At the local level, Los Angeles property tax revenues from the past year were higher than expected, and it is likely that funding for Measure W will remain largely intact.419 Los Angeles County is set to receive $1.9 billion, and the city of Los Angeles is set to receive $1.4 billion from the American Rescue Plan.420 These amounts are greater than LA County and the city of Los Angeles’s previously projected budget deficits of $935 million and $750 million, respectively.421 While the specific magnitude of the effect on municipal revenues is unclear as of May 2021, there will be continued or increased funding of state and federal grants that can be used towards stormwater projects. There has been increased spending by the general public as more people have received vaccinations and the economy has continued to reopen, which will increase local tax revenues.

The pandemic’s economic impacts largely affect general funds, which present a limited and less reliable source of revenue. Permittees are compelled more than before to identify alternative sources such as fees, assessments, grants, and loans.

In the past, municipalities throughout the State have been successful in securing alternative funding for stormwater services through fees, assessments, or special taxes, as well as through developer fees, and gas taxes.422 Many Permittees have takes-executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restorescientific-integrity-across-federal-government/ 416 Walters, Dan. 2021. Newsom budget surplus gets reality check. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/newsom-budget-surplus-lao/ 417 Casselman, Ben. 2021. America is on a Road to a Better Economy. But Better for Whom?. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/magazine/stimulus-us-economy.html 418 FRED. 2021. Unemployment Rate in Los Angeles County, CA. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CALOSA7URN; FRED. 2021. Unemployment Rate in Ventura County, CA. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAVENT2URN
419 LA Controller. Revenue Forecast Report for Fiscal Years 2020-2021. https://lacontroller.org/financialreports/revenue-forecast-report-fy21/ 420 U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2021. Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. 421 Denkmann, Libby. 2020. LA County Supervisors Approve Downsized Budget: No Department is Spared From Cuts and Layoffs. LAist. https://laist.com/news/la-county-supervisors-budget-cuts-layoffspandemic; Zahniser, David, Dakota Smith, and Julia Wick. 2021. L.A. expects to receive $1.35 billion from the relief bill. Garcetti is ‘ecstatic’. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-10/federal-relief-cities-states-could-end-los-angelescity-budget-crisis 422 Generally, there is a willingness to pay for improvements in water quality. For example, U.S. EPA estimated household willingness to pay for improvements in freshwater quality to support fishing and boating to be $182 to $242 per year (adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics on-line CPI Inflation Calculator). (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges, Final Rule. Federal Register 64 (8 December 1999): p. 68793. Web. 20 June 2019.) This estimate can be considered conservative, since it does not include important considerations such as the benefits to marine waters, wildlife, or flood control. California State University - Sacramento’s 2005 study corroborates U.S. EPA’s estimates, reporting annual household willingness to pay for statewide clean water to be $240 (adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics on-line CPI Inflation Calculator). (State Water Board, 2005. Currier, Brian

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *744
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-351
also taken steps to establish a stable funding source, which will help fund stormwater projects despite the current economic downturn. The following Parts XIII.D.3.a-e provide examples of these efforts. Part XIII.D.3.f of this Fact Sheet provides examples of state and federal grants and loans. a. Los Angeles County Safe, Clean Water Program
In November 2018 Los Angeles County gained voter approval of Measure W, a special parcel tax of 2.5 cents per square foot of impermeable surface that will raise up to $285 million annually to capture and clean up stormwater.

Measure W required approval by a two-thirds majority to pass. The tax will help cities across Los Angeles County comply with the Order. It will also help make the region more water resilient in the face of drought and climate change, particularly in underserved communities that are often hit harder by environmental and public health stresses.423
Of the annual revenue, forty percent will be returned to the municipality of origin to create new local projects and programs and fund operation and maintenance. Table F-40 provides the estimated “local return” revenues that will be allocated to Los Angeles County Permittees based on the estimated annual revenue of $285M. It is anticipated that a total of $112.6M will go directly to municipalities through the local return.

K., et al. NPDES Storm Water Cost Survey Final Report. Office of Water Programs, California State University, Sacramento, January 2005. p. iv.)
423 “L.A. County stormwater tax officially passes.” Los Angeles Times, November 30, 2018.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *745
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-352
Table F-40. Estimated Annual Safe, Clean Water Program Municipal Program Funds, by Permittee424
Fifty percent of the annual revenue will be spread across nine watershed areas to develop Stormwater Investment Plans and implement regional projects and programs, including a Technical Resources Program (TRP) that will provide technical assistance to underserved communities in developing feasibility studies, which are required before a project is considered for funding, and facilitating community and stakeholder engagement. Anticipated annual revenues available to each watershed area are provided in Table F-41. 424 https://safecleanwaterla.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SCW-Local-Return-Funds-by-Municipality20200809.pdf

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *746
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-353
Table F-41. Estimated Annual Safe, Clean Water Program Regional Program Funds by Watershed Area
Watershed Area Estimated Annual
Revenue (millions)
Central Santa Monica Bay $ 17.42
Lower Los Angeles River $ 12.72
Lower San Gabriel River $ 16.56
North Santa Monica Bay $ 1.83
Rio Hondo $ 11.49
Santa Clara River $ 5.87
South Santa Monica Bay $ 17.58
Upper Los Angeles River $ 38.44
Upper San Gabriel River $ 18.78
REGIONAL TOTAL $ 140.6
Source: County of Los Angeles Safe, Clean Water
Program (https://safecleanwaterla.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/SCW-Regional-ReturnFunds-by-Watershed-Area-20200809.pdf) Figure F-2 shows the overlap between the nine watershed areas and the Watershed Management Program and Enhanced Watershed Management Program areas.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *747
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-354
Figure F-2. Map of Watershed Areas, Watershed Management Program Areas, and Enhanced Watershed Management Program Areas
The remaining ten percent of the annual revenues would be allocated to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for administration of the program and other district water quality projects and programs.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has evaluated the planning-level projected costs for full implementation of some of the Watershed Management Programs and Enhanced Watershed Management Programs, and the anticipated revenue from the Safe, Clean Water Program for corresponding watershed areas relative to the WMP/EWMP milestones.

The preliminary working draft of their analysis suggests that, without any additional sources of funding and assuming the accuracy of the projected costs, significant additional time will be needed to meet most milestones.

However, the projected costs used by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works were higher than values from the Board staff analysis, presented above, and in many cases Permittees have succeeded in significantly lowering these projected costs at both a program scale and project scale.

Additionally, as discussed below, Permittees have, and can continue to, leverage additional funds through partnerships with other entities and securing grants and/or low-interest loans.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *748
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-355
In summary, the passage of Measure W, with nearly 70% of the vote in LA County, suggests strong support for improved water quality. The revenue generated will go toward funding the Permittees’ WMPs and EWMPs, thereby significantly assisting in compliance with the Order.
b. Los Angeles County’s Measure A
Los Angeles County voters in November 2016 approved Measure A, the Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks and Beaches Measure, to support local parks, beaches, open space, and water resources with an annual parcel tax of 1.5 cents per square foot. The measure received overwhelming support, with the approval of 75% of voters. The county’s Regional Park and Open Space District disburses the funding through grant programs, divided over multiple categories of projects. Category 3, the Protecting Open Space, Beaches, and Watersheds Program, has about $7.4M annually for competitive grants. The program considers projects that capture stormwater and protect drinking water and waterbodies, as well as projects that provide multiple benefits, such as increasing recreational opportunities, protecting habitats, and improving public health.425
c. Culver City’s Measure CW
During the November 8, 2016 Special Municipal Election, over two thirds of Culver City residents voted in favor of Measure CW, the Clean Water, Clean Beach Parcel Tax. Single family residential parcels are taxed $99 annually, while each multi-family residential dwelling unit is taxed $69 annually. Each parcel owner of a non-residential property is taxed $1,096 per acre of land (or portion thereof) annually. The $1,096 is pro-rated for non-residential parcels less than one acre. Charges first appeared on the tax statements in fall 2017. Funds raised by Measure CW will be used for improvements in water quality in Ballona Creek, Marina del Rey, and Santa Monica Bay. Measure CW is expected to generate about $2 million per year, beginning in fall 2017. All Measure CW money will be used in Culver City to improve water quality through measures such as low-flow diversions, multi-benefit stormwater capture projects, green streets, and trash controls, among others.

Measure CW was directly designed to pay for Culver City’s cost of compliance with the Order, including Culver City’s responsibilities in implementing programs and projects in the Ballona Creek and Marina del Rey EWMPs in which it is participating.426
d. Ventura County’s Benefit Assessment Program
The Ventura County Watershed Protection District Benefit Assessment (BA) Program, which levies property fees, is authorized by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District Act, as amended by Chapter 438, Statutes of 1987 and Chapter 365, Statutes of 1988. The FY2019 Benefit Assessment for Watershed Protection is based on the rates established for Fiscal Year 1997.

Those same rates were approved for Fiscal Years 1998-1999 through 2017- 2018.
425 Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District. 2017. Measure A Implementation – Park Funding 102 (Fall 2017). https://rposd.lacounty.gov/2017/09/19/park-funding-102/ 426 https://www.culvercity.org/city-hall/information/election-information/ballot-measure-information/cleanculver-city.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *749
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-356
The Board of Supervisors approved the same rates in compliance with Proposition 218 on June 12, 2018 for fiscal year 2018-2019. Based on these assessment rates, the annual revenue generated for MS4 permit compliance is provided in Table F-42. The total annual revenue available for MS4 permit compliance for FY 2018-2019 is $3.1 M. An increase of the Benefit Assessment rates requires a vote.

Table F-42. Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Benefit Assessment Program Revenue for NPDES Compliance
Permittee Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Total
Ojai $34,115 -- -- -- $34,115
San
Buenaventura $58,907 $195,448 -- -- $254,355
Fillmore -- $17,685 -- -- $17,685
Oxnard -- $592,311 -- -- $592,311
Santa Paula -- $65,191 -- -- $65,191
Port Hueneme -- $14,925 -- -- $14,925
Camarillo -- $1,117 $155,023 -- $155,140
Moorpark -- -- -- -- --
Thousand
Oaks -- -- $254,540 $47,387 $301,927
Simi Valley -- -- $187,303 -- $187,303
Unincorporated
County $20,495 $35,545 -- -- $56,040
Watershed
Protection
District
$118,788 $539,544 $716,353 $66,075 $1,440,760
Total $232,306 $1,461,768 $1,313,220 $113,462 $3,120,756 Source: Ventura County Watershed Protection District. Report on Benefit Assessment Program, Fiscal Year 2018/2019.
e. Other Los Angeles County Municipalities
In addition to Los Angeles County, Culver City and Ventura County, other municipalities within the Los Angeles region have secured funding that supports projects to improve water quality through the adoption of stormwater fees. Table F-43 identifies several of them.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *750
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-357
Table F-43. Other Existing Municipal Stormwater Fees in the Los Angeles Region Permittee Status
Monthly Unit
Rate
(Residential)
Funding
Mechanism Source
Beverly Hills NI $35.12 (R-1),
$14.52 (R-4) NI OWP
Los Angeles
(City) Successful $2.33
Special Tax
– G.O.

Bond
SCI
Monrovia Successful $1.68 base +
$1.25/dwelling Balloted OWP
Rancho Palos
Verdes NI $7.17 NI WKU
Rancho Palos
Verdes
Successful,
then recalled
and reduced
$16.67 Balloted SCI
Santa Clarita NA $2.00 NI WKU
Santa Clarita Successful $1.75 Balloted SCI
Santa Monica NA NI NI WKU
Santa Monica Successful $7.25 Special Tax SCI
NI – Not Identified
NA – Not Available
OWP - Toolkit to Support Financial Planning for Municipal Stormwater Programs, U.S. EPA Region 9 Environmental Finance Center at Sacramento State, Office of Water Programs, 2018.

SCI - as tracked by SCI staff since 2002
WKU - Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2018 Note: Results are standardized to the best extent possible in combining the multiple sources, but not adjusted for inflation. Reported rates are for majority of residential customers for rate structures with multiple tiers and are shown as reported at time of passage or enactment (SCI or OWP sourced entries) or current year (WKU sourced).

Source: CASQA Stormwater Finance Web Portal, Survey of Existing Stormwater Fees in California, September 3, 2019.
f. State and Federal Funding Sources
Public agencies, both federal and state, recognize the importance of stormwater improvement projects. This section describes some sources of funding from grants and loans that have been provided in the past and will be provided in the future to help offset the costs of stormwater management and leverage ongoing funding sources such as those described above. The variety of grant programs that can support stormwater projects highlights the opportunities for creativity in incorporating stormwater BMPs into other infrastructure and community development projects, which will not only help achieve stormwater goals, but also open more avenues of funding.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *751
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-358
Permittees in the Los Angeles Region have been receiving significant State funding through grant programs and interagency agreements with the California Department of Transportation, and so far there is no official indication that they will not continue doing so as several State-wide stormwater grant programs are expected to proceed in coming years. All Permittees have completed a Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP) or equivalent and have obtained concurrence on the SRP or equivalent from the State Water Board, making all Permittees eligible to compete for State funds to support additional stormwater projects identified in the SRP or equivalent.

The table below (Table F-44) summarizes the funds that had been allocated to stormwater management in Los Angeles County up to 2012.

Table F-44. Funds Allocated to Stormwater Management in Los Angeles County Up To 2012
Source of Money Dollars
% of total costs funded
by State (only for those
projects which included
State funding)
Only State Board-awarded funding
(Propositions 12, 13, 40, 50, and 84;
and federal money, 319h, 205j,
ARRA)
$49,143,132
47%
Only State money from any State
agency (propositions only, no
federal); includes State Board, DWR,
Coastal Conservancy, Fish & Game
$67,461,699 58%
Prop A $4,981,772 N/A
Prop O $508,678,258 N/A
Measure V $9,107,959 N/A
Total Public Funds (federal, State,
local bonds and measures) expended
on stormwater control projects
$645,389,932
N/A (information not
available for projects
funded by local bonds and
measures)
Source: Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Fact Sheet 2012
Since 2012, Permittees have received $186.1M in state funding for 42 projects that will support Permittees’ compliance with the Order. Specifically, between 2012 and 2015, Los Angeles County and Ventura County Permittees have received $25.5M from Proposition 84 and the Drought Response Outreach Program for Schools (DROPS) for 18 projects. This funding covered over 70% of the total cost of the 18 projects. In 2016, Permittees received $51M of Proposition 1 grant funding during Round 1 for 13 projects. The Proposition 1 grant funding is covering over 50% of the total cost of the 13 projects. In February 2021, $18.6M was awarded to Permittees for five projects from Prop 1 Round 2 funding. Since 2012, Los Angeles County Permittees have also received over $91M in funding from the State through Cooperative Implementation Agreements with the California Department of Transportation for 6 projects.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *752
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-359
Permittees have also been awarded Prop 68 funding and may continue to compete for additional grant funding. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, grants will not be canceled, and unspent funds will not be taken back by the state during the COVID-19 pandemic.427 In March 2020, the California Department of Parks and Recreation awarded about $54 million from Proposition 68’s Statewide Park Program to Los Angeles County jurisdictions to develop new parks, multi-use paths, and improve existing facilities.428 In addition, in 2020 the California Natural Resources Agency awarded $18.5 million for multi-benefit green infrastructure investments in or benefiting disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged communities through Proposition 68’s Green Infrastructure Grant Program.

Potential sources of future grant funding from state and federal programs are shown in Table F-45. In addition to Proposition 68 programs, a number of federal grant programs can be used to build stormwater infrastructure while also promoting economic development, resilience to climate change-induced hazards, green transportation alternatives, and urban greening.429 This highlights the increased funding opportunities that could come with projects that creatively incorporate stormwater BMPs. Some programs explicitly address the longstanding problem of underserved communities having greater need for green infrastructure but having fewer resources by explicitly prioritizing underserved communities, such as Proposition 68’s Statewide Park Program, the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program, and Economic Development Administration’s Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance programs
Table F-45. Potential Future State and Federal Grant Sources Grant Program Source Description
Prop 68
Statewide Park
Program
CA Department of
Parks and
Recreation
• $395.3M was available for FY20/21
• For creating new parks and recreation
opportunities in underserved communities
Prop 68
Regional Park
Program
CA Department of
Parks and
Recreation
• $23.1M was available for FY20/21
• Eligible projects: Acquisition for new or
enhanced public access and use; development to
create or renovate; trails, with preference given to
multiuse trails over single-use trails; regional
sports complexes; visitor and interpretive facilities;
other types of recreation and support facilities in
regional parks
427 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020, April 15. Frequently Asked Questions Grant Administration during COVID-19. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=178465&inline 428 Sharp, Steven. 2020, March 2. $54 Million in State Funding Awarded for L.A. County Park Projects.

Urbanize Los Angeles. https://urbanize.la/post/54-million-state-funding-awarded-la-county-park-projects 429 U.S. EPA. 2017. Federal and State Funding Programs – Stormwater & Green Infrastructure Projects. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/federal-and-california-sw-fundingprograms_0.pdf

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *753
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-360
Grant Program Source Description
Community
Development
Block Grants
(CDBG)
U.S Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development
• Annual grants to cities and counties on a formula
basis
• Eligible to fund stormwater and green
infrastructure because these projects can create
jobs and economic activity
• Detroit, MI and Chicago, IL have used CDBG
funds for stormwater infrastructure
Building
Resilient
Infrastructure
and
Communities
(BRIC)
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
• Funding for projects that reduce risks from
disasters and natural hazards; green
infrastructure and restoration projects can be used
to address stormwater pollution and mitigate flood
risk from climate change and sea-level rise
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant -
Transportation
Alternatives SetAside
Federal Highway
Administration
• Annual grants to states on a formula basis
• Provides funding for “transportation alternatives,”
including “offroad trail facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of
transportation” and "environmental mitigation
related to stormwater and habitat connectivity."
Funding could be used to pay for green
infrastructure components of trails and sidewalks
such as permeable pavements
• The Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments used funding in 2015 from the state
of Michigan to fund the Detroit – Inner Circle
Greenway Railroad Acquisition, which included 1)
installation of green infrastructure such as green
streets and bioretention and 2) repurposing of 8.3
miles of abandoned railway near Detroit
USDA Forest
Service Urban &
Community
Forestry
Program
U.S. Forest
Service
• One of the goals is to plant trees in
environmental justice communities, "where
suitable tree installations can provide equitable
access to shade, reduce heat exposure, improve
air quality, and reduce storm water flooding,
solutions should bring together community
members, planners, local and state government
officials, urban foresters and resilience and
sustainability professionals.

Public Works
and Economic
Adjustment
Assistance
programs
U.S. Economic
Development
Administration
• Funding to support development in economically
distressed areas by fostering job creation and
attracting private investment
• Funding has previously been used for
stormwater infrastructure

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *754
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-361
Grant Program Source Description
Sewer Overflow
and Stormwater
Reuse Municipal
Grants Program
U.S. EPA
• $225M allotted (funds available in 2022)
• Funding to support planning, design, and
construction of facilities to intercept, transport,
control, treat, or reuse municipal stormwater,
and any other measures to manage, reduce,
treat, or recapture stormwater
Moreover, loan options with below-market interest rates are available for stormwater projects, as shown in Table F-46. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund can finance a wide variety of stormwater projects, with repayment beginning one year after completion of construction and a maximum repayment period of 30 years. In November 2020, U.S. EPA invited California to apply for $500 million in Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans through the new state infrastructure financing authority WIFIA (SWIFIA) program.430 This would provide additional funds to the State Revolving Fund upon approval. The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, or IBank, offers loans for a wide variety of infrastructure projects under its Infrastructure State Revolving Fund, including water projects, parks, streets, and many other types of infrastructure that can incorporate stormwater BMPs. IBank also supports water conservation and infrastructure projects through its Statewide Energy Efficiency Program.

Furthermore, IBank offers subsidies to borrowers in communities with high unemployment and/or low median household income. Municipalities are also eligible for loans under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 108 Loan Authority. Amounts are available in amounts up to five times a municipality’s Community Development Block Grant, and funded projects can incorporate stormwater infrastructure.

Table F-46. Potential Future State and Federal Loan Sources Loan Program Source Description
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund Program
State Water
Resources Control
Board
• Capable of financing projects from <$1 million
to >$100 million
• No upper limit for eligible project
• Repayment begins 1 year after construction
completion
• Maximum financing term: 30 years
Infrastructure
State Revolving
Fund (ISRF)
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(IBank)
• Financing available in amounts $50,000-
$25,000,000 with loan terms for useful life of
project up to maximum of 30 years
• Subsidies eligible based on unemployment
rate and median household income
• No matching fund requirement
• Funds wide variety of public infrastructure and
economic expansion projects
430 U.S. EPA. 2020, November 18. EPA invites California, Iowa, Rhode Island to Apply for $695 Million in Water Infrastructure Loans. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-invites-california-iowa-rhode-islandapply-695-million-water-infrastructure-loans

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *755
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-362
Loan Program Source Description
Statewide
Energy
Efficiency
Program
(SWEEP)
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(IBank)
• Financing available in amounts $500,000-
$30,000,000
• Funds projects to help meet CA's goals for
greenhouse gas reduction, water conservation,
and environmental preservation
Section 108
Loan Authority
U.S Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
• Amounts available to municipalities in
amounts 5 times the municipalities' allocated
Community Development Block Grant
• For three types of development: economic
development, public facilities, and housing
rehabilitation
• Projects can incorporate green infrastructure
in design and construction. Milwaukee, WI
installed green infrastructure in its
redevelopment of Milwaukee Road Railroad
Shops to manage stormwater on site.

In conclusion, the Los Angeles Water Board recognizes that the costs of compliance with the Order are significant and that many Permittees have limited resources to implement actions to address their MS4 discharges.

However, there are also a number of funding options that Permittees can pursue to assist with compliance. Based on a consideration of the cost of compliance, as discussed above, the Board has structured the permit as flexibly as possible to give Permittees the opportunity to sequence actions to address the highest water quality priorities; options to demonstrate compliance; the ability to customize their control measures; sufficient time to comply (in many cases decades from the time the TMDL was established); opportunities to request time extensions based on economic factors among others; and the ability to collaborate and pool their resources to implement programs and projects to achieve compliance and to also collaborate and pool their resources to monitor their compliance.

4. Environmental and Societal Costs of Not Controlling MS4 Discharges Economic considerations of stormwater and urban runoff management programs tend to focus on costs incurred by municipalities in developing and implementing the programs. This is appropriate, since as discussed above, these costs are significant and present a challenge for Permittees. However, as far back as 2000, the Water Boards recognized that it is also important to consider the costs of water quality impairment; that is, the negative impact of pollution on the economy and the positive impact of improved water quality (see, for example, Order WQ 2000- 11). So, while it is important to consider the cost of compliance, it is also important to consider the costs that would be incurred by not fully regulating or controlling MS4 discharges to receiving waters. Southern California’s local economy thrives on a healthy environment, as does the health of its population. Failure to regulate discharges from the Los Angeles Region’s MS4 will result in greater pollution of the rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, bays, harbors, estuaries, coastal shorelines

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *756
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-363
and wetlands, which makes implementation of the Order vital for the protection of the region’s waterbodies and public health.

By way of example, Southern California’s travel industry and ocean economy plays a vital role in the region’s local economy. In 2016, “47.3 million visitors to L.A.

County spent an all-time high of $21.9 billion in the region.”431 Many of those tourists visit the beaches and on average, over 129 million beach visits occur each year in Southern California.432 A study that looked at beach attendance and bathing rates in Southern California approximated that, depending on the season, 26% to 54% (on average 45%) of the beach attendees have physical contact with the coastal waters.433 Urban runoff in southern California has been found to cause illness in people swimming near storm drains.434, 435 One study of recreational exposures in marine water impacted by MS4 discharges following storm events in San Diego County estimated gastrointestinal illness risks at 1.2 illnesses (based on epidemiological study) and 1.5 illnesses (based on quantitative microbial risk assessment) per 1000 wet weather recreation events (surfing).436 Another study of south Huntington Beach and north Newport Beach found that an illness rate of about 0.8 percent among bathers at those beaches resulted in about $3 million each year in health-related expenses.437 Extrapolation of such numbers to the beaches and other water contact recreation in the region could result in significant expenses to the public and to public health, while improvements in coastal water quality could result in a reduction of gastrointestinal illness locally and a concurrent savings in expenditures on related health care costs.

Likewise, stormwater runoff from MS4 discharges can significantly impact ocean water quality – and this, in turn, affects public health and the economy. The County of Los Angeles Public Health recommends “beach users … avoid contact with ocean water for a period of 3 days after significant rainfall, especially near flowing storm drains, creek and rivers”.438 Rain advisories can have a significant impact on the region’s coastal economy. According to an estimate by Pendleton and Kildow (2006), the non-market value of a beach day is worth between $15-$50, or about $19-63 in 2019 dollars, to the average beach visitor in California.439 These values 431 Easter, Makeda. “California Tourism Industry Grows for the 7th Straight Year, Report Says.” Los Angeles Times, 9 May 2017, https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ca-economic-impact-20170504- story.html
432 Dwight, Ryan H., et al. “Beach Attendance and Bathing Rates for Southern California Beaches.” Ocean & Coastal Management, Elsevier, 27 Apr. 2007,
http://coastalwaterresearch.com/documents/Dwight_2007_Beach_Attendance.pdf 433 Ibid.
434 Haile, R.W., et al. An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. 1996. 435 Soller, J.A., et al. Incidence of gastrointestinal illness following wet weather recreational exposures:

Harmonization of quantitative microbial risk assessment with an epidemiologic investigation of surfers.

Water Research, 2017 Sep 15; 121: p. 280.
436 Ibid.
437 Dwight, Ryan H., et al. “Estimating the economic burden from illnesses associated with recreational coastal water pollution—a case study in Orange County, California.” Journal of Environmental Management. 76.2 (2005): 95-103. 24 August 2011. Web. 20 June 2019. 438 LA County Department of Public Health,
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/eh/water_quality/beach_grades.cfm 439 Pendleton, Linwood and Kildow, Judith. “The Non-Market Value of Beach Recreation in California.” Shore & Beach. 74.2 (2006): 34-37. Spring 2006. Web. 27 April 2020.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *757
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-364
represent how much someone is willing to pay just for enjoying a day at the beach, not including travel and parking costs. Considering the popularity of Southern California beaches, the economic impact of each beach posting/closure day could be significant. Atiyah, et al. (2013) found that beaches in Santa Monica Bay and Malibu that installed storm drain diversions had an average increase in beach attendance of 610,324 visits per year compared to beaches without storm drain diversions, holding all other factors constant.440 As an illustrative example of the potential increase in monetized benefits to beach visitors resulting from installing storm drain diversions, multiplying the value of an average California beach day by the change in attendance yields annual benefits ranging between $11.6 and $38.5 million at the average beach in 2019 dollars. Changes in water quality not only affect benefits for beachgoers, but also for local businesses that depend on sales from beachgoers, as well as municipalities that rely on sales tax revenues.

The average visitor to the beach spent about $30 for each day visit in 2001, or about $43 in 2019 dollars, at local businesses (excluding gas and auto expenditures).441 This would mean that for the average beach with storm drain diversions, nearby businesses receive about $26.2 million in additional annual revenue from beach visitors compared to beaches without storm drain diversions, holding all other factors constant. In addition, beach postings negatively affect local home values, potentially as far as several kilometers away.442 Failure to regulate MS4 discharges will therefore result in great costs and foregone benefits to the regional economy.

5. Benefits of Stormwater Capture and Management
As set forth above, California Water Code section 13241 requires a consideration of economics; it does not require a “cost benefit analysis.” While a rigorous quantitative “cost benefit analysis” is not required and may not be possible, the costs of not controlling MS4 discharges – and the benefits that result from controlling MS4 discharges – are both relevant to the ultimate cost of compliance.

This is because the costs of compliance may be offset by the benefits of stormwater and urban dry weather runoff management, which broadly include improvements in water quality, augmentation of local water supplies, increased economic benefits, enhancement of beneficial uses, and increased employment and income.

Accordingly, a discussion of some of the additional benefits from controlling MS4 discharges is included here.

As an initial matter, it should be noted that there are significant economic benefits (some of which are quantifiable, and some which are not) from stormwater management. A 2004 study conducted by USC/UCLA that assessed the costs and benefits of implementing various approaches for achieving compliance with MS4 permits in the Los Angeles Region found that non-structural systems would provide $7.42B in benefit, adjusted to 2019 dollars. If structural systems were determined to be needed, after adjusting to 2019 dollars, the study found that total benefits 440 Atiyah, Perla, Linwood Pendleton, Ryan Vaughn, and Neil Lessem. “Measuring the effects of stormwater mitigation on beach attendance.” Marine Pollution Bulletin. 72.1 (2013): 87-93. 15 July 2013. Web. 27 April 2020.
441 California Division of Boating and Waterways, January 2002. California Beach Restoration Study. Page 3-7.
442 Kung, Megan, Dennis Guignet, and Patrick Walsh. 2021. “Comparing Pollution Where You Live and Play.” Marine Resource Economics, forthcoming.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *758
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-365
could reach $23.9B.443 Monetized benefits in this study accounted for a number of benefits – reduced need for flood control, increases in property values, additional groundwater supplies, public willingness to pay for avoided stormwater pollution, cleaner streets, improved beach tourism, preservation of ecosystem services in the marine coastal zone, and cost savings from reduction of sedimentation in local harbors. However, recreational and public health uses were not quantified in this study, and much has changed in the Los Angeles Region since 2004, including an increase in population. Therefore, the benefits value is likely higher than $23.9B. a. Recreational and Public Health Benefits
As an example of a portion of recreational and public health benefits that can accrue from implementing the MS4 permit, we can examine the Los Angeles River, on which multiple entities have conducted research as part of revitalization efforts. Improving water quality at the river is crucial in transforming the river into an amenity that would attract residents and visitors, and the Upper LA River EWMP has stated that certain revitalization projects are key candidates for future integration with the EWMP process. Currently only portions of the river are being utilized for recreation. If the entire river could have the same amenities as a park in terms of being a location where people could walk, exercise, enjoy the outdoors, view wildlife, and engage in water recreation, the potential benefits would be significant. There are about 728,000 working adults who live or work within one mile of the Los Angeles River.444 The Trust for Public Land found that about 43% of adults in Los Angeles visited parks, trails, and recreation centers between 2015 and 2016, and that the average frequency of these visits was 1.13 times per week, or 59 times per year. Their analysis found that the average value for each visit was $3.04, adjusted to 2019 dollars.445 Assuming that the same proportion of adults living and working near the river would go to a newly revitalized Los Angeles River for recreation, this would yield annual recreational benefits of $55.9M. Furthermore, the public health benefits would be substantial. The difference in average annual medical care costs between active (those who do moderate to vigorous exercise) and inactive adults ages 18-64 is $1,242 in 2019 dollars446, and 24% of LA residents use parks as their primary place for exercise.447 Although this percentage could potentially increase with the addition of more park space and a revitalized LA River, applying this percentage to the number of adults living and working nearby the LA River 443 Devinny, Joseph S., Sheldon Kamieniecki, and Michael Stenstrom. “Appendix H: Alternative Approaches to Stormwater Control.” NPDES Storm Water Cost Survey Final Report. University of Southern California; University of California at Los Angeles, 2004. Web. 20 June 2019. 444 Henson, Jessica, Mark Hanna, Andrew Dobshinsky, Michael Miller, and Rick Jacobus. 2018, December

3. Memorandum. Los Angeles River Master Plan Update: Demographics, Health, and Social Equity. http://www.larivermasterplan.org/demographics_public_health_and_social_equity 445 The Trust for Public Land. 2017, May. The Economic Benefits of the Public Park and Recreation System in the City of Los Angeles, California.
https://trails.lacounty.gov/Files/Documents/125/CA_LA%20Economic%20Benefits%20Report_LowRes. pdf
446 Ibid.
447 Cohen, Deborah, Bing Han, and Kathryn Pitkin Derose. 2014, March. How Much Do Neighborhood Parks Contribute to Local Residents MVPA in the City of Los Angeles? A Meta-Analysis. Presentation.

Active Living Research Annual Conference. https://www.activelivingresearch.org/how-much-doneighborhood-parks-contribute-local-residents-mvpa-city-los-angeles-meta-analysis

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *759
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-366
yields annual health benefits of $217M. These benefits values represent only a portion of potential total benefits, as the population value only comprises working adults and not children, seniors, or unemployed adults. Further research that includes seniors would likely result in substantial additional public health benefits, as the average annual medical care cost difference between an active and inactive person 65 and over is about $2,490 in 2019 dollars, double the value for adults under 65.448
Installing green infrastructure would also deliver public health benefits by mitigating urban heat island effects, with greater returns on investment for installations located in inland areas lacking tree canopies and green spaces, which also tend to be lower-income and often non-white. 449 In urban areas,
buildings and pavement retain heat, making them hotter than surrounding non-urban areas, known as the urban heat island effect. Climate change will continue to exacerbate urban heat island effects, but they can be mitigated by pursuing urban greening practices. Nature-based solutions that incorporate trees and vegetation can decrease local temperatures, particularly if they are distributed throughout an area. Reduced temperatures during hot weather not only makes it more comfortable for people to recreate outside, but it can also save lives during extreme heat waves. De Guzman et al. (2020) found that relative to the average mortality rate, during an average five-day heat wave in Los Angeles County there are 4.1% more deaths on the first day and 11.9% more deaths on the fifth day.450 Using these results, they found that if Los Angeles County had tree coverage at 40%, as opposed to the baseline of 16%, during a September 2010 dry Santa Ana event there would have been a 29% reduction in mortality, equivalent to saving 23 lives. While the study only modeled mortality, it can reasonably be expected that hospitalizations and health conditions brought on by heat stress would be reduced with lower extreme temperatures as well. In addition to trees, other green infrastructure such as bioswales, rain gardens, and green roofs can also reduce temperatures.451 In metropolitan areas nationwide, neighborhoods with lower median household incomes are associated with less urban tree cover.452 In areas where the federal government historically redlined, current average 448 The Trust for Public Land. 2017, May. The Economic Benefits of the Public Park and Recreation System in the City of Los Angeles, California.
https://trails.lacounty.gov/Files/Documents/125/CA_LA%20Economic%20Benefits%20Report_LowRes. pdf
449 United States Census Bureau. 2019. QuickFacts, Los Angeles County, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/map/losangelescountycalifornia/PST045219 450 De Guzman, Edith, Laurence S. Kalkstein, David Sailor, David Eisenman, Scott Sheridan, Kimberly Kirner, Regan Maas, Kurt Shickman, David Fink, Jonathan Parfrey, Yujuan Chen. 2020. Rx for Hot Cities:

Climate Resilience Through Urban Greening and Cooling in Los Angeles. Tree People. https://www.treepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RX-for-hot-cities-report.pdf 451 Georgetown Climate Center. N.D. Green Infrastructure Strategies and Techniques. https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/toolkits/green-infrastructure-toolkit/green-infrastructurestrategies-and-techniques.html 452 Schwarz, Kirsten, Michail Fragkias, Christopher G. Boone, Weiqi Zhou, Melissa McHale, J. Morgan Grove, Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne, Joseph P. McFadden, Geoffrey L. Buckley, Dan Childers, Laura Ogden, Stephanie Pincetl, Diane Pataki, Ali Whitmer, Mary L. Cadenasso. 2015. Trees Grow On Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0122051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *760
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-367
incomes tend to be lower and temperatures tend to be hotter because of historic disinvestment in these neighborhoods.453
b. Water Supply Cost Savings and Co-Benefits
Stormwater capture is an effective way for Permittees to achieve the goals of the CWA and the requirements of this permit by preventing the stormwater and associated pollutants from reaching receiving waters. Stormwater capture has also become the focus of intense interest in the wake of California’s most recent 2012-2019 drought. The Water Boards have recognized the importance of treating stormwater as a valuable resource where capture and use can result in water supply cost savings, as well as multiple other benefits within a watershed. Among other efforts, the State Water Board’s Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Stormwater (STORMS) seeks to promote stormwater capture and use. STORMS’ recent 2018 report Enhancing Urban Runoff Capture and Use points out that among a variety of benefits, “stormwater capture can also reduce reliance on imported water from distant sources, which reduces inter-basin (or inter-region) transfers and polluted runoff. Stormwater supports the fit-for-purpose water supply concept by satisfying less sensitive water demands, such as certain household, landscaping, and commercial needs, with mildly polluted water. Runoff from roads and driveways can be captured and harvested locally using distributed hybrid systems (for example, bioretention with an underdrain that feeds a cistern used for irrigation) configured to provide non-potable water for human use.” 454
The Order supports investment towards infrastructure for groundwater recharge to create a resilient local water supply. The potential for water usage from stormwater is significant, with Diringer et al. (2020) from Pacific Institute estimating that stormwater capture from paved surfaces and rooftops in urbanized Southern California and the Bay Area could add 420,000-630,000 acre-feet in average annual water supply, or about 6-10% of annual water usage in those areas in 2014.455 According to Porse et al. (2018), Los Angeles County “receives 55-60% of its annual water supplies from imported sources, which include northern California through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the Colorado River Basin, and the higher-altitude Owens Valley.”456 The authors found that even after accounting for full-cycle costs, which include costs for all stages from the capture to end-use of water, stormwater capture can still be cheaper than importing water. Imported water costs around $1,476-$1,790 per acre foot, whereas the cost for existing large stormwater capture is $995 per acre foot. As for proposed new large stormwater capture 453 Hoffman, Jeremy S., Vivek Shandas and Nicholas Pendleton. 2020. The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas. Climate. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/8/1/12/htm
454 State Water Board, April 10, 2018. Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Stormwater: Projects 1a Promote Stormwater Capture and Use and 1b Identify and Eliminate Barriers to Stormwater Capture and Use. Product 1– California State University, Sacramento, Final Report: Enhancing Urban Runoff Capture and Use (pp. 18-19).
455 Diringer et al. “Economic evaluation of stormwater capture and its multiple benefits in California.” PLoS ONE 15(3): e0230549. 24 March 2020. Web. 15 May 2020.
456 Porse, Erik, et al. “The Economic Value of Local Water Supplies in Los Angeles.” Nature Sustainability, Vol. 1, June 2018.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *761
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-368
projects, including converting flood control infrastructure for multipurpose use, agencies in Los Angeles estimated total costs per acre foot ranging from $1,110-$2,727.457 The Southern California Water Coalition examined costs for 32 stormwater projects implemented across Southern California and found an even wider cost per acre foot range of $59 to more than $250,000 per acre foot, with a median of $1,070. They found that projects that can annually capture larger amounts of stormwater have a lower cost per acre-foot, and costs differ by project type. Median costs for distributed projects were $25,000 per acre foot, new centralized projects were $6,900 per acre foot, and retrofit projects were $600 per acre foot.458 Cost ranges from these studies ($59- $250,000/acre foot) are both lower and higher than the imported water cost range ($1,476-$1,790/acre foot), indicating that while stormwater projects costs can be more expensive, in many cases they may not need to be, particularly when agencies can think of creative stormwater solutions.

The Order gives Permittees the flexibility to develop multi-benefit stormwater management projects that will improve water quality while also providing benefits such as recharging of groundwater basins for local water supply and implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) policies and green streets policies. Regulating MS4 discharges would not only lead to water supply cost savings for residents, but also environmental, public health, and recreational benefits resulting from reduced stormwater pollution. Shimabuku et al. (2018) from Pacific Institute emphasizes that effective urban stormwater capture provides an opportunity for addressing multiple benefits including flood control, water quality impairments, improving water supply reliability, providing habitat, reducing urban temperatures, reducing energy use, creating community recreation spaces, and increasing property values.459 Diringer et al. (2020) conducted an analysis of stormwater capture project costs and benefits as they affect the cost of an acre-foot of water. They found that failing to consider the effects of co-benefits results in inflated net project costs. They gathered data from rounds 1 and 2 of Prop 1E and Prop 84 project proposals. Of a total of fifty projects, or 26 addressed urban runoff and 24 dealt with non-urban runoff. Most of the urban runoff projects the researchers considered were in Southern California. The authors found that after accounting for the projects’ benefits, the net levelized cost for urban stormwater capture projects decreased from $1,030 per acre foot to $150 per acre foot, with some projects even yielding net benefits. Monetized benefits considered in their calculation include flood damage reduction, water quality, energy savings, community recreations, public use, property values, habitat value, CO2 equivalents, and avoided costs. Because many projects reported limited benefits categories, the overall net cost per acre foot would likely be even lower than $150 when other co-benefits are considered.

There are a number of projects under development to recharge the region’s basins. One such project was recently completed, the Piru Groundwater Basin 457 Ibid.
458 Southern California Water Coalition. Stormwater Capture: Enhancing Recharge and Direct Use Through Data Collection. April 2018. http://www.socalwater.org/wp-content/uploads/scwc-2018-stormwaterwhitepaper_75220.pdf 459 “Stormwater Capture in California: Innovative Policies and Funding Opportunities,” Morgan Shimabuku, Sarah Diringer, Heather Cooley; Pacific Institute; June 2018; p. 2.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *762
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-369
recharge project, which will capture stormwater from 123 acres in the Ventura County unincorporated area of Piru. This project will result in approximately 25 AFY recharge to the basin.460 The Tujunga Spreading Grounds Enhancement Project is a collaborative project between the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Los Angeles Flood Control District that will enhance the 150-acre Tujunga spreading grounds. This project will double the facility’s recharge capacity and deliver 4 billion gallons of recharge to the groundwater basin and result in an increase in groundwater recharge to the San Fernando Groundwater Basin, increasing local water supply.461 Furthermore, green street projects provide an opportunity for stormwater management to serve multiple benefits such as flood control, groundwater replenishment, pollutant removal, and create aesthetic green spaces for the local community. In the City of Los Angeles, Avalon Green Alley, a green street project, creates “1.8 acres of improved art and alleys and green alleys in a 35 acre neighborhood”.462 The green street project provides “stormwater retrofits in two alley segments including permeable pavers, dry wells and infiltration trenches that harvest rainwater flowing from a 6.04-acre subtributary to the Los Angeles River” and “is designed capture and infiltrate 1,381,608 gallons of stormwater into underground aquifers annually”.463 Similar green street projects have been implemented in Ventura County such as in the Government Center’s parking lot by means of pervious concrete gutters. Continuing such improvements under the MS4 permit would provide benefits from flood control, improved water quality, and cost savings from reduced imported water.
c. Ecosystem Services Benefits
In addition to the foregoing, Permittees and their residents will accrue various other environmental benefits resulting from the Order. For example, the 2018 STORMS report describes a range of benefits of capture and use, suggesting that “designing stormwater infrastructure to directly support ecosystems broadens the traditional approach to stormwater management. In this broader sense, retained stormwater can be put into soil where soil biota, macrophytes, and stream interflow systems improve water quality and ecosystems supported by baseflow or high groundwater. Ecosystem benefits include habitat improvement, increased food sources, carbon sequestration, pollutant uptake, reduced ozone (Nowak 2006), and reduced heat-island effects from plant growth. Improved baseflow results in decreased water temperatures and prolonged dry weather flows, and increased amounts and types of soil biota will aid in carbon sequestration and pollutant uptake (Klaus 2015). Local stormwater capture can also lead to energy-saving schemes that (1) capture water before it becomes contaminated with the pollutants on streets and in sewers; (2) rely on energy efficient processes for removing contaminants; (3) treat water only to the extent necessary for intended use (fit-for-purpose 460 Ventura County Storm Water Capture for Groundwater Recharge - Construction Project, http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Project.aspx?ProjectPK=19812&PropositionPK=48 461 Stormwater Engineering Division: Tujunga Spreading Grounds Enhancement Project, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/TujungaSG/index.cfm 462 “Avalon Green Alley Network Project.” Parkology,
https://www.parkology.org/ParkViewParkStory?cas=a0w46000000RyejAAC&showHeader=true 463 Ibid.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *763
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-370
water); and (4) obviate the need for diversion and large, centralized, energyintensive treatment and distribution approaches.” 464 d. Other Benefit Considerations
The Pacific Institute and the University of Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science and Management elsewhere framed the topic of moving towards multiple benefit approaches for water management. The organizations plan to develop a systematic framework for identifying and incorporating the costs and benefits of water management strategies into decision making. They find a broader consideration of benefits associated with water management decisions will achieve broader project support, avoid unintended consequences, optimize resources, and cost sharing, and increase transparency. 465
Such a framework would support a more robust consideration of potential economic benefits of stormwater management projects not considered in the Board’s economic analysis, such as:
• Reduced frequency, area, and impact of flooding - Stormwater capture BMPs that reduce runoff volumes and consequently flood volumes. The decrease in potential damage due to flooding provides economic benefit. • Reduced cost of public infrastructure - On-site volume control with stormwater BMPs can downsize or eliminate stormwater conveyance infrastructure and provide public cost savings.
• Reduced pollution and water treatment costs and improved water quality - The reduction in runoff volume reduces erosion and pollutant delivery, thereby reducing the downstream costs of water treatment. The resulting improvements in water quality, stream channel stabilization, and aesthetics can also increase the value of riparian properties and increase utility of recreational visitors. The increased infiltration gained from stormwater BMPs can improve and sustain stream base flow conditions in some areas to better maintain downstream habitat. 466
• Increased property values where green infrastructure and LID projects are implemented.

Other studies, too, have described the importance of co-benefits derived from proper stormwater management. For example, analysis for the San Diego Region Bacteria TMDLs found the contribution of co-benefits (non-bacteria water quality benefits) such as property value, riparian habitat and treatment of other water pollutants provide more than half of the total economic benefits.467 In a series of studies listed in a report created by the U.S. EPA in 2013, the benefit-to-cost ratios of four LID/GI projects in Sun Valley were listed. All four projects showed a benefit-to-cost ratio of greater than 1 464 State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, “Enhancing Urban Runoff Capture and Use,” STORMS Projects 1a and 1b, April 10, 2017.
465 “Executive Summary: Moving Toward a Multi-Benefit Approach for Water Management,” Pacific Institute; and Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, April 2019, pp. II-III.
466 WERF, 2010. Using Rainwater to Grow Livable Communities. Web. 20 June 2019. 467 Cost Benefit Analysis Steering Committee. Cost-Benefit Analysis San Diego Region Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads. October 2017, p. 6. Web. 20 June 2019.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *764
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-371
indicating that, over the 50-year evaluation period, the benefits of these projects are higher than their cost.468
The Los Angeles Water Board assumes many of the benefits described in this section accrue to Permittees and their communities as a result of implementing their stormwater programs. The Board expects further program improvements, resulting from implementation of actions required by the Order, to increase benefits over time.

For example, the Order promotes:
• Employment and stimulus in the local economy, which are especially crucial during this recession caused by COVID-19. Economic Roundtable conducted a study in 2011 that found that job stimulus for every $1 million invested in water efficiency projects was greater than traditional Los Angeles industries such as motion picture production and new home construction. The study found that 12.6 to 16.6 annualized jobs in recycled water, groundwater, stormwater, graywater systems, and water conservation projects were created for every $1 million invested in these types of projects. The study also showed that approximately 74% of money invested in stormwater projects at the time of the study was spent locally, on businesses located within Los Angeles County. Furthermore, every million dollars invested in stormwater projects in Los Angeles stimulated an estimated $1.99 million in total local sales due to multiplier effects of investing in the local economy. For example, cities pay people to work on stormwater projects, who then spend their incomes on housing, goods, and services.469 Building on the findings by Economic Roundtable, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy estimated that over 30 years, the Safe, Clean Water Program (Measure W) will create about 6,530 construction jobs and 1,347 O&M jobs, as well as about 1,559 annual indirect and induced jobs. This would yield about $14B in overall regional economic benefits from $9B in investment. Furthermore, many of these jobs created would be good-paying jobs that do not require an advanced degree, accessible to those in disadvantaged communities.470 Sustained increases in these occupations depend on Los Angeles’ continued investment in water use efficiency projects.
• Use of nature-based solutions to mitigate and treat stormwater (e.g. implementation LID and GI regional projects). This technique alleviates the load on the existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure and reduces potential maintenance costs, while reducing localized flooding issues. • Utilization of stormwater as a valuable resource to replenish our groundwater basins or for direct reuse. Imported water makes up approximately 70 to 75% of Southern California region’s water supply, with local groundwater, local surface water, and reclaimed water making up the remaining 25 to 30%. The State of California Department of Finance projects that from 2020 to 2025, the population of Los Angeles County and 468 U.S. EPA, Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs, EPA 841-R-13-004, August 2013. 469 Burns, Patrick and Flaming, Daniel. Water Use Efficiency and Jobs. Economic Roundtable. December 2011.
470 Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE). Liquid Assets. How Stormwater Infrastructure Builds Resilience, Health, Jobs, and Equity. March 2018.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *765
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-372
Ventura County will increase by 2% and 2.6%, respectively. This population increase will be accompanied by an increase in water consumption. This increase will require larger volumes of imported water, which will be associated with higher costs. With stormwater used as a resource to replenish local groundwater basins, local reliance on imported water can be reduced, thereby controlling the costs incurred from importing water. A report prepared by the City of Signal Hill and Richard Watson & Associates states that the Metropolitan Water District forecasts water rates (Tier 1 rates for fully treated water) to increase from $794/acrefoot ($/AF) in 2012 to $910/AF in 2015 and $1,115 in 2020.

6. Conclusions
The Los Angeles Water Board has considered economics in issuing the Order and the specific requirements therein.

This consideration includes estimates of the possible range of costs of compliance with the Order, including the WQBELs, considering the likely and proposed means of compliance. It also includes the costs to the environment and society of not controlling MS4 discharges as well as the economic benefits of controlling MS4 discharges, including through stormwater capture. The range of costs of compliance as presented in Part XIII.D.2, Table F-38 and Table F-39 is $21.3B to $31.4B over 20 years. Even considering the highest cost in this range, the Board finds that the requirements in the Order are necessary to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses. This is because these cost estimates are associated with implementation of permit requirements to achieve water quality objectives that were set at the levels necessary to provide reasonable protection of beneficial uses. These water quality objectives were either established by the U.S. EPA or approved by the U.S. EPA pursuant to CWA section 303(c). In most cases, the water quality objectives are those necessary to protect aquatic life and public health-related beneficial uses. The fundamental objective of the federal CWA, as set forth in section 101(a)(2), is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and to achieve water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water. The NPDES Program, including the MS4 NPDES Program, is one of the principal regulatory tools for achieving this objective. The requirements in the Order also consider the magnitude and uncertainty in projected costs and include provisions to help defray these costs (e.g., allowances for time extensions).

Because of the difficulty in accurately projecting the cost of compliance with the Order as presented in the discussion above, and given that permit requirements extend decades into the future, the Los Angeles Water Board has incorporated provisions for adaptive management of programs as new information is gained as well as provisions that allow Permittees to request extensions for milestones based on technical, operational, and economic factors. The Los Angeles Water Board has also acknowledged that it can consider revisions to TMDLs including their schedules and final deadlines, where it determines it is appropriate, and then reflect those changes in the permit. Finally, the Board has acknowledged the currently available dedicated sources of funding for MS4 permit compliance, including the Benefit Assessment Program in Ventura County and the Safe, Clean Water Program in Los Angeles County, among others, and that it will consider how these

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *766
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-373
funds are allocated to priority projects to meet upcoming deadlines when considering any requests for extensions.

The Los Angeles Water Board has also provided the Permittees significant flexibility to choose how to implement the Order. The Order allows the Permittees the flexibility to address critical water quality priorities, namely discharges to waters subject to TMDLs, but aims to do so in a focused and cost-effective manner while maintaining the level of water quality protection mandated by the Clean Water Act.

The Permittees can customize their control measures and choose to implement the least expensive measures that are effective in meeting the requirements of the Order. The Order also does not require the Permittee to fully implement all requirements within a single permit term. Where appropriate, the Board has provided Permittee with additional time outside of the permit term to implement control measures to achieve final WQBELs and Receiving Water Limitations.

Cost savings from customizing programs and shifting resources accordingly are also possible. The Permittees’ affirmative steps to secure funding are noteworthy, and some other potential sources of funding are identified in the Board’s economic considerations. However, the discussion of potential sources of funding is far from exhaustive. There are myriad opportunities to leverage funding; for example, Permittees could pursue low-interest loans through the State Revolving Fund that would allow access to greater sums of money needed in the near term for capital costs and pay these off over time with the ongoing revenues from dedicated funding sources. Additionally, there are a number of interrelated Propositions, including Measures W471, H472, A and M473 (“WHAM”), addressing stormwater/water resiliency, affordable housing, parks, and transportation, respectively, that can be creatively combined to implement multi-benefit stormwater projects. Finally, partnerships beyond the Permittees themselves should be more fully explored.

Some Permittees have effectively tapped into funding or other in-kind resources from the California Department of Transportation, as mentioned above; private entities such as commercial businesses; and schools. However, this opportunity is far from fully utilized.

Stormwater capture is an effective way for Permittees to achieve the goals of the CWA and the requirements of this permit by preventing the stormwater and associated pollutants from reaching receiving waters. As noted above, the specific benefits of stormwater capture have also become the focus of intense interest in the wake of California’s most recent 2012-2019 drought. The Water Boards have recognized the importance of treating stormwater as a valuable resource where capture and use can result in multiple benefits within a watershed. This consideration identifies benefits to the environment, people and the economy and clearly demonstrates the value of effective management of stormwater quality. 471 Measure W led to the passage of the Safe Clean Water Program, described earlier in this section of the Fact Sheet.
472 Measure H History. https://homeless.lacounty.gov/history/. N.D. Web. July 16, 2020. Measure H was expected to generate about $355M (in 2017 dollars) annually for 10 years to provide homeless services, including increasing affordable/homeless housing.
473 Measure M: The Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan Information Guide. August 2016. https://theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/factsheet_measurem.pdf. Web. July 13, 2020.

Measure M was expected to generate an estimated $860M annually (in 2017 dollars). It was also anticipated to add 465,690 new jobs across the region. One of the goals of Measure M is to reduce pollution.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *767
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-374
Having considered economics along with the other factors in section 13241, the Los Angeles Water Board has also provided the Permittees with time to implement control measures to achieve interim and final WQBELs and Receiving Water Limitations. This time has been provided in various ways, including through compliance schedules that are consistent with the schedules of implementation established in TMDLs pursuant to California Water Code section 13242, compliance schedules proposed by Permittees and approved by the Los Angeles Water Board through Watershed Management Programs and Enhanced Watershed Management Programs for pollutants not addressed by TMDLs, and time schedule orders, where justified, for WQBELs and Receiving Water Limitations with final compliance deadlines that have passed. The Los Angeles Water Board is committed to continue to evaluate the costs of compliance as permit requirements are implemented and, as noted above, has included provisions that allow Permittees to request extension of deadlines, where warranted.

E. The Need for Developing Housing Within the Region
According to the U.S. Census, between April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018, Los Angeles County and Ventura County experienced an estimated population increase of 2.9% and

3.3%, respectively.474 An increase in population creates a demand for more housing.

Based on data from the California Department of Finance, both Los Angeles and Ventura counties have been experiencing an increase in population and housing units since 2010.475 An increase in population creates a higher demand for water, exacerbates usage of natural resources, and increases generation of waste and pollution. In order to conserve and protect the quantity and quality of our natural resources, development must be done systematically. To protect human health and the environment, create economic opportunities, and provide attractive and affordable neighborhoods, U.S. EPA encourages smart growth and low impact development.476 Stormwater management is an essential smart growth strategy. According to U.S. EPA, using smart growth and low impact development strategies, communities and developers can reduce runoff quantity, protect water quality, and conserve water by developing compactly, preserving ecologically critical open space, and using green infrastructure strategies.477
Improved stormwater management may also help reduce the region’s historic reliance on imported water to meet population needs. For over 100 years, this region has relied on imported water to meet many of our water resource needs. Imported water makes up approximately 70 to 75% of the Southern California region’s water supply, with local ground water, local surface water, and reclaimed water making up the remaining 25 to 474 United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/venturacountycalifornia,losangelescountycalifornia/PST04 5218
475 State of California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 1, 2019. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ 476 According to U.S. EPA, “‘[s]mart growth’ covers a range of development and conservation strategies that help protect our health and natural environment and make our communities more attractive, economically stronger, and more socially diverse.” Principles of smart growth include, but are not limited to, use of compact building design, creating a range of housing opportunities and choices, and preserving open space and critical environmental areas. United States Environmental Protection Agency. About Smart Growth. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about-smart-growth. Accessed on June 23, 2020. 477 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Smart Growth and Water. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-water

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *768
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-375
30%.478 The Los Angeles Region imports approximately 50% of its water supply.

Untreated MS4 discharges collect and transport pollution to our waterbodies and detrimentally affect their beneficial uses. However, when properly managed, MS4 discharges can be used as a resource.

The Order also helps address the water needs associated with the need for housing by controlling the quality and quantity of MS4 discharges and using it as a water resource for recycling and re-use. The low impact development (LID) requirements of the Order emphasize the necessity to balance growth with the protection of water quality. LID emphasizes cost effective, lot-level strategies that replicate the natural hydrology of the site and reduce the negative impacts of development. By avoiding the installation of more costly conventional stormwater management strategies and harnessing runoff at the source, LID practices enhance the environment while providing cost savings to both developers and local governments.

The Order also supports an integrated water resources approach that manages water resources by integrating wastewater, non-stormwater, stormwater, recycled water, and potable water planning through the capture and beneficial use of MS4 discharges on a regional scale. An integrated approach can preserve and augment local groundwater resources thereby reducing imported water needs and increasing local water resiliency.

Local water resiliency increases the region’s capacity to support increases in population and the accompanying need for housing.

F. The Need to Develop and Use Recycled Water
During the terms of the 2012 Los Angeles County, 2014 City of Long Beach, and 2010 Ventura County MS4 permits, California experienced a severe drought which lasted 376 weeks, starting from the year 2011 to 2019. The U.S. Drought Monitor characterizes the drought based on specific criteria where D4 is defined as exceptional drought, in which widespread crop and pasture losses and shortages of water create water emergencies.

Per the U.S. Drought Monitor, “[t]he most intense period of drought occurred the week of July 29, 2014 where D4 affected 58.1% of California land.” 479 Along with the drought, Los Angeles and Ventura counties experienced wildfires, floods, extreme heat and more, which strained the region’s resources and highlighted infrastructure inefficiencies.

In contrast to the drought, the 2019 water year had above average rainfalls and in some cases even breaking daily rainfall records.480 Due to climate change, the region will only continue to experience more extreme weather events.

Furthermore, as mentioned in Part XIII.E above, which considers the need for developing housing within the region, according to the U.S. Census, between April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018, the populations in Los Angeles County and Ventura County rose by 2.9% and 3.3%, respectively. This increase in population leads to an increase demand for water supply to meet the needs of the residents. Most of the water supplied to Los Angeles County is imported from the State Water Project, Colorado River, and 478 Southern California Association of Governments. The State of the Region 2007 Measuring Regional Progress (Housing, Environment). December 6, 2007. http://www.scag.ca.gov/publications/index.htm. 479 “Drought in California.” California | Drought.gov, 20 Sept. 2019, www.drought.gov/drought/states/california.
480 Fry, Hannah, and Gary Robbins. “Parts of Southern California Haven't Seen This Much Rain in Decades.

And More Is on the Way.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 15 Feb. 2019, https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rain-explainer-california-storms%2020190215-story.html.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *769
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-376
the Los Angeles Aqueduct.481 Ventura County relies on local groundwater as well as imported water.482 The interconnected effects of water quality and the health of our communities is also becoming increasingly apparent. Water shortages and the pumping of groundwater at a rate that depletes groundwater supply further demonstrates the need to develop a robust strategy that incorporates recycled water to build resiliency to the region’s most pressing issues, while being protective of public health and the environment.

Initiatives for water resiliency have passed at the state and local levels. At the state level, in April 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, which outlined actions needed to respond to the severe drought, including mandated reductions in urban potable water usage by 25% statewide. In April 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-10-19, ordering key agencies, including the California Environmental Protection Agency, to prepare a water resilience portfolio that meets the needs of California’s communities, economy, and environment through the 21st century.483 The draft portfolio includes a number of recommendations related to making stormwater capture a growing share of local water supply.484 At the local level, the City of Los Angeles developed L.A.’s Green New Deal, which includes plans to recycle 100% of its wastewater by 2035 as well as source 70% of all water locally by 2035 and capture 150,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of stormwater.485 In Ventura County, the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan was developed in 2014, in which the Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County is responsible for the implementation and planning at a regional level. Through this planning effort, Ventura County has leveraged its resources through collaborations with local agencies and organizations, and grant funding in order to implement multi-benefit projects.486 Along with government recognizing the water challenges the region is facing, residents also recognize the need to develop recycled water infrastructure and the importance of water resiliency with the passing of Measure W in Los Angeles County, which provides a dedicated funding source for multi-benefit stormwater capture projects through a parcel tax on impermeable areas.487 Historically, stormwater has not been considered a viable component of the regional water portfolio. However, if stormwater is captured and treated, a new resource could be added to local water supply and numerous benefits could be achieved. These include:
• Regional reduction in reliance on imported water;
• Aid in the restoration of area aquifers both from a supply and water quality point of view;
• Reduction in the need for extensive public works projects; and 481 The Future of Integrated Regional Water Management in Los Angeles County. http://www.resources.ca.gov/docs/LA_County.pdf.
482 Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. http://wcvc.ventura.org/IRWMP/2019IRWMP.htm.
483 Executive Department State of California Executive Order N-10-19. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/4.29.19-EO-N-10-19-Attested.pdf. 484 California Natural Resources Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Food & Agriculture. 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio. Draft. January 3, 2020. 485 L.A.’s Green New Deal Sustainable Plan 2019.
http://plan.lamayor.org/sites/default/files/pLAn_2019_final.pdf. 486 Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. http://wcvc.ventura.org/IRWMP/2019IRWMP.htm.
487 Safe Clean Water Program. https://safecleanwaterla.org/.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *770
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-377
• Improvement in the quality of impaired water bodies.

Municipalities across the region are now acknowledging the importance of recognizing stormwater as a resource and thus conducting watershed-based planning to implement multi-benefit solutions for stormwater management. Consistent with the Clean Water Act, which supports the implementation of stormwater management at a watershed scale, the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit contained provisions to allow for the abovementioned benefits to be achieved through the implementation of approved Watershed Management Programs. The Order further expands such provisions to Permittees in Ventura County. Watershed Management Programs allow Permittees the flexibility to implement requirements of the Order on a watershed scale through customized strategies, control measures, and BMPs to achieve multi-benefit solutions. Participation in a Watershed Management Program is voluntary and allows the Permittee to address the highest water quality priorities in consideration of particular socio-economic, land use, and geographic characteristics.

In addition, participation in Watershed Management Programs allows Permittees to consider the potential amount of dry weather urban runoff and precipitation and thus the amount of non-stormwater and stormwater available to capture. The exact volume of stormwater available for capture is dependent on the intensity and duration of storm events. Looking at land uses across the region and applying land use-specific runoff coefficients, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council estimates that, on average, about 601,000 acre-feet/year of runoff are discharged from the Los Angeles Region to the Pacific Ocean.488 The average annual rainfall in Ventura County is about 18 inches and has a total area of 1,843 square miles.489 It is not possible to capture all MS4 discharges; however, a significant portion could be captured and put to beneficial use. Capturing stormwater from a larger portion of the watershed could increase the volume of this “new” water even further.

Larger projects (and the corresponding savings) are also possible. The County of Los Angeles recharges stormwater already. While the scale of these recharge activities is limited compared to the volume of water potentially available to recharge, the value of the process is significant. For example, in 2000 “County conservation efforts captured 220,000 acre-feet of local stormwater runoff that was valued at $80 million dollars.”490 The unknown effects of infiltrating stormwater to recharge groundwater have created some concern that such activities could introduce pollutants to the water supply.

However, these concerns are likely overstated. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has found:
491
488 Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council (2010) Water Augmentation Study: Research, Strategy, and Implementation Report, January 30,
2010.https://www.usbr.gov/lc/socal/reports/LASGwtraugmentation/report.pdf. Accessed on June 23, 2020.
489 Report of Waste Discharge, Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, January 2015.
490 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 2008. 2008 Draft General Plan-Planning Tomorrow’s Great Places.
491 Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Watershed Council. 2010. Water Augmentation Study: Research, Strategy, and Implementation Report.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/socal/reports/LASGwtraugmentation/report.pdf. Accessed on June 23, 2020.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *771
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-378
Based on the findings of the WAS research, decentralized stormwater management would provide a local and reliable supply of water that would not negatively impact groundwater quality. A decentralized approach could contribute up to 384,000 acre-feet of additional groundwater recharge annually if the first ¾” of each storm is infiltrated on all parcels, enough to provide water annually to approximately 1.5 million people. The value of this new water supply would be approximately $311 million, using the MWD Tier 2 rate for 2010.

Recent studies in the urbanized area of Los Angeles County have also shown that in the process of infiltration through the soil, many contaminants are removed with no immediate impacts, and no apparent trends to indicate that stormwater infiltration will negatively impact groundwater.492 Moreover, in groundwater basins with elevated concentrations of salts, utilizing recycled stormwater, which has low concentrations of salts, to recharge the aquifers may actually improve water quality. The value of this is difficult to quantify but is an additional benefit.

The Order addresses the need for recycled water by emphasizing stormwater capture for beneficial use as a means to control the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to surface waters. The Order also supports the diversion of non-stormwater to wastewater reclamation facilities where it can be treated for beneficial reuse. State law and policy advocates greatly expanding the use of recycled water to help meet local demand and reduce the volumes of water that are imported from other regions. Increased utilization of recycled water will require looking beyond the traditional reclaimed wastewater and will require utilizing stormwater and non-stormwater that is wasted by conveyance in the MS4 to the ocean. Stormwater capture and use has not featured as prominently as municipal wastewater in the discussion of water recycling but is increasingly acknowledged as a valuable asset for augmenting local water supply. The use of recycled water can be accomplished in direct (such as irrigation projects) or indirect (such as infiltration) ways. Both direct and indirect methods can be completed on a variety of different scales. To maximize the benefits available from using recycled water, the direct and indirect projects will need to be completed on household, neighborhood, watershed, and regional scales. There is a growing number of projects in the region that can serve as examples of what may be accomplished through the development and implementation of recycled water projects.

Some successful examples of onsite stormwater capture are being demonstrated by TreePeople.493 TreePeople’s demonstration projects range from small scale rainwater harvesting at single family home locations, to large scale watershed projects. At Tuxedo Green in Sun Valley, TreePeople redesigned the intersection with a flood control system that conveys most stormwater under, instead of into, the busy intersection. The water is stored in a 45,000-gallon cistern to be used for irrigating the landscaping at the new pocket park, which is planted with native and drought-tolerant species.

Another state of the art project was implemented by the City of Santa Monica called the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF).494 The project harnesses the urban runoff (primarily during the dry season) and treats it for various pollutants to create a source of high quality water for reuse in landscape irrigation, thus reducing the need 492 Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Watershed Council. 2005. Los Angeles Basin Water Augmentation Study Phase II Final Report.
493 http://www.treepeople.org/.
494http://c0133251.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Case%20Study%20%20Santa%20Monica%20Urb an%20Runoff%20Recycling%20Facility%20SMURFF.pdf.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *772
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-379
for potable water. Because the facility captures the dry weather runoff before it reaches the Santa Monica Bay, it decreases a significant amount of pollutants from negatively impacting the Bay and associated beaches. The SMURRF is also open to the public and has several exhibits to raise public awareness of Santa Monica Bay pollution and the role of each individual in the watershed’s health.

The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division has targeted the Sun Valley Watershed “…to solve the local flooding problem while retaining all stormwater runoff from the watershed, increasing water conservation, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and reducing stormwater pollution.”495 This aggressive plan involves several stakeholders and has implemented a variety of on-site BMPs as well as stormwater infiltration retrofits and diversions.

In Ventura County, the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program has implemented various stormwater quality improvement projects and BMPs. In the City of Moorpark, College View Dog Park diverts all stormwater to infiltration basins and can retain 100% of the water during average rainfall periods. Walnut Acres Park has both on-site and off-site infiltration capability. The City of Ventura implemented downtown parking lot retrofits including curb cuts, bioswales, and permeable pavers and have applied similar features for green street projects.496 A notable green street project was implemented at the Ventura County Government Center. This project implemented an innovative infiltration system through the installation of 4,805 linear feet of pervious concrete gutters to capture stormwater from the Government Center’s parking lot. The captured stormwater is filtered through an infiltration trench that flows into dry wells for groundwater recharge. Furthermore, in the Ventura River Watershed, Happy Valley Bioswale was designed to mimic natural processes to remove pollutants in stormwater runoff. This filtration system includes a baffle box at the entrance which removes trash, sediments, and small particles and is followed by a natural soil and plant filtration system to further treat the stormwater and allows for a thriving habitat.497 With the issuance of the Order, stormwater capture projects such as the abovementioned will allow for further expansion on a watershed scale and create consistency within the region.

In addition, there are a number of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established by the Los Angeles Water Board that incorporate recycled water programs as potential implementation actions to meet TMDL requirements. These potential actions focus on both traditional water recycling and the newer stormwater recycling approaches. Such recycled water programs reduce reliance on potable water supplies by expanding water recycling and aiding in the reclamation of poor quality, unconfined groundwater supplies. The capture, treatment and use of stormwater could augment these techniques as well. On-site capture of stormwater helps prevent the water from being contaminated by urban by-products to begin with and the use of this high-quality resource could reduce the unnecessary use of potable water for non-potable needs. 495 http://www.sunvalleywatershed.org/watershed_management_plan/wmp-0ES.pdf. 496 Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, Presented on September 13, 2018 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/watershed_ management/workshops/docs/VCWPD_20180913_RB_PermitRenewal_FINAL-1.pdf. 497 Happy Valley Bioswale, uninc.vcstormwater.org/projects/happy-valley-bioswale.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *773
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-380
XIV. STATE MANDATES
Article XIII B, section 6(a) of the California Constitution provides that whenever “any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service.” No provision of the Order constitutes an unfunded state mandate subject to subvention under Article XIII B, section (6)(a) of the California Constitution.

A. Renewal of the Permits Is Not a New Program Or Higher Level of Service As a threshold matter, MS4 permitting is not a “program” as that term is used in Article XIII B, section (6). The California Supreme Court has defined a “program” for purposes of Article XIII B, section 6, as: (1) programs that carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or (2) laws which, to implement a state policy, impose unique requirements on local governments and do not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859, 874 (reaffirming the test set forth in County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 56); Lucia Mar Unified School District v. Honig (1988) 44 Cal.3d 830, 835.)
An NPDES permit for MS4 discharges arises from the Clean Water Act, which forbids everyone – individuals, businesses, state governments, tribal governments, local governments, etc. – from discharging pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States without an NPDES permit. (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 402, 502(5); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.21, 122.22, 123.25.) The Clean Water Act requires permitting of private and governmental (federal, state, and local) sources of stormwater and nonstormwater alike. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26.) The Permittees here must have a permit because they discharge pollutants, not because they operate an MS4.

See, County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 58 ([“Although local agencies must provide benefits to their employees either through insurance or direct payment, they are indistinguishable in this respect from private employers. In no sense can employers, public or private, be considered to be administrators of a program . . . .”].) All polluters, whether private or public, must get a permit. (See, e.g., City of Richmond v. Com. on State Mandates, (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1199 (new law made “the workers’ compensation death benefit requirements as applicable to local governments as they are to private employers,” and therefore did not impose a new program or higher level of service.)
To be sure, the permit conditions provide a public benefit, but that is not the same thing as providing services to the public. There is a critical distinction between a law or executive order that requires local governments to provide a public service, and one that address the conduct and happens to cover local governments – and other entities such as private industry – because they engage in the conduct. This principle is best illustrated by County of Los Angeles v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1538. There, the Department of Industrial Relations enacted statewide safety regulations that governed all public and private elevators. (Id., at pp. 1540–1541.) The county argued that the regulations created a mandatory, reimbursable “program” because “all passenger elevators in all county buildings are necessary for the performance of peculiarly governmental functions . . . .” (Id., at pp. 1545–1546, italics omitted.) Rejecting that argument, the court explained that “the critical question is whether the mandated program carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, not whether the elevators can be used to obtain these services.”

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *774
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-381
(Id., at p. 1546, italics omitted.) In other words, a state law providing that local governments have to comply with the same safety rules as everyone else does not constitute a state mandated “program.” The same is true here. The Permit does not require Permittees to operate an MS4. Rather, it implements a body of state law that provides that, if a local government operates an MS4, it must take steps to mitigate pollutant discharges, like all other polluters. The fact that the specific permit here is issued to local governments does not render the permit a program that carries out a “governmental function” particular to local government or a permit that imposes unique requirements on the local governments.

Even if an MS4 permit could be considered a “program,” the requirements of the Order do not constitute a new program or a higher level of service as compared to the requirements contained in the previous permits issued by the Los Angeles Water Board to the Permittees. The overarching requirement to impose controls to reduce the pollutants in discharges from MS4s is dictated by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)) and is not new to this permit cycle. The inclusion of new and advanced measures as the MS4 programs evolve and mature over time is specifically anticipated under the Clean Water Act (55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48052 (Nov. 16, 1990); 61 Fed. Reg. 43761 (Aug. 26, 1996); USEPA “Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits,” EPA 833-D-96-001 (September 1996)) because the experience gained in implementation of existing permits and ongoing technological developments help direct appropriate adaptation of the programs to better address pollution. Such new and advanced measures refine existing measures to improve the effectiveness of the ongoing program and do not constitute a new program or higher level of service. And while the new or advanced measures may result in additional costs to the Permittees, resulting new costs is not the test for a higher level of service. “If the Legislature had intended to continue to equate ‘increased level of service’ with ‘additional costs,’ then the provision would be circular: ‘costs mandated by the state’ are defined as ‘increased costs’ due to ‘an increased level of service,’ which, in turn would be defined as ‘additional costs.’” (County of Los Angeles v. Com. on State Mandates (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1191, quoting Workers’ Compensation Mandates Decision, supra, 43 Cal.3d. at p. 55.)
B. The Permit Requirements Fall Under Several Exceptions to Mandates Rules Even if some of the requirements imposed on the Permittees with this renewal could be considered a new program or higher level of service, the following exceptions to a finding of unfunded mandates preclude subvention here:

1. The permit provisions are required by the federal Clean Water Act and implementing regulations:

One of the exceptions to the subvention requirements is that, if the mandate imposes a requirement that is mandated by a federal law or regulation and results in costs mandated by the federal government, no subvention is required unless the statute or executive order mandates costs that exceed the mandate in that federal law or regulation. (Gov. Code, § 17556(c).) The Order implements federally mandated requirements under the federal Clean Water Act and implementing regulations and its requirements are therefore not subject to subvention of funds.

This includes federal requirements to: (i) effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters; (ii) reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable; (iii) include such other provisions as the permitting authority (here, the Los Angeles Water Board)

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *775
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-382
determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants; (iv) attain applicable TMDL wasteload allocations; and (v) conduct monitoring and reporting.

Non-stormwater discharge prohibition: Federal law requires that an MS4 permit effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(ii).) The Order’s requirements to achieve the effective prohibition of non-stormwater discharges are thus compelled by federal law.

TMDL requirements: The Clean Water Act requires TMDLs to be established for waterbodies that do not meet federal water quality standards. (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).) The Clean Water Act also requires that MS4 permits include “such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of [] pollutants.” (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii).) U.S. EPA interprets this provision to mandate “controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and where necessary water quality-based controls.”498 Once U.S. EPA or a state establishes a TMDL, federal law requires that NPDES permits must contain water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any applicable wasteload allocation. (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).) Indeed, TMDLs are developed for the purpose of specifying requirements for the achievement of water quality standards in impaired waters (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d); 40 C.F.R. § 130.7) The Order’s requirements for attainment of TMDL wasteload allocations are therefore compelled by federal law.

Several generations of the MS4 permits issued in California have prohibited discharges that cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in the receiving water. TMDL provisions, including WQBELs, simply add a process for meeting this requirement, generally based on a compliance schedule.

Monitoring and reporting requirements: Federal law requires that NPDES permits incorporate monitoring and reporting provisions. (33 U.S.C. §§ 1318(a); 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(d)(2)(i)(F); 122.41(h), (j)-(l); 122.42(c); 122.44(i); 122.48.) The Order’s monitoring and reporting requirements are thus imposed pursuant to federal law.

Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standard: The Clean Water Act mandates that the Order “require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii).) Department of Finance v.

Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, as modified on denial of rehearing (Nov. 16, 2016) (Department of Finance) analyzed whether the Clean Water Act’s MEP standard required four particular provisions concerning trash receptacles and inspections in the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 permit. In concluding that the provisions were not required by federal law, the Supreme Court stated that, “[h]ad the Regional Board found when imposing the disputed permit conditions, that those conditions were the only means by which the maximum extent practicable standard could be implemented, deference to the board’s expertise in reaching that finding would be appropriate.” (Department of Finance, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 768.) The Supreme Court further stated that “[s]uch findings 498 Phase I Stormwater Regulations, Final Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47994 (Nov. 16, 1990) (emphasis added); see also Building Industry Ass’n of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 882-887; Phase II Stormwater Regulations, Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68737.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *776
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-383
are “case specific, based among other things on factual circumstances.” (Id., fn.

15.)
To be entitled to deference, regional water boards must make an express finding that the particular set of permit conditions finally embodied in a given permit is required to meet that federal standard and must support that finding with evidence.

The Los Angeles Water Board expressly finds that the Order specifies requirements necessary for the Permittees to reduce the discharge of pollutants in MS4 discharges to the MEP. Parts IV and VIII establish program requirements for Stormwater Management Program Minimum Control Measures, including programs for public information and participation, industrial and commercial facilities, construction activities, planning and land development, public agency activities, and illicit discharge detection and elimination, among others pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2)(iv). The requirements of these programs represent structural and non-structural water quality control measures that are effective, technically feasible, and generally accepted as appropriate.

Part IX establishes elective program requirements related to Watershed Management Programs (WMP), which provide an alternative compliance path through the preparation of a WMP that allows the Permittees to prioritize water quality issues and propose the specific control measures to address the prioritized issues and achieve the receiving water limitations and numeric WQBELs in accordance with a time schedule. This allowance also provides Permittees with ample flexibility to select, in a customized fashion, the water quality control measures that will reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable.

The Los Angeles Water Board finds that the programmatic requirements of the Order are necessary to meet the MEP standard. The mix of program elements reflects the necessary pollutant reduction expected by the demanding federal MEP standard, but also represents a balancing of competing interests such as effectiveness, regulatory compliance, public acceptance, cost, and technical feasibility. To the extent there may be multiple means of achieving pollutant reductions and that there could be trade-offs between program areas with potentially higher costs and greater pollutant reductions, the permit programs are structured to provide the optimum reduction of pollutants necessary to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. This finding is the expert conclusion of the principal state agency charged with implementing the NPDES program in California and therefore entitled to deference under Department of Finance.

Finally, the Supreme Court in Department of Finance suggested that the inclusion of equivalent or substantially similar provisions by the U.S. EPA in other permits may support a finding that the provisions are necessary to achieve MEP. (Dept. of Finance, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 772.) The Los Angeles Water Board has examined the following U.S. EPA issued permits, among others, and concluded that they contain equivalent and/or substantially similar provisions: Massachusetts MS4 General Permit, Washington D.C. MS4 Permit, Albuquerque MS4 Watershed Permit, Boise/Garden City MS4 Permit, and Guam MS4 Permit. Previous sections of the Fact Sheet identify the specific provisions that are similar in these U.S. EPA issued permits.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *777
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-384

2. Permittees have authority to fund the costs through service charges, fees, or assessments:

Even if any of the permit provisions could be considered unfunded state mandates, under Government Code section 17556, subdivision (d), a state mandate is not subject to reimbursement if the local agency has the authority to fund the costs through service charges, fees, or assessments. (Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 398.) Here, Permittees have the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for compliance with the Order.

Permittees certainly have fee authority under their police powers. (See, Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; Freeman v. Contra Costa County Water Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 404, 408 (“It cannot be denied that prevention of water pollution is a legitimate governmental objective, in furtherance of which the police power may be exercised.”); Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 546, 561-62 (holding in part that local governments have the authority sufficient to pay for inspection requirements for commercial and industrial facilities and construction sites to ensure compliance with various environmental regulations in an MS4 permit under their police powers for the prevention of water pollution).

This Fact Sheet demonstrates that numerous activities contribute to the pollutant loading from the MS4. Local agencies can levy service charges, fees, or assessments on these activities, independent of real property ownership. (See, e.g., Apartment Ass’n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, 842 (upholding inspection fees associated with renting property).) The authority of a local agency to defray the cost of a program without raising taxes indicates that a program does not entail a cost subject to subvention. (Clovis Unified School Dist. v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794, 812 [“To the extent a local agency or school district ‘has the authority’ to charge for the mandated program or increased level of service, that charge cannot be recovered as a statemandated cost.”], quoting Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 401; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487-488.) Permittees have argued in the past that their fee or taxation authority is constrained by article XIII D, section 6, of the California Constitution, also known as Proposition 218. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (c); see also Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359.) However, Proposition 218 is not an impediment to Permittees’ fee authority.499 The Constitution has an exception to the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218, “for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services.” (Cal.

Const. Article XIII D, section 6, subd. (c).) In recent years, the Legislature enacted two important pieces of legislation confirming fee authority without the need for voter approval. In Assembly Bill 2043 (2014), effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended the definition of “water” for purposes of articles XIII C and XIII D to mean “water from any source.” (Gov. Code, § 53750, subd. (n), amended by Assembly Bill 2043 (Stats. 2014, ch. 78, § 2.) In doing so, the Legislature stated that its act “is declaratory of existing law.” (Stats. 2014, ch. 78, § 1(c).) With Senate Bill 231 (2017), effective January 1, 2018, the Legislature “reaffirm[ed] and reiterate[d]” that the definition of “sewer” for purposes of article XIII D includes:
499 Such authority is also undiminished by Proposition 26, which specifically excludes assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with Proposition 218 from the definition of taxes. (Cal.

Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(7).).

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *778
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-385
systems, all real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned, controlled, operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate sewage collection, treatment, or disposition for sanitary or drainage purposes, including lateral and connecting sewers, interceptors, trunk and outfall lines, sanitary sewage treatment or disposal plants or works, drains, conduits, outlets for surface or storm waters, and any and all other works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the collection or disposal of sewage, industrial waste, or surface or storm waters.
(Gov. Code, § 53750, subd. (f), and § 53751, subd. (i), added by Senate Bill 231, Stats. 2017, ch. 536, § 2 (emphases added).) These legislative actions confirm that the Permittees have authority to raise fees or charges, without voter approval, for costs related to their MS4s.

In addition, Health and Safety Code section 5471, subdivision (a), gives dischargers fee authority for “services and facilities furnished…in connection with its water, sanitation, storm drainage, or sewerage system.” (Health & Safety Code, § 5471, subd. (a) (emphasis added).) Similarly, Public Resources Code section 40059, subdivision (a)(1), also confers fee authority on counties, cities, districts, or other local governmental agencies for “[a]spects of solid waste handling which are of local concern, including, but not limited to, frequency of collection, means of collection and transportation, level of services, charges and fees, and nature, location, and extent of providing solid waste handling services.” The ability of the Permittees to levy fees, assessments, or service charges to pay for compliance with the requirements of the Order cannot be disputed. In addition to the general authority above, some of the Permittees have specific authority to levy funds to pay for permit compliance. By way of example, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved the concept of a countywide NPDES permit program and the use of the Flood Management District (presently the Watershed Protection District) benefit assessment authority to finance it in April 1992. On June 30, 1992, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted a benefit assessment fee for stormwater and flood management in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County and the cities within the County, to be used in part to finance the implementation of a countywide NPDES municipal stormwater permit program.

The Ventura County MS4 Permittees entered into agreement with the Watershed Protection District to finance the activities related to the Ventura County MS4 Permit for shared and district-wide expenses. The Permittees are also given the option to use the Benefit Assessment Program to finance their respective activities related to reducing the discharge of pollutants from their MS4s under the MS4 Permit. Therefore, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), through the Benefit Assessment Program, has the authority to impose a fee or charge for implementation of this permit. Furthermore, in 2005, the Legislature authorized the VCWPD to increase property related fees to fund storm drainage service and facilities within its jurisdiction.500 The VCWPD has statutory authorization to levy an ad valorem tax upon all taxable property, an assessment upon all taxable real property in the district, or a fee imposed pursuant to Article XIII D of the California Constitution, to pay the costs and expenses of the district.501 500 Ventura County Watershed Protection Act, California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 46, § 46-12. 501 Ibid.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *779
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-386
The LACFCD also has specific statutory authority to levy a tax, fee, or charge to comply with the requirements of the Order, including implementation of approved WMPs. The LACFCD is authorized:

To levy a tax, in compliance with the applicable provisions of Article XIII C of the California Constitution, or impose a fee or charge, in compliance with the applicable provisions of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, to pay the costs and expenses of carrying out projects and programs to increase stormwater capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution in the district in accordance with criteria established by the ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection 8c. Projects and programs funded by the revenues from the tax, fee, or charge may include projects providing multiple benefits that increase water supply, improve water quality, and, where appropriate, provide community enhancements such as the greening of schools, parks, and wetlands, and increased public access to rivers, lakes, and streams.502
Revenues derived from any tax, fee, or charge imposed would be subject to specific allocations. Forty percent of any revenues derived from any LACFCD tax, fee, or charge is to be allocated to cities within the boundaries of the district and to the County of Los Angeles for implementation, operation and maintenance, and administration of project and programs within their respective jurisdictions. Fifty percent shall also be allocated to pay for the implementation, operation and maintenance, and administration of watershed-based projects and programs, including WMPs.503
Finally, even if voter approval may be required prior to levying fees, that does not mean that a local agency lacks the authority to levy fees. In Paradise Irrigation Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 174, 182, the Court considered whether the majority protest procedure added by Proposition 218 deprived local agencies of authority to impose fees for water service. Article XIII D, section 6(a) requires a local agency to identify parcels subject to a new fee, calculate the fee amount, and provide notice to affected property owners. (Cal.

Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (a)(1).) If a majority of the property owners submit written protests against the fee, the fee may not be imposed. (Id., subd. (a)(2).) The Court held that the “majority protest procedures are properly construed as a powersharing arrangement between the districts and their customers, rather than a deprivation of fee authority.” (33 Cal.App.5th at p. 182.) It explained that, when considering how voter powers affect the ability of local governments to impose fees, courts “presume local voters will give appropriate consideration and deference to state mandated requirements . . . .” (Id. at p. 194, citing BighornDesert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205, 220.) “Although this power-sharing arrangement has the potential for conflict, we must presume that both sides will act reasonably and in good faith.” (Id., at p. 192.) Further, the fact that, “as a matter of practical reality, the majority protest procedure allows water customers to defeat the District’s authority to levy fees” was not dispositive; “the inquiry into fee authority constitutes an issue of law rather than a question of fact.” (Id. at p. 195, citing Connell, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 401.) “Fee authority is a matter governed by statute rather than by factual considerations of practicality;” it 502 Cal. Wat. Code, § App. § 28-2, subd. 8a.
503 Id., subd. 8b.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *780
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-387
is not controlled by whether municipalities have tried and failed to levy fees. (Id.) If there is statutory authority to levy fees, then there is no right to subvention. (Id.) XV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Los Angeles Water Board has considered the issuance of WDRs that will serve as an NPDES permit for MS4 discharges within the Los Angeles Region. The Los Angeles Water Board staff has encouraged public participation in the permit development process. Over a period of three years from May 2018 to May 2021, the Los Angeles Water Board has held multiple listening sessions, workshops, and Board meeting agenda items focusing on issues pertinent to Permittees in both counties. Additionally, Board staff have met with Permittees and interested stakeholders upon request. The following information is provided pursuant to 40 CFR § 124.8(b)(6) and (7).

A. Permittee and Stakeholder Participation in Permit Issuance Process

1. Notification: Intent to Issue a Region-Wide Phase I MS4 Permit On September 5, 2017, the Los Angeles Water Board sent a letter to all Permittees in the Los Angeles Region to announce the Board’s intent to issue a region-wide Phase I MS4 Permit.

2. Working Proposal
On December 10, 2019, the Los Angeles Water Board released a staff Working Proposal to Permittees in the Los Angeles Region and key stakeholders for discussion purposes. This staff working proposal did not constitute either a “draft permit” or a “proposed permit” as defined in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) sections 122.2 or 124.6. The Working Proposal allowed Permittees and stakeholders to provide oral and written input that would facilitate future discussion at board meetings/workshops and aid Board staff in developing the tentative draft permit.

3. Board Meetings and Workshops
The Los Angeles Water Board on many occasions starting in May 2018 had an item on its Meeting agenda to solicit comments and feedback from the Board, Permittees, and stakeholders on the issuance of the Regional MS4 Permit. Board staff has also presented on specific topics during public workshops, some of which were held at a regularly scheduled Board Meeting or special Board meeting (Board Workshop). Most of the meeting and workshop dates are summarized as follows:
a. Board Workshop: May 10, 2018
Board staff presented their monitoring data analysis for the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, and Los Cerritos Channel/Alamitos Bay Watersheds and discussed solutions to improve data reporting in the Regional MS4 Permit. b. Board Meeting: June 14, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board had an agenda item to facilitate continued discussion of the Regional MS4 Permit (“MS4 standing item”). The purpose of the “MS4 standing item” was to provide a forum for Board members to discuss, and for Permittees and stakeholders to provide comments on, any aspect of the Regional MS4 Permit. This noticed item provided Permittees and other stakeholders with the opportunity to communicate directly with the Board regarding their interests and concerns about the current permits or pending issuance of the Regional MS4 Permit. The MS4 standing item also provided

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *781
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-388
an opportunity for the Board to provide input to staff on permit implementation or development. No action or voting took place during these items. c. Board Workshop: July 12, 2018
Board staff presented their monitoring data analysis for the Upper Santa Clara River, Santa Monica Bay, and Dominguez Channel and Harbors Watersheds and the permit issuance timelines. Additionally, Board staff introduced the specific concepts to include in the Regional MS4 Permit such as new/revised TMDLs, Statewide Trash Amendments, and providing Ventura County Permittees the option to participate in a WMP.
d. Board Workshop: September 13, 2018
Board staff presented their monitoring data analysis for all the watersheds within Ventura County, Permittee-reported costs of implementing the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit, and the permit issuance timelines. The Board discussed the regional permit approach as it related to Ventura County Permittees.
e. Board Meeting: October 11, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
f. Board Meeting: November 8, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
g. Board Meeting: March 14, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
h. Board Workshop: April 11, 2019
Board staff addressed economic considerations with regard to issuance of a Regional MS4 Permit based on specific Permittee-reported costs of compliance with the previous permits and summarized some state funding sources. Permittees and stakeholders also provided information on the cost of compliance and funding related topics, such as cost reporting guidance, stormwater utility program management, and available funds from the Los Angeles County Safe Clean Water Program and Ventura County Watershed Protection District Benefit Assessment Program.
i. Board Meeting: June 13, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
j. Board Meeting: July 11, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
k. Board Meeting: September 12, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
l. Board Meeting: October 10, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *782
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-389
m. Board Meeting: November 14, 2019
Board staff presented a summary of stakeholder engagement, including the employment of a professional facilitator to better understand the interests, needs and perspectives of stakeholders and to explore areas of mutual agreement that could be reflected in the Regional MS4 Permit. n. Board Meeting: December 12, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
o. Public Workshop: January 7, 2020
Los Angeles Water Board hosted a facilitated stakeholder workshop to discuss the Working Proposal and issues such as what constitutes permit success, addressing cost/timeline challenges, and measuring progress under the new permit.
p. Board Meeting: February 13, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item and presented on the types of comments received on the Working Proposal. Comments discussed included changes proposed to the Minimum Control Measures, monitoring and reporting requirements, watershed management programs, and TMDLs. q. Board Meeting: May 14, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item and presented on the options to consider an extension for the near-term TMDL final compliance deadlines.
r. Board Meeting: July 2, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a special board meeting to discuss the schedule for adopting the Regional MS4 Permit with consideration of key issues such as the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, TMDL final compliance deadlines, and inclusion of narrative/BMP-based effluent limitations versus numeric effluent limitations in the permit. s. Board Meeting: July 9, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
t. Board Meeting: September 10, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Board staff presented information on: changes that were made in the tentative draft in response to comments received on the Working Proposal; the manner of TMDL incorporation; the status of the TMDL final deadlines extension project; economic considerations; and the proposed State Water Board Order on the WMPs and EWMP petitions.
u. Board Meeting: October 8, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided oral comments on the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *783
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-390
v. Public Workshop: October 15, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public workshop to discuss the manner of TMDL incorporation in the Regional MS4 Permit. All Board Members attended. Board staff presented the basis for the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation in the Regional MS4 Permit. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided comments on the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation and alternatives.
w. Public Workshop: November 19, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public workshop to discuss monitoring and reporting requirements in the Regional MS4 Permit. Several Board Members attended. Board staff presented on monitoring and reporting requirements and then held a question-and-answer session. x. Board Workshop: December 10, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a Board workshop to follow-up on the October 15 and November 19, 2020 workshops. Board staff discussed the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation in comparison with that of other MS4 permits issued state-wide and by U.S. EPA. Permittees and other stakeholders also provided comments on the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation and alternatives.
y. Board Meeting: March 11, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided comments on the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit.
z. Board Meeting: May 13, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided comments on the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit.
aa. Public Workshop: June 22, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public workshop to discuss Permittee and stakeholder comments on the Revised Tentative Regional MS4 Permit for Permittees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. The first part of the workshop was dedicated to Ventura County Permittees’ and stakeholders’ comments on particular issues of concern and the Regional Board staff’s responses thereto. The second part of the workshop was dedicated to Los Angeles County Permittees’ and stakeholders’ comments and the Regional Board staff’s responses thereto.

4. Meetings with Permittees and Interested Persons
The Los Angeles Water Board staff met with various Permittees and stakeholders upon request. Most of these meetings are summarized below. a. Meeting: January 25, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments to discuss submission of the ROWD, general questions about the permit issuance process, and general questions about what changes or continuation of permit provisions to expect.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *784
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-391
b. Meeting: May 2, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board held a kick-off meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the preliminary schedule for permit development; identify potential alternative permit structures; and outline some of the major technical and policy aspects of permit development. Twenty-three individuals attended the meeting out of which eight represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other fifteen represented Ventura County Permittees. After a presentation by Permittees on accomplishments, lessons learned, and permit renewal goals, Permittees had an opportunity to ask questions of staff, raise concerns, and explain their expectations for the new permit. c. Meeting: May 16, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees on TMDLs and the Watershed Management Program. Twenty-three individuals attended the meeting out of which ten represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented the State Water Board, and the other twelve represented Ventura County Permittees. Permittees proposed a list of TMDLs to incorporate into the permit. Meeting attendees also discussed the structure of the Watershed Management Program and provisions such as the pollutant prioritization process and the use of existing TMDL implementation plans. d. Meeting: June 8, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees on time schedule orders (TSOs) and the TSO issuance process in consideration of permit issuance timelines. Eleven individuals attended the meeting out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other eight represented Ventura County Permittees.
e. Meeting: July 15, 2016
Ventura County Permittees held a meeting with the Los Angeles Water Board to discuss the monitoring and reporting program and follow-up on items from the previous meeting. Twenty-one individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other sixteen represented Ventura County Permittees. Meeting attendees discussed pre-meeting materials that were provided by the Permittees giving their recommendations on provisions of the Watershed Management Program and TMDLs.

Additionally, meeting attendees discussed the following items in the monitoring and reporting program: receiving water monitoring sites, constituents to be monitored, and stormwater monitoring program constituents table and requested Permittees’ feedback.
f. Meeting: August 1, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with Ventura County Permittees to discuss minimum control measures (MCMs). Seventeen individuals participated in the teleconference where five represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented the State Water Board, and the other eleven represented Ventura County Permittees. Meeting attendees discussed pre-meeting materials where Permittees proposed changes to the MCMs in their previous permit.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *785
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-392
g. Meeting: October 20, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with Ventura County Permittees to provide a status update on the permit issuance process. h. Meeting: August 29, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Thirteen individuals attended out of which eight represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented City of Los Angeles.
i. Meeting: August 31, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Ventura County Permittees.
j. Meeting: September 5, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Five individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and one represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. k. Meeting: September 21, 2017
Ventura County Permittees held a meeting with the Los Angeles Water Board to present to Ventura County Public Works Directors information about the permit renewal process, the Regional MS4 Permit concept, costs, funding, and the Statewide Trash Amendments. Twenty-eight individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and twenty-five represented Ventura County Permittees.
l. Meeting: December 19, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with the City of Long Beach to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented the City of Long Beach.
m. Meeting: April 10, 2018
The City of Long Beach held a meeting with the Los Angeles Water Board to discuss the issuance of a Regional MS4 Permit and the City of Long Beach’s ROWD. Eleven individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and seven represented the City of Long Beach. n. Meeting: August 7, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD. Los Angeles County and LACFCD proposed TSO-related fact sheet language for the Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and three represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *786
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-393
o. Meeting: August 10, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the addition of receiving water and outfall stations in the Malibu Creek subwatershed and the non-stormwater screening and outfall monitoring program proposals for the Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and three represented Ventura County Permittees.
p. Meeting: August 15, 2018
The Los Water Board staff held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD. Los Angeles County and LACFCD proposed regional project downstream solutions and also proposed adding language for the Regional MS4 Permit fact sheet discussing the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM). Seven individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. q. Meeting: September 10, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held public Listening Session with San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Water Policy Committee (SGVCOG). The Los Angeles Water Board listened to and discussed cost concerns for current WMP/EWMP implementation and timeline for the Regional MS4 Permit issuance. Eighteen individuals were present out of which two were Los Angeles Water Board Members, four were Board staff, and four represented the SGVCOG. Additionally, eight public observers attended representing various Permittees, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders.
r. Meeting: September 19, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss future workshops of the Regional MS4 Permit and the state-wide bacteria provisions. Four individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
s. Meeting: October 26, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit, specifically on incorporation of robust development/redevelopment standards such as capturing the 90th or 95th percentile rainfall, potential incorporation of BLM, and provide a public platform for Permittee monitoring data. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Heal the Bay, Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LA Waterkeeper), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
t. Meeting: December 19, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit issuance process and the Safe, Clean Water Program. Four individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *787
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-394
u. Meeting: January 18, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss Los Angeles County monitoring data. Seven individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
v. The Las Virgenes – Malibu Council of Governments Governing Board Meeting: February 19, 2019
The Las Virgenes – Malibu Council of Governments Governing Board held a public Listening Session with the Los Angeles Water Board. The Los Angeles Water Board listened to and answered queries about the Regional MS4 Permit issuance timelines, concerns about funds from the Safe, Clean Water Program in relation to EWMP compliance schedules, and future special studies on natural sources. More than 22 individuals attended out of which two were Board Members, four were Board staff, and sixteen represented the Las Virgenes – Malibu Council of Governments Governing Board and the Malibu Creek EWMP group members. Public observers included NGOs and other stakeholders.
w. Meeting: February 20, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the Safe, Clean Water Program. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
x. Meeting: February 26, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with several Los Angeles County Permittees. Fifteen individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board, and twelve represented Larry Walker Associates (LWA), Richard Watson & Associates (RWA), City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County. LWA proposed compliance mechanisms and Regional MS4 Permit language for addressing bacteria. y. Meeting: March 8, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit to discuss these organizations’ request for a shorter permit. Eleven individuals attended out of which three represented Los Angeles Water Board, two represented State Water Board, and the other six were from Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
z. Meeting: March 20, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD. Los Angeles County and LACFCD proposed Regional MS4 Permit language for the Safe, Clean Water Program, discussed the upcoming April 2019 Board workshop, and proposed reconsidering TMDLs rather than requesting TSOs to extend TMDL compliance schedules. Seven individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *788
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-395
aa. Meeting: June 19, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit timelines, removal of the WMP/EWMP distinction in the Regional MS4 Permit, and annual report proposals for reporting on compliance with regional projects in the WMP/EWMP. Nine individuals were in attendance out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC. bb. Meeting: June 25, 2019
Ventura County Permittees held a public Listening Session with the Los Angeles Water Board. The Los Angeles Water Board listened to and discussed WMP development and implementation concerns, cost concerns, compliance with wet weather bacteria TMDLs, and permit issuance timelines.

Thirty individuals attended out of which three were Los Angeles Water Board Members, four were Board staff, twenty-one represented Ventura County Permittees, and two were public observers representing CASQ Engineering and the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.
cc. Meeting: July 8, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss cost analysis of some EWMPs with consideration of funds from the Safe, Clean Water Program. Los Angeles County and LACFCD also proposed specific TMDLs for the Board to reconsider. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
dd. Meeting: July 17, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to present information about planning versus actual costs on specific regional projects and continue the discussion on TMDL reconsiderations and cost analysis of some EWMPs with consideration of funds from the Safe, Clean Water Program. Four individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
ee. Meeting: August 22, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit issuance timeline, Safe, Clean Water Program, and TMDL final compliance deadlines. Five individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented City of Los Angeles.
ff. Meeting: August 26, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the Los Angeles County Permit markup provided to us in 2016 proposing permit language, permit issuance process, and follow-up on the previous meeting with the Ventura County public works directors. Fourteen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and ten represented Ventura County Permittees.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *789
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-396
gg. Meeting: August 28, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss priority TMDLs for Board’s reconsideration, upcoming presentations at Board meetings on regional projects, and permit issuance schedule. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. hh. Meeting: September 9, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss economic considerations, including the cost of compliance, for the Regional MS4 Permit, LACFCD’s dashboard for regional projects, and suggestions for the regional permit requirements. Three individuals attended out of which one represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. ii. Meeting: September 10, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss Permittees’ progress implementing their EWMPs and propose annual report language for reporting on compliance with multi-year efforts in EWMPs. Five individuals were in attendance out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
jj. Meeting: September 18, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the alignment of Marina del Rey TMDLs with Measure W funding, the regional permit reissuance process, and the upcoming NGO EWMP Report. Six individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
kk. Meeting: September 18, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with Ventura County, VCWPD, and the City of Agoura Hills to discuss the compliance with Malibu Creek TMDL requirements and the Medea/Palo Comado Stormwater Treatment System in the City of Agoura Hills. Seven individuals were in attendance out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board, two represented the City of Agoura Hills, two represented VCWPD, and one represented Ventura County.
ll. Meeting: October 1, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), source identification component of a WMP, timelines to develop a WMP, upcoming Malibu Creek Bacteria TMDL TSO request, usage of existing TMDL implementation plans for WMP proposals, and regional permit issuance schedule. Fourteen individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and eleven represented Ventura County Permittees.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *790
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-397
mm.Meeting: October 16, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss possible extension of TMDL compliance deadlines, regional permit reissuance process, and Los Angeles County’s dashboard of completed regional stormwater projects and green infrastructure projects. Ten individuals were in attendance out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. nn. Meeting: November 20, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the regional permit reissuance process and possible extension of TMDL compliance dates. Ten individuals were in attendance out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
oo. Meeting: December 16, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to discuss the Ballona Creek TSO extension request and the Working Proposal of the Regional MS4 Permit. Eleven individuals were in attendance out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and six represented City of Los Angeles.
pp. Meeting: December 17, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a facilitated meeting with the NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit. Ten individuals were in attendance out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, two represented Heal the Bay, one represented NRDC, and three represented LA Waterkeeper. qq. Meeting: December 17, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a facilitated meeting with NRDC, City of Los Angeles, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), Los Angeles County/LACFCD, and Ventura County to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit. Fourteen individuals were in attendance out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented NRDC, three represented City of Los Angeles, two represented City of Monrovia/SGVCOG, two represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD, and two represented Ventura County. rr. Meeting: January 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss permit reissuance schedules, TMDL reconsiderations for time extensions, and updates on Measure W. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
ss. Meeting: January 22, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, and the other four represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *791
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-398
tt. Meeting: January 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback.

The City of Los Angeles specifically discussed suggestions for the Watershed Management NOI submittal schedule and content, monitoring and reporting requirements, Planning and Land Development MCM, trash reporting requirements, Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program MCM, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program MCM, and filming BMPs under the nonstormwater discharge prohibitions. Fourteen individuals attended out of which seven represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other seven represented the City of Los Angeles.
uu. Meeting: January 27, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with The Nature Conservancy to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback. The Nature Conservancy discussed suggestions on how to incorporate and encourage nature-based solutions into the Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three were from The Nature Conservancy. vv. Meeting: January 28, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback. Ventura County Permittees specifically discussed suggestions to edit timelines for WMP submittals, Statewide Trash Amendment provisions, TMDLs, MCMs, and monitoring. Twenty individuals attended out of which eight represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other twelve represented Ventura County Permittees.
ww. Meeting: February 19, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss permit reissuance timelines, TMDL extension requests, and Measure W fund distribution status. Eight individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
xx. Meeting: February 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with NGOs to discuss permit reissuance timelines and general comments on the Working Proposal of the Regional MS4 Permit. Eight individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
yy. Meeting: March 2, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the City of Los Angeles to discuss TSO implementation progress and the challenges of implementing the MS4 permit. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other two represented City of Los Angeles.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *792
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-399
zz. Meeting: March 18, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the status of the Regional MS4 Permit considering the COVID-19 pandemic. Six individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
aaa.Meeting: April 15, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the status of the Regional MS4 Permit, share updates on monitoring and project implementation considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and discuss the status of Measure W. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
bbb. Meeting: April 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with the City of La Habra Heights to discuss the Regional Permit and concerns from the City, which included TMDL compliance and comingling discharges. Ten individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented the City of La Habra Heights.
ccc.Meeting: April 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the issuance schedule of the Regional MS4 Permit, TMDL compliance date related comments on the Regional MS4 Permit working proposal, the Inner Cabrillo Beach Bacteria TSO, and the Ballona Creek Bacteria TSO. Ten individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented City of Los Angeles. ddd. Meeting: May 28, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the extension of TMDL compliance schedules alongside Regional MS4 Permit issuance, the Inner Cabrillo Beach Bacteria TSO, and questions on shoreline monitoring considering the pandemic. Eight individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented City of Los Angeles.
eee.Meeting: June 2, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the status of the Regional MS4 Permit including a tentative issuance timeline and workshop opportunities, share updates on project implementation considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and discuss the status of Measure W. Eight individuals attended of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
fff. Meeting: June 8, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a Listening Session with the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Group to discuss their comment letter of February 5, 2020 on the Working Proposal and some of the responses to those comments.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *793
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-400
Fourteen individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other twelve represented the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Group.
ggg. Meeting: June 25, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit schedule and Measure W projects. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented the City of Los Angeles. hhh. Meeting: July 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss EWMP implementation target load reduction/volume capture goals and the associated costs and schedules. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented the City of Los Angeles.
iii. Meeting: August 27, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit, the TMDL deadline extension project, the upcoming Board meeting, and potential customization of the Industrial/Commercial Facilities MCM in the revised WMP. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented the City of Los Angeles. jjj. Meeting: August 27, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss TMDL deadline extensions and updates on the Safe Clean Water Program. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
kkk.Meeting: September 8, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Ventura County Permittees to discuss changes between the Working Proposal and tentative draft, the manner of TMDL incorporation in the permit, and future workshops.

Seventeen individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other twelve represented Ventura County Permittees. lll. Meeting: September 9, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the Tentative Draft permit and TMDL deadline extensions. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
mmm. Meeting: September 22, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Annual Report requirements and the future Manner of TMDL incorporation workshop. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *794
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-401
Board and the other five represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
nnn. Meeting: September 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Industrial/Commercial MCM and permit language about Measure W. Ten individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented the City of Los Angeles.
ooo. Meeting: October 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss TMDL deadline extensions, the Safe Clean Water Program, and share updates on WMMS and WRAMPS. Ten individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. ppp. Meeting: November 18, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss TMDL deadline extensions and the upcoming MS4 workshop on monitoring and reporting. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
qqq. Meeting: November 30, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with The Nature Conservancy to discuss comments on the Planning and Land Development MCM. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other two represented The Nature Conservancy. rrr. Meeting: December 16, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss TMDL manner of incorporation into the Regional MS4 Permit and reopener language in the TMDL Basin Plan Amendments for the TMDLs being considered under the TMDL deadline extension project. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
sss.Meeting: December 17, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with City of Los Angeles to discuss potential impacts on the State Board Water Quality Order addressing the WMP/EWMP petitions, potential revisions to the RAA limiting pollutant approach, and timeline for aquatic toxicity test species sensitivity screening. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented City of Los Angeles. ttt. Meeting: January 20, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to follow-up on the schedule for the TMDL BPA extension project and any outstanding issues with regards to the Regional

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *795
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-402
MS4 Permit. Ten individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
uuu. Meeting: January 28, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the TMDL Basin Plan Amendment extension project, the Regional MS4 Permit adoption schedule, trash reporting forms, and future revisions to the City’s WMP. Nine individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented the City of Los Angeles.
vvv. Meeting: February 3, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with VCWPD, Los Angeles County/LACFCD, City of Los Angeles, City of Monrovia, a consultant representing the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, and consultants from Larry Walker Associates representing Ventura County Permittees. Participants discussed the manner of TMDL incorporation in the permit (BMP versus numeric effluent limits approach), TMDL time extensions, and the schedule for permit adoption. Fifteen individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented VCWPD, two represented the City of Monrovia, one represented the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, two represented the City of Los Angeles, two represented Ventura County Permittees, and two represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD.
www. Meeting: February 17, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to follow-up with the TMDL Final Compliance Deadline Extension Project and the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. xxx. Meeting: February 25, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit adoption schedule, the Ballona Creek TSO, and requested continued support from the Board for City of Los Angeles’s regional projects under the Safe, Clean Water Program. Nine individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented the City of Los Angeles. yyy.Meeting: February 25, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group to discuss updates to the EWMP RAA and the impact of the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038 on the Regional MS4 Permit.

Ten individuals attended out of which three represented Los Angeles Water Board and the other seven represented the Upper Los Angeles River Group. zzz. Meeting: March 17, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *796
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-403
adoption and the next steps for the TMDL Final Compliance Deadline Extension Project. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
aaaa. Meeting: March 24, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County, LACFCD, and various consultants representing different WMPs to discuss proposed updates to the WMP RAA in consideration of the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038. Thirteen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, three represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD, and the other six represented various consultants representing different WMPs.
bbbb. Meeting: March 30, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit adoption and the next steps for the TMDL Final Compliance Deadline Extension Project.

Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented the City of Los Angeles. cccc. Meeting: March 30, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Ventura County/VCWPD, Los Angeles County/LACFCD, City of Los Angeles, City of Monrovia, a consultant representing the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, and consultants from Larry Walker Associates representing Ventura County Permittees. This was a follow-up meeting to discuss concerns about the manner of TMDL incorporation in the Regional MS4 Permit. Twelve individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, two represented the City of Monrovia, one represented the City of Los Angeles, one represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD, one represented Ventura County/VCWPD, one represented the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, and two represented Ventura County Permittees.
dddd. Meeting: April 19, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group to discuss updates to the EWMP RAA in consideration of the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038 on the Regional MS4 Permit. Eleven individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and seven represented the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group.
eeee. Meeting: April 21, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Ventura County Permittees to discuss past TMDL final compliance deadlines for the Ventura River Algae TMDL and Kidde and Hobie Beach Bacteria TMDL, benefits of participating in a WMP, and questions about how water quality exceedances trigger enforcement action. Seventeen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and thirteen represented Ventura County Permittees.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *797
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-404
ffff. Meeting: April 27, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with The Nature Conservancy to discuss the Planning and Land Development MCM in the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented The Nature Conservancy.
gggg. Meeting: April 27, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit issuance, TMDL extensions (e.g., TMDL revision, TSOs), and coordination with Caltrans MS4 on upcoming WMP projects. Nine individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and six represented the City of Los Angeles.
hhhh. Meeting: April 29, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the East San Gabriel Valley Group (ESGV Group) to discuss the implications of the 2020 State Board Order, options for participating in the Watershed Management Program, and Trash Discharge Prohibitions requirements and reporting. Five individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one was a consultant Colbert Environmental Group representing the ESGV Group, and two represented the City of Claremont.
iiii. Meeting: May 6, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County/LACFCD and various consultants represented different WMP Groups to discuss the updated RAA approach to address concerns resulting from the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038 and the WMP project implementation schedule. Fifteen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, three represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD, and eight consultants represented various Permittees.

B. Notification to Permittees and Interested Parties
The Los Angeles Water Board notified the Dischargers and interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe WDRs for the discharges and provided an opportunity to submit written comments, evidence, and recommendations on the draft permit, including the monitoring and reporting program and fact sheet. Notification was provided through the following: Email to the Los Angeles Water Board’s MS4 Lyris lists and email to the Permittee and stakeholder mailing list on August 24, 2020.

The public had access to the agenda and any changes in dates and locations through the Los Angeles Water Board’s website at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_info/agenda/ C. Written Comments
Parties and interested persons were invited to submit written comments and evidence concerning the tentative WDR as provided through the notification process. Comments and evidence were due by mail or email to the Executive Officer at the Los Angeles Water Board at:

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *798
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-405
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013-2343
[email protected]
To be fully responded to by staff and considered by the Los Angeles Water Board, the written comments and evidence were due by 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2020.

D. Public Hearing
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public hearing on the tentative WDRs during its regular Board meeting on the following date and time and at the following location:

Date: July 8, 9, 16, and 23, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m. each day
Location: Video and Teleconference Meeting Only
Parties and interested persons were invited to attend. At the public hearing, the Los Angeles Water Board heard testimony pertinent to the discharge, WDRs, and permit.

For accuracy of the record, important testimony was requested in writing.

E. Reconsideration of Waste Discharge Requirements
Any person aggrieved by this action of the Los Angeles Water Board may petition the State Water Board to review the action in accordance with Water Code section 13320 and California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 2050 and following. The State Water Board must receive the petition by 5:00 p.m., within 30 calendar days of the date of adoption of the Order at the following address, except that if the thirtieth day following the adoption date of the Order falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or state holiday, the petition must be received by the State Water Board by 5:00 p.m. on the next business day:

State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Chief Counsel
P.O. Box 100, 1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Or by email at [email protected] For instructions on how to file a petition for review, see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/petitions/water_quality/wqpetition_instr. shtml
F. Information and Copying
The Reports of Waste Discharge, other supporting documents, and comments received are on file and may be inspected and copied at the address above at any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, by appointment. Appointments may be made by following the instructions on the Los Angeles Water Board’s website under “Contact Us,” “Public Records Center” at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/resources/public_records_center.html G. Register of Interested Persons
Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for information regarding the WDRs and NPDES permit should subscribe to the Los Angeles Water Board’s “Region

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *799
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-406
4 SW Regional Phase I MS4 Permit” Email List at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/resources/email_subscriptions/.

H. Additional Information
Requests for additional information or questions regarding the Order should be directed to the Unit Chief of the Municipal Storm Water Permitting Unit. The contact name, phone number, and email address are available on the Los Angeles Water Board website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *800

APPENDIX XIII

STATE WATER BOARD REQUIREMENTS

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *801
APPENDIX XIII – STATE WATER BOARD REQUIREMENTS
This project is partially funded by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The Contractor along with all associated subcontractors shall comply with the State Water Board Requirements described in this appendix.

1. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE. The City of Lomita, hereby referred to as the “Recipient” of the State Water Board grant funding, certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace in compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act (Gov. Code. §§ 8350-8357). The Recipient shall publish a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the Recipient’s workplace and specifying the actions to be taken against employees for violations of the prohibition. The Recipient shall establish a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the Recipient’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs, and penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. The Recipient shall provide that every employee who works on the Project receives a copy of the Recipient’s drug-free workplace policy statement and agrees to abide by the terms of the statement as a condition of employment on the Project.

2. INDEMNIFICATION AND STATE REVIEWS. The parties agree that review or approval of Project plans and specifications by the State Water Board is for administrative purposes only, including conformity with application and eligibility criteria, and expressly not for the purposes of design defect review or construction feasibility, and does not relieve the Recipient of its responsibility to properly plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain the Project. To the extent permitted by law, the Recipient agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State Water Board and any trustee, and their officers, employees, and agents for the Bonds, if any (collectively, "Indemnified Persons"), against any loss or liability arising out of any claim or action brought against any Indemnified Persons from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or expenses, of every conceivable kind, character, and nature whatsoever arising out of, resulting from, or in any way connected with (1) the Project or the conditions, occupancy, use, possession, conduct, or management of, work done in or about, or the planning, design, acquisition, installation, or construction, of the Project or any part thereof; (2) the carrying out of any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or any related document; (3) any violation of any applicable law, rule or regulation, any environmental law (including, without limitation, the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Substance Account Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and California Water Code Section 13304, and any successors to said laws), rule or regulation or the release of any toxic substance on or near the Project; or (4) any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of any material fact or omission or alleged omission to state a material fact necessary to make the statements required to be stated therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading with respect to any information provided by the

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *802
Recipient for use in any disclosure document utilized in connection with any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, except those arising from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Persons. The Recipient must also provide for the defense and indemnification of the Indemnified Persons in any contractual provision extending indemnity to the Recipient in any contract let for the performance of any work under this Agreement and must cause the Indemnified Persons to be included within the scope of any provision for the indemnification and defense of the Recipient in any contract or subcontract. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient agrees to pay and discharge any judgment or award entered or made against Indemnified Persons with respect to any such claim or action, and any settlement, compromise or other voluntary resolution. The provisions of this section survive the term of this Agreement.

3. INSPECTION. Throughout the useful life of the Project, the State Water Board shall have the right to inspect the Project area to ascertain compliance with this Agreement.

4. NO DISCRIMINATION. The Recipient must comply with Government Code section 11135 and the implementing regulations (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 2, § 11140 et seq.), including, but not limited to, ensuring that no person is unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or unlawfully subjected to discrimination in the operation of, the Project on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation as such terms are defined under California law, for as long as the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the Project. If Project Funds are used to acquire or improve real property, the Recipient must include a covenant of nondiscrimination running with the land in the instrument effecting or recording the transfer of such real property. The Recipient must comply with the federal American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and implementing regulations as required by Government Code section 11135(b). The Recipient’s obligations under this section shall survive the term of this Agreement. During the performance of this Agreement, Recipient and its contractors and subcontractors must not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer), age (over 40), marital status, denial of family care leave, or genetic information, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or military and veteran status. The Recipient, its contractors, and subcontractors must ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. The Recipient, its contractors, and subcontractors must comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder. (Gov. Code, §12990, subds. (a)-(f) et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7285 et seq.) Such regulations are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. The Recipient, its contractors, and subcontractors must give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. The Recipient must include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under this Agreement.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *803

5. NO OBLIGATION OF THE STATE. Any obligation of the State Water Board herein contained shall not be an obligation, debt, or liability of the State and any such obligation shall be payable solely out of the moneys encumbered pursuant to this Agreement.

6. PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS. Recipient must procure all permits, licenses and other authorizations necessary to accomplish the work contemplated in this Agreement, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the work. Signed copies of any such permits or licenses must be submitted to the Division before any construction or implementation begins. Any contractors, outside associates, or consultants required by the Recipient in connection with the services covered by this Agreement shall be limited to such individuals or firms as were specifically identified and agreed to during negotiations for this Agreement, or as are specifically authorized by the State Water Board’s Project Manager during the performance of this Agreement. Any substitutions in, or additions to, such contractors, associates, or consultants, shall be subject to the prior written approval of the State Water Board’s Project Manager.

7. RECORDS, INSPECTION, AUDITS, AND INTERVIEWS; RECORDS RETENTION. The Recipient must maintain separate books, records and other material relative to the Project and retain such books, records, subcontracts, and other material until at least the Records Retention End Date set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement. The Recipient must require that such books, records, and other material are subject at all reasonable times (at a minimum during normal business hours) to inspection, copying, and audit by the State Water Board, the Department of Finance, the California State Auditor, the Bureau of State Audits, or any authorized representatives of the aforementioned, including federal funding agencies and their auditors, if any. The Recipient must allow and must require its contractors to allow interviews during normal business hours of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. The Recipient agrees to include a similar duty regarding audit, interviews, and records retention in any contract or subcontract related to the performance of this Agreement. The provisions of this section survive the term of this Agreement.

8. EXECUTIVE ORDER N-6-22 — RUSSIAN SANCTIONS. On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State Water Board determine Recipient is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this Agreement. The State Water Board shall provide Recipient advance written notice of such termination, allowing Recipient at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response.

Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State Water Board.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *804
The Recipient represents that the Recipient is not a target of economic sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine imposed by the United States government or the State of California. The Recipient is required to comply with the economic sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, including with respect to, but not limited to, the federal executive orders identified in California Executive Order N-6-22, located at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3.4.22-Russia- Ukraine-ExecutiveOrder.pdf and the sanctions identified on the United States Department of the Treasury website (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programsand- country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions). The Recipient is required to comply with all applicable reporting requirements regarding compliance with the economic sanctions, including, but not limited to, those reporting requirements set forth in California Executive Order N-6-22 for all Recipients with one or more agreements with the State of California with an aggregated value of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more.

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, failure to comply with the economic sanctions and all applicable reporting requirements may result in termination of this Agreement.

For Recipients with an aggregated agreement value of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more with the State of California, reporting requirements include, but are not limited to, information related to steps taken in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, including but not limited to:

1. Desisting from making any new investments or engaging in financial transactions with Russian institutions or companies that are headquartered or have their principal place of business in Russia;

2. Not transferring technology to Russia or companies that are headquartered or have their principal place of business in Russia; and

3. Direct support to the government and people of Ukraine.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *805

APPENDIX XIV

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (MBTA),

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, AND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *806
APPENDIX XIV – DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES REQUIREMENTS The City is receiving federal funds for the water main replacement portion of this project.

As such, the following Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Requirements shall be followed by the Contractor. In the language below, the City is the “Recipient”, and the Contractor is the “Prime Contractor”.

Six Good Faith Efforts
Recipients are required to make the following good faith efforts whenever procuring construction, equipment, services, and supplies under an EPA financial assistance agreement. A Native American recipient or prime contractor must follow the six good faith efforts only if doing so would not conflict with exiting Tribal or Federal law, including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

1. Ensure DBEs are made aware of contracting opportunities to the fullest extent practicable through outreach and recruitment activities. For Indian Tribal, State, and Local Government recipients, this will include placing DBEs on solicitation lists and soliciting them whenever they are potential sources.

2. Make information on forthcoming opportunities available to DBEs, arrange time frames for contracts, and establish delivery schedules, where the requirements permit, in a way that encourages and facilitates participation by DBEs in the competitive process. This includes, whenever possible, posting solicitations for bids or proposals for a minimum of 30 calendar days before the bid or proposal closing date.

3. Consider in the contracting process whether firms competing for large contracts could subcontract with DBEs. For Indian Tribal, State, and Local Government recipients, this will include dividing total requirements when economically feasible into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by DBEs in the competitive process.

4. Encourage contracting with a consortium of DBEs when a contract is too large for one of these firms to handle individually.

5. Use the services and assistance of the SBA and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce.

6. If the prime contractor awards subcontracts, require the prime contractor to take the steps in items 1 through 5.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *807
DBE Contract Administration Requirements
Recipients must adhere to the following contract administration requirements:

1. Require the recipient’s prime contractor to pay its subcontractor for satisfactory performance no more than 30 days from the prime contractor’s receipt of payment from the recipient.

2. Require the recipient’s prime contractor to notify the recipient in writing prior to any termination of a DBE subcontractor for convenience by the prime contractor.

3. Require the recipient’s prime contractor to employ the six good faith efforts described in §33.301 in procurement of goods and services, mentioned below:

4. If a DBE subcontractor fails to complete work under the subcontract for any reason, the recipient must require the prime contractor to employ the six good faith efforts described in §33.301 if soliciting a replacement subcontractor.

5. Ensure that each procurement contract it awards contains the term and condition specified in the appendix concerning compliance with the requirements of this part.

6. Ensure that the term and condition in the appendix is included in each procurement contract awarded by an entity receiving an identified loan under a financial assistance agreement to capitalize a revolving loan fund.

7. The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 33 in the award and administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance agreements.

Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in the termination of this contract or other legally available remedies.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *808
APPENDIX XVI - EPA Guidelines

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *809
APPENDIX XVI – EPA GUIDELINES
 During construction, measures should be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions, including maintenance of construction equipment engines and adherence to California Vehicle Code requirements to cover hauling trucks to prevent spills in streets during hauling.
 California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources
If archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the NHRP, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted. The lead federal agency shall be aƯorded the opportunity to review discoveries in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13 – Post-review Discoveries.

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are unexpectedly found, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD.

The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *810
 DBE Good Faith EƯorts
In addition, Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 33 requires that each procurement contract signed by an EPA financial assistance agreement recipient include the following term and condition:

The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 33 in the award and administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract which may result in the termination of this contract or other legally available remedies.
 Six Good Faith EƯorts
Contractor are required to make the following good faith eƯorts whenever procuring construction, equipment, services, and supplies under an EPA financial assistance agreement. A Native American recipient or prime contractor must follow the six good faith eƯorts only if doing so would not conflict with exiting Tribal or Federal law, including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

1. Ensure DBEs are made aware of contracting opportunities to the fullest extent practicable through outreach and recruitment activities. For Indian Tribal, State, and Local Government recipients, this will include placing DBEs on solicitation lists and soliciting them whenever they are potential sources.

2. Make information on forthcoming opportunities available to DBEs, arrange time frames for contracts, and establish delivery schedules, where the requirements permit, in a way that encourages and facilitates participation by DBEs in the competitive process.

This includes, whenever possible, posting solicitations for bids or proposals for a minimum of 30 calendar days before the bid or proposal closing date.

3. Consider in the contracting process whether firms competing for large contracts could subcontract with DBEs. For Indian Tribal, State, and Local Government recipients, this will include dividing total requirements when economically feasible into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by DBEs in the competitive process.

4. Encourage contracting with a consortium of DBEs when a contract is too large for one of these firms to handle individually.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *811

5. Use the services and assistance of the SBA and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce.

6. If the prime contractor awards subcontracts, require the prime contractor to take the steps in items 1 through 5.

EXHIBIT A
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *812
SEWER OR STORM DRAIN MANHOLE AC ASPHALT CONCRETE SSMH SEWER MANHOLE SW SIDEWALK C&G CURB AND GUTTER R/W RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED NOT TO SCALE CL CLEARANCE NTS PROP WATER METER EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CENTERLINE TREE SURVEY MONUMENT GUY WIRE WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT POWER POLE STREET LIGHT SIGN SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE MH MANHOLE STREET IMPROVEMENT GENERAL NOTES LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS, THE CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLANS, THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ("GREENBOOK" OR "SSPWC"), THE STANDARD PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ("GREENBOOK" OR "SPPWC"), CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. ALL REFERENCE SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS SHALL BE THE LATEST EDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. WHEN A TECHNICAL CONFLICT IS FOUND TO EXIST IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS THAT CAN NOT BE RESOLVED BY REFERENCE TO PRECEDENCE PROVISIONS IN THE "GREEN BOOK", THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT SAID CONFLICT TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR RESOLUTION. 3. ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. CONSTRUCTION AND NO-FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF LOMITA PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK. INSPECTION COORDINATION SHALL BE REQUESTED AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. 5. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES AND CALTRANS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK. INSPECTION COORDINATION SHALL BE REQUESTED PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL POLICIES, METHODS AND PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN CALIFORNIA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, LATEST EDITION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. 7. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN BARRICADES, DELINEATORS OR OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT ALL TIMES. 8. THE WALLS AND FACES OF ALL EXCAVATIONS GREATER THAN FIVE (5) FEET IN DEPTH SHALL BE GUARDED BY SHORING, SLOPING OF THE GROUND OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TRENCHES LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET IN DEPTH SHALL ALSO BE GUARDED WHEN THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR GROUND MOVEMENT. 9. THE LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM AVAILABLE INFORMATION, HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE, IN THE FIELD, THE TRUE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES, AND TO EXERCISE PROPER PRECAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT AT 1-800-227-2600 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE EXCAVATION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES AND TRASH COLLECTION AGENCY (i.e. ATHENS SERVICES) INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GAS, TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, CABLE TELEVISION, DOMESTIC WATER, RECLAIMED WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAIN, FLOOD CONTROL AND STREET SWEEPING. ALL UTILITY COMPANIES AND TRASH COLLECTION AGENCY SHALL BE GIVEN TWO WORKING DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO WORK AROUND THEIR FACILITIES AND WORK IMPACTING THE TRASH COLLECTION AGENCY OR STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW ACCESS FOR TRASH COLLECTION TRUCKS. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE DEBRIS IN STREET WHILE STREET SWEEPING SERVICES ARE SUSPENDED. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE ANY FIRE HYDRANT OR WATER MAIN VALVES WITHOUT APPROPRIATE AGENCY AUTHORIZATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE APPROPRIATE WATER COMPANY FOR VALVE OPERATION AND WATER REQUIREMENTS. 13. STATIONING REFERS TO THE CENTERLINE OF STREETS EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED. 14. ADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL STAKES SHALL BE SET BY THE ENGINEER TO ENABLE THE CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT THE WORK TO THE PLAN GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BENCHMARKS AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROL STAKING DURING CONSTRUCTION. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS, MONUMENT TIES OR BENCH MARKS WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ENGINEER. 16. REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SURVEY CONTROL, INCLUDING SURVEY MONUMENTS, MONUMENT TIES AND BENCH MARKS, SHALL BE DONE BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. SURVEY MONUMENTS THAT WILL BE DESTROYED AS A RESULT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER ONE WEEK PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH TIES TO MONUMENTS FOR LATER REPLACEMENT OF THE MONUMENTS. 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AT ALL TIMES. WITHIN NARBONNE AVENUE A MINIMUM 11 FOOT LANE FOR EACH DIRECTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC, RESIDENTS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. IN ADDITION A PARKING LANE ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, AND ACCESS TO AND FROM THE SHERIFF'S STATION MUST BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF DUST CONTROL, INCLUDING ADEQUATE WATERING AT ALL TIMES. 19. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE DISCONTINUED WHEN SUSTAINED WIND VELOCITIES EXCEED 25 MILES PER HOUR. 20. NO MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT OBTAINING A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE. 21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CAUSE ANY EXCAVATED MATERIAL, MUD, SILT OR DEBRIS TO BE DEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL. 22. NO TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. 23. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL CERTIFY ALL BACKFILL COMPACTION. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED DENSITY SHALL REQUIRE RE-WORKING OF THAT PORTION OF THE WORK UNTIL THE SPECIFIED DENSITY IS OBTAINED. 24. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT GRADES, DITCHES, AND SWALES FROM UNDERMINING STREET IMPROVEMENTS. UPON INSPECTION OF THE SITE, THE CITY ENGINEER MAY REQUIRE TEMPORARY NON-ERODIBLE SWALES ENTERING OR LEAVING IMPROVEMENTS. 25. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY IF SOIL ODOR OR COLOR POTENTIALLY INDICATES CONTAMINATED SOIL. ONCE THE INSPECTOR ASSIGNED BY THE CITY CONFIRMS THAT HAZARDOUS SOIL IS SUSPECTED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW GUIDELINES SET BY BID ITEMS 32 TO 35. 26. ALL EXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACES SHALL CONFORM IN GRADE, COLOR AND FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE. 27. NO CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED UNTIL THE FORMS AND REINFORCING STEEL HAVE BEEN PLACED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED. 28. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED, TESTED AND APPROVED WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PAVING OF STREETS. 29. IF EXCAVATION DISTURBS EXISTING SUBGRADE, THE CONTRACTOR MUST PREPARE SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% PER SSPWC STANDARDS. 30. THE SUBGRADE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH APPROVED SOIL STERILANT PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOIL STERILANT MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 31. ALL MANHOLES, CLEANOUTS FRAMES, COVERS AND VALVE BOXES SHALL BE RAISED TO FINISHED GRADE BY THE PAVING CONTRACTOR UPON COMPLETION OF PAVING. 32. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL SIGNING, STRIPING, BARRICADES, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. 33. CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE AND/OR REPLACE LANDSCAPING, SPRINKLERS AND SIDEWALKS AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 34. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, WHO SHALL PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS TO THE CITY ENGINEER. 35. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROJECT LIMITS AND THE CITY OF LOMITA TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK. THE NOTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION STARTING DATES, DAILY WORKING HOURS, DURATION, AND EMERGENCY CONTACT NUMBERS. 36. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE SWPPP AND WATER POLLUTION BMPS BY RETAINING A QSD AND QSP TO DEVELOP, AMEND AND IMPLEMENT THE SWPPP. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS OR REPORTS FOURTEEN (14) DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB) AND THE CITY FOR APPROVAL. THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS INCLUDE TWO (2) HARD COPIES OF THE SWPPP, ONE (1) PDF OF THE SWPPP, ALL REPORTS REQUIRED BY GENERAL PERMIT, AND ANNUAL REPORT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT START THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SITE WORK WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SWPPP BY THE CITY AND RWQCB 37. THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 26123 NARBONNE AVE, IS A CRITICAL FACILITY THAT REQUIRES OPEN ACCESS TO VEHICLES AT ALL TIMES. ANY DISRUPTIONS TO THIS ACCESS MUST BE LIMITED AND IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. CONTRACTOR TO STOP WORK AND ALLOW ACCESS FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT VEHICLES AT ALL TIMES. 38. CONTRACTOR SHALL COVER EXISTING STREET SWEEPING SIGNS WITH A NON-DAMAGING, TEMPORARY COVER. 39. NO GRADING, SOIL REMOVAL, SOIL FILL OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS (LACSD) EASEMENT(S) WITHOUT ON-SITE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY BY A SANITATION DISTRICTS INSPECTOR. CONTACT THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS MANAGER AT (310)638-1161 A MINIMUM OF (2) WEEKS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION TO ARRANGE FOR INSPECTION. 40. VIBRATORY EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED OVER THE CHEVRON PIPELINE. 41. CONTRACTOR TO USE LAYDOWN AREA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF LOMITA PER SPECIFICATION SECTION 3-12. LEGEND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURE THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES AND/OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. THESE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR, SO THAT ANY NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN THE ALIGNMENT AND OR/GRADE OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT ANY UTILITY LINES SHOWN AND ANY OTHER LINES NOT ON RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. NEITHER THE OWNER OR ENGINEER ASSUMES ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UTILITIES SHOWN/NOT SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND/OR ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND FACILITIES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (U.S.A.) 1-800-227-2600 AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. PRIVATE ENGINEER'S NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, HE/SHE WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT. EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OR LIABLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USE OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. ABBREVIATIONS SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX TITLE SHEET TYPICAL SECTION LAYOUT PLANS SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS WATERLINE PLANS WATERLINE DETAILS PCH TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS 1 2
34-5 6-8 9-10 11-12 CITY OF LOMITA NARBONNE SOUTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROJECT NO. 374 UTILITIES CONTACTS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ALL UTILITY AGENCIES CONCERNED A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: AT&T ATHENS SERVICES (TRASH COLLECTION) CHARTER CHEVRON PIPELINE & POWER (DAVE ZERLER) CITY OF LOMITA CITY OF LOMITA- WATER DIVISION (EMERGENCY PHONE) CITY OF LOMITA SHERIFF STATION COX COMMUNICATIONS LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS TIME WARNER CABLE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT VERIZON (510) 645-2929 (888) 336-6100 (714) 591-4870 (970) 260-8959 (310) 325-7110 (310) 597-6428 (310) 539-1661 (949) 546-2754 (310) 326-2461 (310) 539-1661 (562) 699-7411 (562) 861-0316 (213) 217-7474 (714) 796-9999 (310) 605-2116 (714) 903-8446 811 (469) 886-4238 1 AB AGGREGATE BASE EX./ EXIST EXISTING WM WATER METER WV WATER VALVE TS TRAFFIC SIGN FH FIRE HYDRANT PAVEMENT LEGEND AC OVERLAY PROJECT SITE NARBONNE AVENUE SEE SHEETS 3-8 CITY LIMITS REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. SM P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS RWMM SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 100% SUBMITTAL EG EDGE OF GUTTER DLC DETECTOR LOOP CABLE SHERIFF SUBSTATION S PROP COUPLING PROP WATER MAIN CAP PROP WATER VALVE AVG AVERAGE FLG FLANGE MJ MECHANICAL JOINT CIP CAST IRON PIPE DI DUCTILE IRON DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE SSPWC STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUTCD MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE TYP TYPICAL VAR VARIOUS, VARIES OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER STD STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION WATER GENERAL NOTES 1. CAUTION: REVIEW APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLAN. IF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES WORKERS AND/OR EQUIPMENT TO BE WITHIN 6 FEET OR CRANES OR HOISTING DEVICES TO BE WITHIN 10 FEET OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES, CALL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AT 310-783-9339 FOR PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR 310-783-9331 FOR PROJECTS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT 310-325-9830 PRIOR TO TRIMMING, REMOVING OR RELOCATING ANY EXISTING TREES. 3. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, ALL TRAFFIC SIGNS SHALL BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED BY THE CITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT 310-325-9830 AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE TO ARRANGE THE WORK. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISINFECT WATER LINES UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY'S WATER QUALITY INSPECTOR. THE LOMITA MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT SHALL COLLECT WATER SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO DISINFECTING OF THE PIPELINE BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE INSPECTOR AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A PROPOSED WATER MAIN OR SERVICE LINE SHUT DOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CUSTOMERS EFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SHUT DOWN AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION SHALL CONSIST OF A DOOR HANGER SPECIFING THE DATE(S) AND TIME(S) OF THE PROPOSED SHUT DOWN. NOTICE SHALL CONTAIN THE CONTRACTORS NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER. NOTICE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION. 6. OPERATION OF VALVES ON ALL PUBLIC WATER LINES AND THE FIRST NEW VALVE DOWNSTREAM OF A PUBLIC WATER MAIN SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE LOMITA MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 7. FOR PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION ALL WATER LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A TWO FOOT (MIN.) CLEARANCE FROM EXISTING UTILITY LINES (GAS, TELEPHONE, CABLE, POWER ...). A MINIMUM OF 12" CLEARANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED WHEN CROSSING UTILITY LINES. 8. NO PVC PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED UPSTREAM OF THE INLET SIDE OF METERS OR DETECTOR CHECK VALVES. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR'S REVIEW, ON A DAILY BASIS, AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FOR WORK PERFORMED UP TO AND INCLUDING THE PREVIOUS DAY'S ACTIVITIES. WORK SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLETE UNTIL AS-BUILTS ARE SUBMITTED TO AND ACCEPTED SY THE CITY ENGINEER. 10. ALL FLANGE NUTS, BOLTS AND WASHERS SHALL BE 316 S.S. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.

EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *813 TYPICAL SECTION NARBONNE AVENUE 1+94 TO 17+90 NOT TO SCALE 40.0' 80.0' CL 40.0' 6.0' PARKING LANE W'LY R/W E'LY R/W 10.0' 30.0' 22.0'

2.0"AC
5 P C&G
P EX. AB C&G
P
1 6.0' PARKING LANE 10.0' 30.0' 22.0' EX. AB
P
4 6.0"
3 3 P SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
P 2.0' C&G 2.0' C&G 10
2 REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE
R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. SM P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS RWMM SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 100% SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 2 INSPECT EXPOSED UTILITY TRENCHES AND PATCHES, REPAIR AND REPLACE AS REQUIRED 3 TAPER AC PAVEMENT THROUGH 6' PARKING LANE TO 0" AT LIP OF GUTTER 4 CONSTRUCT 4.0" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE AND LEVEL SURFACE (TYPE B PG 64-10, 3 4" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE MIXTURE) 5 CONSTRUCT 2” THICK CONVENTIONAL HOT MIX ASPHALT WEARING SURFACE OVERLAY (TYPE B PG 64-10, 1 2" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE MIXTURE) 10 SEE SHEET 10 FOR TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL. SEE SHEETS 6 THROUGH 10 FOR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PLANS 1 COLD MILL 4.5” EXISTING AC PAVEMENT SECTION (AC AND/OR AB AS EXISTS) P PROTECT IN PLACE (ITEM AS NOTED) LEGENDCONSTRUCT FULL DEPTH AC OVER VARIABLE DEPTH OF AB (REFER TO CONSTRUCTION NOTE 10) EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *814

FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
E
E
E
2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G
2"G 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W
W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S SD SD
12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W
12''W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
W
1+00.00 2+00.00 3+00.00 4+00.00 5+00.00 6+00.00 7+00.00 8+00.00 9+00.00 BP: 1+00.00
Mid: 1+48.88
PT: 1+97.77
STA 1+00.00 DESIGN SPEED = 25 mi/h
1+50.00 2+50.00 3+50.00 4+50.00 5+50.00 6+50.00 7+50.00 8+50.00 9+50.00 FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
E
E
E
2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G
2"G 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W
W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S SD SD
12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W
12''W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
W

CO TS WM WV WV
PLM
PLM

PLM WV WV WMWM P WV

WM WV WM WMWMWMWMWM WV P WV WM

T TPC WM

T TPC WMWM
GV

T WM WV WV WV WM
TWMTPC
TVTVC
T WM S

PEPB WM S
T
T

T TPC WM S D
WM WV
D D
SS WM

T TPC WM
S
S S
S
S
26' PVTDRWY

PVT DRWY FIRE LN
VISTA LOMITA LN 7553-003-030
7553-003-037
7553-003-(90 - 113)
7553-003-902
7553-003-114
7553-003-012
7553-003-013
7553-003-903
7553-003-114
7553-003-902
7553-005-003
7553-005-002
7553-005-031
7553-005-004
7553-005-(034 - 071)

VISLOMA PL
7553-005-(073 - 097)
7553-005-005
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 EXIST CITY R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL

80.0'

40.0' 40.0'

30.0' 10.0' 30.0' 10.0'
7 7
7 7
7 6
6 6
6 6
6 9
9 1 2
4 5 NARBONNE AVE
9 7

CITY LIMITS
1 2
4 5 EXIST CITY R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL
3 3
STA 1+97.05 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION LIMITS WITHIN CITY OF LOMITA 10 10
STA 1+94.59 EXIST CITY R/W
6 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION LIMITS OUTSIDE OF CITY OF LOMITA (WITHIN ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

CHEVRON EASEMENT SEE GENERAL NOTE FOR PAVEMENT TRANSITION HEREON SHERIFF SUBSTATION CHEVRON PIPELINES 6 SEE PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL HEREON 25' SEE GENERAL NOTE FOR CHEVRON EASEMENT HEREON 11

W W W W W
8''S
8''W 8''W
8''S
6''W 6''W W(ABN) FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO

FO FO FO

FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO
4''G
4''G 4''G
2''G 2''G G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN)

G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W E
E
E
E
10"W
10"W
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
e(oh)
e(oh)
SD

FO FO FO
W
W
W
W
T
T T

T T T T T T T T T
T T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
W
E
G
T10+00.00 11+00.00 12+00.00 13+00.00 14+00.00 15+00.00 16+00.00 17+00.00 18+00.00 19+00.00 PI: 18+31.03 9+50.00 10+50.00 11+50.00 12+50.00 13+50.00 14+50.00 15+50.00 16+50.00 17+50.00 18+50.00

W W W W W
8''S
8''W 8''W
8''S
6''W 6''W W(ABN) FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO

FO FO FO

FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO
4''G
4''G 4''G
2''G 2''G G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN)

G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W E
E
E
E
10"W
10"W
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
e(oh)
e(oh)
SD

FO FO FO
W
W
W
W
T
T T

T T T T T T T T T
T T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
W
E
G
T
WM

T WV WV WV WM S
T
S WM
UR
ER

T TPC WM WMWMT WM

T WV WM
SL
134.83
545

WM WM WM

T TPC S WVWV S UTIL
TPC WM

T TPC TV WM

P TPC T P WV
U TPC

TPC CO WV TV WV WMWMWMWM WMWMWM
WMWM
T TS
T TPC
BOLL
127.87
668 TFC EDW
127.78
671 TV WV WV WV WMWMTV P

GV WV WV S S ASMH
124.30
728 D TSPEPB PEPB WV S ASMH
122.85
776 WM TS

TS TCB TS WV TS GV TSTSPB
125.28
816
GV
WV D

WV GV S WVWV WV S

PVT DRWY
PVT DRWY 7553-003-(44 - 88)
7553-002-013
7553-002-(102 - 125)
7553-002-019
7553-002-021
7553-002-131
7553-002-131
7553-006-042
7553-006-043
7553-006-189
7553-006-039
7553-006-038
7553-006-041
7553-006-041
7553-006-017
7553-006-163
7553-006-039
7553-006-(112 - 157) 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 EXIST CITY R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL EXIST CITY R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL EXIST CITY R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL

80.0'

40.0' 40.0'

30.0' 10.0' 30.0' 10.0'

80.0'

40.0' 40.0'

30.0' 10.0' 30.0' 10.0'
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 6
6 6
6 6
9 NARBONNE AVE

PACIFIC COAST
HWY
8 8
9 9
9 9
9 1 2
3 4
5 1 2
3 4
5 STA 17+89.76 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION LIMITS EXIST CALTRANS R/W EXIST CALTRANS R/W 10 10 10 SEE PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL HEREON 10' REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. SM P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS RWMM SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 100% SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 2 INSPECT EXPOSED UTILITY TRENCHES AND PATCHES, REPAIR AND REPLACE AS REQUIRED 3 TAPER AC PAVEMENT THROUGH 6' PARKING LANE TO LIP OF GUTTER 4 CONSTRUCT 4.0" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE AND LEVEL SURFACE (TYPE B PG 64-10, 3 4" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE MIXTURE) 5 CONSTRUCT 2” THICK CONVENTIONAL HOT MIX ASPHALT OVERLAY(TYPE B PG 64-10, 1 2" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE MIXTURE) 6 ADJUST SEWER MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER TO GRADE, SEE GENERAL NOTES #3. 7 ADJUST WATER VALVE BOX AND COVER TO GRADE 8 ADJUST GAS VALVE BOX AND COVER TO GRADE 9 ELECTRICAL (SCE) MANHOLE/VAULT FRAME AND COVER TO BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE BY OTHERS 10 SEE SHEET 10 FOR TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL. SEE SHEETS 6 THROUGH 10 FOR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PLANS 11 TAPER AC PAVEMENT THROUGH TRANSITION LENGTH TO 0" AT EXISTING PAVEMENT TIE-IN 1 COLD MILL 4.5” EXISTING AC PAVEMENT SECTION (AC AND/OR AB AS EXISTS) MATCH LINE STA 09+50

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCH LINE STA 09+50
SEE BELOW LEFT LEGEND4-1/2" COLD MILL, 4" AC LEVEL COURSE (REFER TO CONST NOTES 1, 2, 3, 4) 3 CONSTRUCT 2" AC OVERLAY (REFER TO CONST NOTE 5) GENERAL NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE AND COMPACT ANY EXPOSED AGGREGATE BASE IF ENCOUNTERED. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AND NOTIFY LACSD FOR ADJUSTMENT OF MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER TO NEW GRADE. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND NOTIFY CHEVRON TO CONFIRM THEIR EASEMENT BOUNDARY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. USE OF VIBRATORY EQUIPMENT IS PROHIBITED IN THE CHEVRON EASEMENT. A LIST OF EQUIPMENT PROPOSED FOR USE IN THE EASEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO CHEVRON FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCT FULL DEPTH AC OVER VARIABLE DEPTH OF AB (REFER TO CONSTRUCTION NOTE 10) SECTION DETAIL FOR PAVEMENT TRANSITION EXISTING PAVEMENT 1.5" AC TO BE TRANSITIONED TRANSITION PROPOSED PAVEMENT LENGTH PER PLAN 4-1/2" COLD MILL, 4" AC LEVEL COURSE, CONSTRUCT 2" AC OVERLAY - TAPER AC OVERLAY PAVEMENT THROUGH PAVEMENT TRANSITION LENGTH (PER PLANS) TO 0" TO MEET EXISTING PAVEMENT. SEE PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL HEREON. 11 4" AC BASE 2" AC OVERLAY EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *815 26' PVTDRWY

PVT DRWY FIRE LN
VISTA LOMITA LN 7553-003-030
7553-003-037
7553-003-(90 - 113)
7553-003-902
7553-003-114
7553-003-012
7553-003-013
7553-003-903
7553-003-114
7553-003-902
7553-005-003
7553-005-002
7553-005-031
7553-005-004
7553-005-(034 - 071)

VISLOMA PL
7553-005-(073 - 097)
7553-005-005 NARBONNE AVE

CITY LIMITS

CO TS P P
T
T
T
TV
T
T S
P S
TT
T S D
D D
S
S
T
S
S S
S
S 255' EXIST EG EXIST CL EXIST R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL PROPOSED SIGN (ONE POST) PROPOSED 100' 1 1 2 1,018' INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM 245' 6 250'
8 5 1,350'
4 1,350'
5 1,250'
4 1,250' INSTALL TWO-WAY LEFT TYPE IV ARROWS PM INSTALL TWO-WAY LEFT TYPE IV ARROWS PM EXIST W4-2 SIGN RM RM EXIST W9-1 SIGN 1 1
1 JOIN EXIST STRIPING
STA 1+80.89
CHEVRON EASEMENTSHERIFF SUBSTATION INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM EXIST R/W R81(CA) IS R81B(CA) IS R81(CA) R81A(CA)

PVT DRWY
PVT DRWY 7553-003-(44 - 88)
7553-002-013
7553-002-(102 - 125)
7553-002-019
7553-002-021
7553-002-131
7553-002-131
7553-006-042
7553-006-043
7553-006-189
7553-006-039
7553-006-038
7553-006-041
7553-006-041
7553-006-017
7553-006-163
7553-006-039
7553-006-(112 - 157) NARBONNE AVE

PACIFIC COAST HWY
T
S
T
S
T T
T
T S
S UTIL

T TV PT P
U
CO
TV
T TS

TTV TV P S S D TSP
P S TS
TS TS TS TS S EXIST R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL EXIST R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL 50' 175' 2 1,018'
3 175'
5 1,243'
4 1,243'
5 1,243'
4 1,243'
3 175' INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM INSTALL TWO-WAY LEFT TYPE IV ARROWS PM INSTALL TWO-WAY LEFT TYPE IV ARROWS PM INSTALL TYPE IV (R) ARROW PM INSTALL TYPE IV (L) ARROW PM 7 1 225' 1
1 1
1 SEE NOTE 12 INSTALL TYPE IV (L) ARROW PM INSTALL BIKE SHARE ARROW PM PM PM INSTALL BIKE SHARE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") INSTALL TYPE IV (R) ARROW IS R3-7 R4-4 IS 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM IS R81A(CA) R28(CA) PM 50' GREEN STRIPING IS R81(CA) R81(CA) IS IS CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 INSTALL BLUE REFLECTORIZED PAVEMENT MARKER (RPM) ACROSS FROM FIRE HYDRANT PER CALIFORNIA MUTCD SECTION 3B.11 AND FIGURE 3B-102(CA) INSTALL 4" DOUBLE YELLOW, PER DETAIL 22 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 4" YELLOW TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE, PER DETAIL 32 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 8" WHITE CHANNELIZING LINE, PER DETAIL 38 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 4" WHITE PARKING LANE INSTALL 6" WHITE BIKE LANE, PER DETAIL 39 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 6" WHITE DASHED BIKE LANE, PER DETAIL 39A PER CALTRANS INSTALL 11' WIDE WHITE CONTINENTAL CROSS WALK WITH 2' STRIPES @ 3' SPACING INSTALL 6" WHITE SOLID LINE, PER DETAIL 27B PER CALTRANS REMOVE CONFLICTING SIGN AND DELIVER TO CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS YARD PAVEMENT MARKINGS OR ARROWS AS NOTED, PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24A-H INSTALL SIGN(S) AND POST AS NOTED EXISTING 1234
567RMPM8 REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. SM P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS RWMM SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 100% SUBMITTAL MATCH LINE STA 09+50

SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCH LINE STA 09+50

SEE BELOW LEFT
4 SIGNING AND STRIPING GENERAL NOTES (FOR SHEETS 4-5) 1. CONSTRUCTION PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK. INSPECTION COORDINATION SHALL BE REQUESTED AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 2. ALL WORK, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL CONFORM TO THESE PLANS, THE CITY OF LOMITA DESIGN STANDARDS, THE CITY'S SPECIAL PROVISIONS, CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST EDITIONS, AND THE CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, LATEST EDITION. 3. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES. 4. PROTECT ALL EXISTING SIGNS. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, SIGNS AND SIGNPOSTS THAT ARE REMOVED SHALL BE SALVAGED AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS YARD. 5. ALL STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE THERMOPLASTIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK SSPWC 214-5. 6. REMOVE ALL EXISTING CONFLICTING TRAFFIC STRIPING, MARKING, ARROW OR CHANNELIZER AS NOTED, INCLUDING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS. STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE REMOVED BY SANDBLASTING OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS, NONE OF WHICH SHALL DAMAGE THE PAVEMENT. THE 'BLACK OUT' METHOD OF REMOVAL IS NOT PERMITTED. ANY PAVEMENT DAMAGED BY REMOVALS SHALL BE REPAIRED PER APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER AT NO COST TO THE CITY. 7. CONTROL POINTS OR "CAT TRACKING" SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF PAVEMENT STRIPING AND LEGENDS. NOTIFY THE CITY AT LEAST TWO DAYS PRIOR FOR APPROVAL OF "CAT TRACKING." 8. STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS' SPECIFICATIONS. 9. BLUE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS PER CALIFORNIA MUTCD SECTION 3B.11 AND FIGURE 3B-102(CA). 10. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, WHO SHALL PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS AND ELECTRONIC AUTOCAD FILES TO THE CITY ENGINEER. 11. CROSSWALK SHALL BE 11' WIDE BETWEEN 12" STRIPES AND SHALL BE CENTERED TO THE HANDICAP RAMP UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 12. INSTALL NEW TYPE E LOOP DETECTOR AND SPLICE TO EXISTING DLC AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS. EXACT LOOPS AND PULL BOX LOCATIONS TO BE VERIFIED AND CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH CALTRANS. LOOPS MUST REMAIN ACTIVE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 13. TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKERS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE LATEST CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS A20A TO A24F, SEE CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR DETAIL NUMBER.

MATCH LINE STA 18+50
SEE SHEET 5
EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *816 7375-025-028
7373-008-023

JOIN EXIST STRIPING
STA = 23+25
D

S S EXIST R/W EXIST EG EXIST CL
3 175' 3 175' PM INSTALL TYPE IV (L) ARROW INSTALL TWO-WAY LEFT TYPE IV ARROWS PM INSTALL TYPE IV (L) ARROW PM 5 261'
4 261' INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM 4 120' 5 120' 1 225' 175'
2 186'
1PM INSTALL BIKE SHARE ARROW PM INSTALL TYPE IV (R) ARROW INSTALL BIKE SHARE ARROW PMINSTALL TYPE IV (R) ARROW PM R3-7 "EXCEPT BUSES" IS IS R4-4 REMOVE 150' OF RED CURB PAINT AT 25625 NARBONNE AVE 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 5 271'
4 271' PM BUS ONLY PM 45' GREEN STRIPING INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM INSTALL WHITE BIKE LANE SYMBOL WITH PERSON AND BIKE LANE ARROW IN GREEN BOX (132" X 60") PM 75' GREEN STRIPING PM IS R28(CA) 75' IS CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 INSTALL BLUE REFLECTORIZED PAVEMENT MARKER (RPM) ACROSS FROM FIRE HYDRANT PER CALIFORNIA MUTCD SECTION 3B.11 AND FIGURE 3B-102(CA) INSTALL 4" DOUBLE YELLOW, PER DETAIL 22 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 4" YELLOW TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE, PER DETAIL 32 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 8" WHITE CHANNELIZING LINE, PER DETAIL 38 PER CALTRANS INSTALL 4" WHITE PARKING LANE INSTALL 6" WHITE BIKE LANE, PER DETAIL 39 PER CALTRANS REMOVE CONFLICTING SIGN AND DELIVER TO CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS YARD PAVEMENT MARKINGS OR ARROWS AS NOTED, PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24A-H INSTALL SIGN(S) AND POST AS NOTED EXISTING 1234
5RMPM REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE
R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. SM P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS RWMM SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 100% SUBMITTAL MATCH LINE STA 18+50
SEE SHEET 4
5 132" 24"
60" 24" 30"
40" WHITE BIKE LANE ARROW WHITE "BIKE" SYMBOL BIKE BOX DETAIL NOT TO SCALE GREEN PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC CENTERLINE OF BIKE LANE CL BIKE LANE CONFLICT ZONE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DETAIL 39A DETAIL 39A GREEN PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC 5' OR
VARIES DISTANCE AS SHOWN ON PLANS 4' 8' 4' 8' 4' 60"
EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *817 184
171.13 PP CO
185
172.70 SCO TS116
180.14 TSTB WM
119
179.07 SIGN WVWV
128
181.22 SIGN
129
182.74 PP
130
180.86 GA
139
177.89 SIGN
140
177.79 SIGN PLM
145
179.75 GA
147
179.22 PRM
148
179.44 PRM TV151
172.36 TVPB
152
173.00 BOTTLE BRUSH TREE PLM
PLM
157
171.66SL
168
182.09 PRM 169 180.41 MON SIGN
175
175.24SLUTIL
176
174.94 UKVL WV
WV
WM
182
170.64 FH
183
171.57 GA WM
P
193 VLT E
169.62
201
166.96SL
WV
213
169.21 SIGN WM
217 WVLT
165.19
218 WVLT
165.26
219 WVLT
165.00
220
164.93 WVLT CLO E WV
222
165.09 FIRE UTIL
223
164.20 UKVL
224
164.13SL
225
163.30 FH WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM TV234
162.22 TVPB WV
246
164.75 VNT
247
164.53 VNT P
248
163.92 EVLT WV
WM
T
TPC
WM
U
253
162.34 UPB
256
158.75SL T
TPC TV267
156.00 TVPBWM
WM
270
155.78SL
271
157.73 VNT
272
158.80 VNT GV TV292
152.90 TVPB T
293
152.72 TMH WM
298
150.01 SL WV
WV
WV 310
151.29 FH
311
151.49SL WM
T

TPCUTIL
314
153.12 UKVL UTIL
315
152.97 VLT WM
TV
TVC
WM
360
151.94 GA
S
115 ASMH
181.48 S
117 ASMH
179.21 S
138 ASMH
177.41
S
240 ASMH
160.52 7553-003-(90 - 113) 7553-003-013 7553-003-012 7553-003-903 7553-003-902 7553-003-114 7553 -003 -902 7553-003-114 7553-005-003 7553-005-004 7553-005-005 7553-005-(073 - 097) 7553-005-(034 - 071)

VISLOMA PL

FIRE LN
PVT DRWY 26' PVT DRWY FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO

FO FO FO
FO
FO
FO
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
G(ABN)
8''S
8''S
E
E

E E(UG)
2''G
2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G
G
G
G
2"G 2"G 2"G
G
G
G
6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W
W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W
12''W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
W W
W(ABN)
W W
W W
W W
W W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T
20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 140 150 160 170 180 140 150 160 170 180 19+50 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 177.5
177.53
174.7
174.70
171.7
171.73
168.7
168.74
165.6
165.62
162.3
162.32
159.2
159.22
156.1
156.12
153.4
153.40
150.8
150.81 8" PVC WATERLINE NARBONNE AVE. PLAN AND PROFILE STA. 20+00 TO STA. 25+00 1. COAT ALL BURIED METALLIC COMPONENTS PER SSPWC SPEC SECTION 210 2. BURIED BOLTS SHALL BE 316 STAINLESS STEEL GRADE B8M. BURIED NUTS SHALL BE 316 STAINLESS STEEL GRADE 8M. 3. PLACE AGGREGATE BASE PER DETAIL 1, SHEET C-5. AC PAVEMENT PER ROADWAY PLANS. 4. ALL FILL AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM RELATIVE DENSITY OF 95%. 5. PROTECT AND RESTORE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IF DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6. MAXIMUM ALLOWED JOINT DEFLECTION FOR PVC PIPE SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN THREE DEGREES. 7. PROTECT IN-PLACE AND RESTORE IN-KIND IF DAMAGED, ALL PCC SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, DRAIN PIPES, WATER LINES AND ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR REMOVAL. 8. ALL BURIED PIPE SHALL HAVE 42" MIN. COVER EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON SHEET C-2. 9. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING METER AND SERVICE LINE SIZES PRIOR TO INSTALLING NEW SERVICES. 10. ALL REMOVED HYDRANTS TO BE DELIVERED TO AND UNLOADED AT THE CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS YARD. MATCH LINE STA. 25+00 SEE SHEET C-2
1 REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ZAW 374 ENGINEERING DIVISION P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E APPROVED BY CITY : DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF SHTS NAME 12 SYS SXCH INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES: MARIE MARSTON PROJECT MANAGER DATE Date: Prepared Under The Supervision Of : PREPARED BY: RODNEY C. LANGER, JR. R.C.E. 49309 CITY OF LOMITA NARBONNE SOUTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THIS SITE UNTIL BELOW AGENCY IS NOTIFIED OF INTENTION TO GRADE OR EXCAVATE. 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 City of Lomita XX/XX/2025 17782 17th Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 12/06/2024 DWG NO. LINA HERNANDEZ XX/XX/2025 Plot Date:

Save Date:
3/4/2025 7:04 AM
2/24/2025 10:28 AM By: Sys P:\C\CLOM00000122\0400CAD\WA\SHEETS\C-1 SHEET.dwg Scott Stcherbinine By:

File:
80'
40'
32' 32'
6'
40'
1 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20
0 10 20 40 20 NARBONNE AVE. R/W R/W CITY LIMIT C-1
6 2
4 2
35 4
5 3(4) 3(4) (2) 18
9 9
810
3 4
4 18
4 5 SEE DETAIL 1 ON DWG. C-4 FOR CONNECTION 1119121815
8 8 18 18
8 12 10 11 15 19 CONSTRUCT 8" PVC C900 OR C905 DR14 PIPE PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLANS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. TRENCHES PER DETAILS 1 & 3, SHEET C-5. NOTES TO CONTRACTOR: PROFILE NARBONNE AVE STA 20+00 TO STA 25+00 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' PLAN NARBONNE AVE STA 20+00 TO STA 25+00 NOTE: * MATERIAL UNKNOWN ** DEPTH UNKNOWN (CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE & VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION) EX. 6" WATER */**
EX. 1" GAS */**
(2) EX. 4" PVC ELEC
(2) EX. 6" WATER */**
EX. 2" GAS
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. 1" TEL */**
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. 3/4" STEEL GAS PROPOSED 8" PVC WATER MAIN STA 20+00 - STA 21+65 RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS EX. GRADE ALONG NEW 8" WATER MAIN 10 19 (2) EXP.CIVI L STATE
OF
CA

LI FORNIA

REGISTERED PROFES
SIONAL ENGINEER RECONNECT EXISTING FIRE WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING VAULT, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION AND SIZE. CONSTRUCT 1" WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING WATER METER WITH NEW METER BOX AND COVER PER W-101 AND W-103. CONSTRUCT 1.5" WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING WATER METER WITH NEW METER BOX AND COVER PER W-101 AND W-103. CONSTRUCT 2" WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING WATER METER WITH NEW METER BOX AND COVER PER W-102 AND W-103. ABANDON EXISTING WATERMAIN IN PLACE. FILL WITH 1-SACK SLURRY CEMENT MIX. CONSTRUCT 8" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) WITH CONCRETE SUPPORT BLOCK AND RESTRAINED FOLLOWER GLAND PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-150. CONSTRUCT 12" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) WITH CONCRETE SUPPORT BLOCK AND RESTRAINED FOLLOWER GLAND PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-150. CONSTRUCT 8" D.I. BEND (DEFLECTION ANGLE AS SHOWN) WITH THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-140. CONSTRUCT "MAIN SIZE" TRANSITION COUPLING. REMOVE EXISTING VALVE BOX, RISER, AND ABANDON VALVE IN PLACE IN CLOSED POSTION CONSTRUCT 12"x8" FLG'D D.I. TEE WITH CONCRETE SUPPORT BLOCK, RESTRAINED GLAND FOLLOWER, AND THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-140. CUT EXISTING WATER LINE AND REMOVE INTERFERING PORTIONS. PLUG WITH CONCRETE (NO LESS THAN 6" THICK) AND ABANDON. CONSTRUCTION NOTES EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *818

FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO
E
E
E
E
E
E(UG)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G 2''G
G
G
G 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S SD SD
SS 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
W W
W W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
TG
G
G
W W
W W
8" OUT 129.85
8" IN 129.90
RIM 138.24
8" OUT 130.30
8" IN 130.33
RIM 138.73
10" OUT 134.41
8" IN 134.62
8" IN 136.49
RIM 143.68
8" OUT 133.98
8" IN 134.02
8" IN 134.23
RIM 143.18
8" OUT 131.10
8" IN 131.13
8" IN 131.20
RIM 143.47
8" DROP INLET
134.64
8" OUT 137.92
8" IN 137.92
RIM 147.54
8" OUT 136.97
8" IN 136.97
RIM 146.96
3143.19 BM T
325
147.94 TPB WM TV327
146.56 TVPB
328
146.43 FH
329
146.31 SL S
337 ASMH
146.96 P
EPB
WM
S
348 ASMH
147.54 T
350
147.22 TPB T
351
147.09 TPB U
352
146.71 UPB
353
146.78SL
358
146.94 GA
359
146.90 PP
T
TPC
WM
S
364 ASMH
143.47 D
375 CB MH
143.51
380
143.13SL
WM
390
144.41 SL
WV
D
395 CB MH
143.30 D
396 SDMH
142.65 S
397 ASMH
143.18 S
398 ASMH
143.68 U
399
143.28 UMH WM
T
TPC
WM
WM
T
424
142.29 TPB
426
141.51 FH WV
U
428
141.20 UPB U
429
141.07 UPB
430 WVLT
140.40
431 WVLT
140.52 432 WVLT
140.68
433
140.54 WVLT CLO E
434 WVLT
140.50
435 WVLT
140.42
436 WVLT
140.29
437
140.38 WVLT CLO E WV
WV 440
142.80 WX
441
143.22 WX
444
139.39 EVLT
445
139.22 EVLT
446
139.37 EVLT
447
139.52 EVLT CLO E WM
S
454 ASMH
138.73
455
139.46SL
463
141.59SL T
465
141.56 TPB
466
140.96 TVLT
467
140.85 TVLT
468
140.73 TVLT
469
140.83 TVLT CLO E U
470
141.02 UMH
471
139.88 EVLT
472
139.90 EVLT
473
139.80 EVLT
474
139.75 EVLT CLO E S
479 ASMH
138.24 WM
481
139.00SL
482 WVLT
139.35
483 WVLT
139.49
484 WVLT
139.44
485
139.30 WVLT CLO E
486
137.95 TV494
138.38 TVPB UR
ER
497
138.07 UPB
498
137.97 UPB
499
138.05 UPB
500
137.93 UPB
501
138.08 UPB
506
136.69SL T
TPC
WM
WM
WM
T
513
135.87 TMH WM
528
137.10SL TV531
136.36 TVPB T
532
136.40 TPB U
533
137.01 UPB
535 WVLT
135.42
536 WVLT
135.27
537 WVLT
135.18
538
135.33 WVLT CLO E
539
135.18 FH WV
WM
WM 7553-002-(102 - 125) 7553-002-013 7553-003-(44 - 88) 7553-003-037 7553-003-030 7553-006-039 7553-006-038 7553-006-041 7553- 006-039 7553-006-(112 - 157) 7553-005-002 7553-005-031 VISTA
LOMITA
LN PVT DRWY 7553-003-(90 - 113) 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 STA: 25+67.60 0.00' STA: 26+85.00 STA: 26+92.00 125 130 140 150 125 130 140 150 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 30+50 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 30+50 146.8
146.83
145.5
145.55
144.2
144.25
143.1
143.08
141.9
141.86
140.6
140.62
139.4
139.41
138.2
138.21
137.0
137.03
135.8
135.83 STA: 26+88.29 45° BEND STA: 26+92.04 45° BEND 8" PVC WATERLINE NARBONNE AVE. PLAN AND PROFILE STA. 25+00 TO STA. 30+50 MATCH LINE STA. 30+50
SEE SHEET C-3 REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ZAW 374 ENGINEERING DIVISION P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E APPROVED BY CITY : DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF SHTS NAME 12 SYS SXCH INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES: MARIE MARSTON PROJECT MANAGER DATE Date: Prepared Under The Supervision Of : PREPARED BY: RODNEY C. LANGER, JR. R.C.E. 49309 CITY OF LOMITA NARBONNE SOUTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THIS SITE UNTIL BELOW AGENCY IS NOTIFIED OF INTENTION TO GRADE OR EXCAVATE. 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 City of Lomita XX/XX/2025 17782 17th Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 12/06/2024 DWG NO. LINA HERNANDEZ XX/XX/2025 Plot Date:

Save Date:
3/4/2025 7:05 AM
2/24/2025 10:42 AM By: Sys P:\C\CLOM00000122\0400CAD\WA\SHEETS\C-2 SHEET.dwg Scott Stcherbinine By:

File:
80'
40'
32' 32'
6'
40' 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20
0 10 20 40 20 NARBONNE AVE. R/W R/W
SEE SHEET C-1
MATCH LINE STA. 25+00 C-2
7 CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1 5
67 8
6 STA. 25+65 FIRE HYDRANT
7 5 5 5
5 5
5 2
5 5
5 6 STA. 30+35 FIRE HYDRANT
7 8 8 CONSTRUCT 8" PVC C900 OR C905 DR14 PIPE PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLANS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. TRENCHES PER DETAILS 1 & 3, SHEET C-5 2 24 STA. 30+38 GATE VALVE 23 STA. 25+68 GATE VALVE 23 24 232425 25 CONSTRUCT 8" PVC (C900) PIPELINE 1 5 PROFILE NARBONNE AVE STA 25+00 TO STA 30+50 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' PLAN NARBONNE AVE STA 25+00 TO STA 30+50 NOTE: * MATERIAL UNKNOWN ** DEPTH UNKNOWN (CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE & VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION) EX. 8" SEWER */**
EX. 72" RCP SD
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. 1" ELEC */** 12 26 2728 27 28 26 12 12
1'-0" 27 23 PROPOSED 8" PVC WATER MAIN EX. GRADE ALONG NEW 8" WATER MAIN STA 26+18 - STA 27+03 RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS 7 23
7 CONSTRUCT 8" GATE VALVE (MJXMJ) WITH CONCRETE SUPPORT BLOCK AND RESTRAINED GLAND FOLLOWERS PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-150 1. COAT ALL BURIED METALLIC COMPONENTS PER SSPWC SPEC SECTION 210 2. BURIED BOLTS SHALL BE 316 STAINLESS STEEL GRADE B8M. BURIED NUTS SHALL BE 316 STAINLESS STEEL GRADE 8M. 3. PLACE AGGREGATE BASE PER DETAIL 1, SHEET C-5. AC PAVEMENT PER ROADWAY PLANS. 4. ALL FILL AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM RELATIVE DENSITY OF 95%. 5. PROTECT AND RESTORE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IF DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6. MAXIMUM ALLOWED JOINT DEFLECTION FOR PVC PIPE SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN THREE DEGREES. 7. PROTECT IN-PLACE AND RESTORE IN-KIND IF DAMAGED, ALL PCC SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, DRAIN PIPES AND ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR REMOVAL. 8. ALL BURIED PIPE SHALL HAVE 42" MIN. COVER EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON SHEET C-2. 9. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING METER AND SERVICE LINE SIZES PRIOR TO INSTALLING NEW SERVICES. 10. ALL REMOVED HYDRANTS TO BE DELIVERED TO AND UNLOADED AT THE CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS YARD. NOTES TO CONTRACTOR: 28 EXP.49309 DOR
CIVI L
STATE
OF
CA

LI FORNIA

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
YEN
C. LA
EGN
R RJ . 9/30/2026 25+00 RECONNECT EXISTING FIRE WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING VAULT, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION AND SIZE. CONSTRUCT 2" WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING WATER METER WITH NEW METER BOX AND COVER PER W-102 AND W-103. SALVAGE EXISTING HYDRANT AND RETURN TO CITY, ABANDON ASSEMBLY, CLOSE GATE VALVE, REMOVE VALVE CAN AND COVER, BACKFILL WITH PCC. FURNISH AND INSTALL 6" FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN. W-111. ABANDON EXISTING WATERMAIN IN PLACE. FILL WITH 1-SACK SLURRY CEMENT MIX. CONSTRUCT 8" D.I. BEND (DEFLECTION ANGLE AS SHOWN) WITH THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-140. VERIFY THAT SERVICE IS ACTIVE. IF ACTIVE, REPLACE AND RECONNECT PER CITY STANDARDS. IF INACTIVE, ABANDON, REMOVE METER AND METER BOX. VERIFY THAT SERVICES ARE CONNECTED TO THE 12" WATER MAIN THAT IS TO REMAIN IN SERVICE. IF SO, LEAVE AS-IS. IF CONNECTED TO THE 6" WATER MAIN TO BE ABANDONED REPLACE AND RECONNECT TO THE NEW 8" WATER MAIN. REPLACE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION VAULT PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARDS PLAN W-203. METER, PIPING, AND APPURTENANCES TO REMAIN. 2" COMBINATION AIR VAC/AIR RELEASE VALVE AT THE HIGHEST POINT PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-160 8" THICK CONCRETE SHOCK PAD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C-5 EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *819 WM
545
134.83SL
550
133.39 VNT
551
133.00 VNT
552
133.26 SIGN
553
132.68 EVLT
554
132.80 EVLT
555
132.89 EVLT
556
132.77 EVLT CLO E
568
133.79SL WM
WM
WM
T
TPC
S
585 ASMH
130.93
586
131.66SL WV
WV
S
594 ASMH
130.80 UTIL
TPC
WM
T
TPC TV601
132.97 TVPB
602
132.45 PPU
603
131.85 PPU WM
607
131.81 SL P
TPC
609 WVLT
132.24
610 WVLT
132.30
611 WVLT
132.36
612
132.26 WVLT CLO E T
617
131.04 TMH P
618
130.29 EMH
620
131.77 FDC WV
626
129.24SL U
TPC
629
129.59 SIGN TPC
CO
640 SSCO
129.44
641 SSCO
129.42
642
129.42 FH WV
TV
644
129.64 TPM
645
129.66SL WV
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM 659
129.13
660 BFP
129.20 BFP T
TPCTS666
128.19 TSPB T
TPC
668
127.87 BOLL
669
127.56 BOLL
670
127.51 SL WV
WV
685
127.25SL
687
127.51 FDC
688
126.92 BFP
689
126.82 BFP
690
126.74 FH WV
WM
WM 694
126.14 BFP
695
126.02 BFP
696
126.12 BFP
697
126.24 BFP TV698
125.61 TVPB P
699
124.67 EMH GV
WV
WV
S
714 ASMH
123.86
715
130.26 TVLT
716
130.28 TVLT
717
130.26 TVLT
718
130.26 TVLT CLO E
728 ASMH
124.30 D
729 SDCS
124.40TS730
124.42P

TSPB EPB
P
733EPB
124.42 TSA
734
124.50 TS WV TS784
123.84 TSPB
785
123.85 FH WV 787 TS 124.28 TSPB
788
125.01
LS
813
123.86 TSA
814
124.27 TS GV TS816
125.28 TSPB
817
131.79 EVLT
818
131.85 EVLT
GV
822
123.50 BM 7Y529 (EL = 123.476) WV D
824 SDCS
122.86 WV
GV
S
832 ASMH
123.18 WV
WV
WV
S
705 ASMH
124.10 7553-002-131 7553-002-131 7553 -002 -021 7553-002-019 7553-006-043 7553-006-042 7553-006-189 7553-006-163 7553-006-017 7553-006-041 7553-006-041 7553-002 -(102 -125)

W W W W W

W W W W W
8''W 8''W
6''W 6''W W(ABN) FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FOFO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO 4''G
4''G 4''G
2''G 2''G G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN)

G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN) G(ABN)
E E
E
E
E
E
E 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G 4''G
G
G 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 6''W 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
10"W
10"W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E 6''W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
SD SD

FO FO FO
W
W
W W
W W
W W
T
T
T T

T T T T T
T
T

T T T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
G
E
G G
T T 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00
35+92 STA: 30+61.85 0.00' 115 120 130 140 115 120 130 140 30+50 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 133.6
133.55
132.5
132.53
131.6
131.64
130.7
130.75
129.8
129.81
128.8
128.84
127.8
127.84
126.8
126.77
125.5
125.51
124.4
124.35 PROPOSED 8" PVC WATER LINE 8" PVC WATERLINE NARBONNE AVE. PLAN AND PROFILE STA. 30+50 TO STA. 35+90± REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ZAW 374 ENGINEERING DIVISION P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E APPROVED BY CITY : DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF SHTS NAME 12 SYS SXCH INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES: MARIE MARSTON PROJECT MANAGER DATE Date: Prepared Under The Supervision Of : PREPARED BY: RODNEY C. LANGER, JR. R.C.E. 49309 CITY OF LOMITA NARBONNE SOUTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THIS SITE UNTIL BELOW AGENCY IS NOTIFIED OF INTENTION TO GRADE OR EXCAVATE. 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 City of Lomita XX/XX/2025 17782 17th Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 12/06/2024 DWG NO. LINA HERNANDEZ XX/XX/2025 Plot Date:

Save Date:
3/4/2025 7:15 AM
3/4/2025 7:14 AM By: Sys P:\C\CLOM00000122\0400CAD\WA\SHEETS\C-3 SHEET.dwg Scott Stcherbinine By:

File:
80'
40'
32' 32'
6'
40' 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE 20
0 10 20 40 20 NARBONNE AVE. R/W R/W
SEE SHEET C-2
MATCH LINE STA. 30+50 PACIFIC COAST HWY. C-3
8 14 SEE DETAIL 2 ON DWG. C-4 FOR CONNECTION
1 5
910111218 18
9 9
8 8
8 5
5 5 5
5 5
8 12 10 29 15 202122 15 20 21 22 14 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 26 25 26 1 PROFILE NARBONNE AVE STA 30+50 TO STA 36+00 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' PLAN NARBONNE AVE STA 30+50 TO STA 36+00 NOTE: * MATERIAL UNKNOWN ** DEPTH UNKNOWN (CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE & VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION) EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. CONC. ENCASEMENT
(ELEC)
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. WATER */**
EX. SLURRY

ENCASEMENT (TEL)
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. 1" GAS */**
EX. 1.5" ELEC
EX. 6" WATER */**
EX. 12" WATER */**
(2) EX. 1" TEL */**EX. 4" GAS
EX. 1" TEL */**
EX. 1" ELEC */** EX. 12" CI WATER CONSTRUCT 8" PVC C900 OR C905 DR14 PIPE PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLANS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. TRENCHES PER DETAILS 1 & 3, SHEET C-5 STA 35+83.07 45° BEND 12 EX. GRADE ALONG NEW 8" WATER MAIN STA 35+35- STA 35+92 RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS 1. COAT ALL BURIED METALLIC COMPONENTS PER SSPWC SPEC SECTION 210 2. BURIED BOLTS SHALL BE 316 STAINLESS STEEL GRADE B8M. BURIED NUTS SHALL BE 316 STAINLESS STEEL GRADE 8M. 3. PLACE AGGREGATE BASE PER DETAIL 1, SHEET C-5. AC PAVEMENT PER ROADWAY PLANS. 4. ALL FILL AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM RELATIVE DENSITY OF 95%. 5. PROTECT AND RESTORE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IF DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6. MAXIMUM ALLOWED JOINT DEFLECTION FOR PVC PIPE SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN THREE DEGREES. 7. PROTECT IN-PLACE AND RESTORE IN-KIND IF DAMAGED, ALL PCC SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, DRAIN PIPES AND ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR REMOVAL. 8. ALL BURIED PIPE SHALL HAVE 42" MIN. COVER EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON SHEET C-2. 9. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING METER AND SERVICE LINE SIZES PRIOR TO INSTALLING NEW SERVICES. 10. ALL REMOVED HYDRANTS TO BE DELIVERED TO AND UNLOADED AT THE CITY OF LOMITA PUBLIC WORKS YARD. NOTES TO CONTRACTOR: 25 EX. 1" TEL */** 29 18 18 CONSTRUCT 2" WATER SERVICE TO EXISTING WATER METER WITH NEW METER BOX AND COVER PER W-102 AND W-103. ABANDON EXISTING WATERMAIN IN PLACE. FILL WITH 1-SACK SLURRY CEMENT MIX. CUT EXISTING WATER LINE AND REMOVE INTERFERING PORTIONS. PLUG WITH CONCRETE (NO LESS THAN 6" THICK) AND ABANDON. CONSTRUCT 8" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) WITH RESTRAINED FOLLOWER GLAND PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-150. CONSTRUCT 12" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) WITH RESTRAINED FOLLOWER GLAND PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-150. CONSTRUCT 8" D.I. BEND (DEFLECTION ANGLE AS SHOWN) WITH THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-140. CONSTRUCT DUCTILE IRON(D.I.) FLGXFLG CROSS (SIZE PER PLAN). CONSTRUCT "MAIN SIZE" TRANSITION COUPLING. REMOVE EXISTING VALVE BOX, RISER, AND ABANDON VALVE IN PLACE IN CLOSED POSTION CONSTRUCT 10" x 6" D.I. ECCENTRIC REDUCER WITH THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARDS PLAN W-140. CONSTRUCT 10" x 8" D.I. ECCENTRIC REDUCER WITH THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARDS PLAN W-140. CONSTRUCT 12" x 10" D.I. ECCENTRIC REDUCER WITH THRUST BLOCK PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARDS PLAN W-140. VERIFY THAT SERVICES ARE CONNECTED TO THE 12" WATER MAIN THAT IS TO REMAIN IN SERVICE. IF SO, LEAVE AS-IS. IF CONNECTED TO THE 6" WATER MAIN TO BE ABANDONED REPLACE AND RECONNECT TO THE NEW 8" WATER MAIN. REPLACE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION VAULT PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARDS PLAN W-203. METER, PIPING, AND APPURTENANCES TO REMAIN. CONSTRUCT 10" GATE VALVE (FLG) PER CITY OF LOMITA STANDARD PLAN W-150. 3C-5
EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *820 CONNECTION DETAILS REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ZAW 374 ENGINEERING DIVISION P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E APPROVED BY CITY : DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF SHTS NAME 12 SYS SXCH INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES: MARIE MARSTON PROJECT MANAGER DATE Date: Prepared Under The Supervision Of : PREPARED BY: RODNEY C. LANGER, JR. R.C.E. 49309 CITY OF LOMITA NARBONNE SOUTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THIS SITE UNTIL BELOW AGENCY IS NOTIFIED OF INTENTION TO GRADE OR EXCAVATE. 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 City of Lomita XX/XX/2025 17782 17th Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 12/06/2024 DWG NO. LINA HERNANDEZ XX/XX/2025 Plot Date:

Save Date:
3/4/2025 7:10 AM
3/4/2025 7:00 AM By: Sys P:\C\CLOM00000122\0400CAD\WA\SHEETS\C-4-7 SHEET.dwg Scott Stcherbinine By:

File: C-4
9 2C-3 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATERLINE (STA. 35+92) EXISTING 10" GATE VALVE NORMALLY CLOSED KEEP CLOSED DURING ALL TESTING EXISTING 10" GATE VALVE EXISTING 10" D.I.P. WATER MAIN ZONE 2 EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONNECTION NOTES: 1. ALL MECHANICAL JOINT FITTINGS SHALL BE RESTRAINED WITH MEGALUGS. 2. ACTUAL PIPE LENGTH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LOCATION OF NEXT EXISTING JOINT. 3. LENGTH, DEPTH, AND ELEVATION SHALL BE FIELD DETERMINED. 4. INSTALL CITY APPROVED 316 STAINLESS STEEL NUTS AND BOLTS. 5. BACKFILL SHALL BE 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION PER DETAILS 1 & 3, SHEET C-5. 6. AIR RELEASE VALVES ARE INSTALLED AT HIGH POINTS OR ANYWHERE AIR CAN BE TRAPPED THUS REDUCING THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF PIPELINE. 7. EXISTING WATER LINES, TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE, SHALL BE FILLED WITH 1-SACK SLURRY CEMENT MIX. 8. NO WEDGE-ACTION RESTRAINT GLANDS ARE TO BE USED ON EXISTING WATER MAINS. WHERE NECESSARY, ONLY USE UNRESTRAINED FOLLOWER GLANDS ON EXISTING PIPES. 10" GATE VALVE (FLG) 10" X 6" REDUCER (FLG) EXISTING 6" C.I.P (1928) WATER MAIN ZONE 2 EXISTING 10" D.I.P. WATER MAIN AND REDUCER ZONE 2 EXISTING GATE VALVE (38-17) EXISTING 12" C.I.P (1966) WATER MAIN ZONE 2 EXISTING 12" C.I.P WATER MAIN ZONE 2 EXISTING 10" D.I.P PLUG 10" COUPLING 10" D.I.P EXISTING 6" C.I.P (1928) WATER MAIN ZONE 2 6" COUPLING 6" D.I.P 12" D.I.P 12" X 10" REDUCER (FLG) 6" COUPLING 10" X 8" REDUCER (FLG) 8" D.I.P 8" PVC 8" D.I. 45° BEND (MJ) 4" GAS STA. 35+54.13 8" D.I. 45° BEND (MJ) 1 C-1 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATERLINE (STA. 20+00) STA 35+92± 10" CROSS (FLG) (CONCRETE BLOCKING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) 8" PVC SEE SHEET C-3 FOR PLAN AND PROFILE EXISTING 12" C.I.P (1966) WATER MAIN ZONE 2 EXISTING 12" C.I.P (1966) WATER MAIN ZONE 2 12" COUPLING 12" D.I.P STA 20+00 12"x8" TEE (FLG) 12" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) 12" D.I.P 12" COUPLING 8" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) 12" FLGxPE ADAPTER 8" PVC SEE SHEET C-1 FOR PLAN AND PROFILE 8" D.I.P. 22.5° BEND (MJ) 8" PVC PROPOSED CONNECTION EXISTING CONDITION 8" GATE VALVE (FLGxMJ) VERTICAL 45° BEND NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SEE PROFILE C-3 EXP.CIVI L STATE
OF
CA

LI FORNIA

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *821 DETAILS C-5 10 REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. ZAW 374 ENGINEERING DIVISION P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E APPROVED BY CITY : DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF SHTS NAME 12 SYS SXCH INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES: MARIE MARSTON PROJECT MANAGER DATE Date: Prepared Under The Supervision Of : PREPARED BY: RODNEY C. LANGER, JR. R.C.E. 49309 CITY OF LOMITA NARBONNE SOUTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THIS SITE UNTIL BELOW AGENCY IS NOTIFIED OF INTENTION TO GRADE OR EXCAVATE. 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 City of Lomita XX/XX/2025 17782 17th Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 12/06/2024 DWG NO. LINA HERNANDEZ XX/XX/2025 Plot Date:

Save Date:
3/4/2025 12:06 PM
3/4/2025 12:06 PM By: Sys P:\C\CLOM00000122\0400CAD\WA\SHEETS\C-4-7 SHEET.dwg Scott Stcherbinine By:

File: NOTES: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BACKFILL AND PAVING, SHALL BE PER LATEST APWA STANDARDS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL EITHER BACKFILL OPEN TRENCHES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY OR SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN RECESSED PLATES PER PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. NO OPEN TRENCHES ALLOWED DURING NON-WORKING HOURS. 3. ALL PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT IN THE PAVEMENT ZONE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTES ON THIS SHEET AND ANY OTHER ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS. 4. INSTALL BLUE WARNING TAPE READING "WATER LINE BELOW" 12" ABOVE AND CENTERED OVER PIPE. 5. TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO CITY OF LOMITA RIGHT-OF-WAY. FOR CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY SEE DETAIL 3, THIS SHEET.

TRENCH ZONE
BACKFILL BEDDING CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 6" MIN. 10" MAX. (ON EACH SIDE OF PIPE BELL) IF UNSTABLE SOIL IS ENCOUNTERED, THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE SHALL DETERMINE OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH AND FOUNDATION RE-FILL MATERIAL PER CITY DIRECTION. PIPE LOCATOR WIRE FOR NON-METALLIC PIPE INSTALLATIONS (PER SPECIFICATION) SAND BEDDING PER APWA STD. SPECIFICATION 20"-32" (TYP) *FINISHED AC OVER BASE PAVEMENT 4" AC LEVEL COURSE WITH 2" AC OVERLAY PER STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS 42" MIN. ROAD REHABILITATION CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE NEW PAVEMENT MATCHES FINISHED SURFACE. CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR 1.5 SACK SLURRY BACKFILL 54"~60" AVG. DEPTH
1VAR NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL IN CITY OF LOMITA RIGHT-OF-WAY ASPHALT REINFORCEMENT SEE NOTE 2 3' MIN (TYP.) 1. SHOCK PAD TO BE INSTALLED WHERE 30" MIN. COVER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, STA 26+47 TO STA 26+90 AS SHOWN ON SHEET C-2. 2. WHERE MIN. 6" BASE COURSE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, INSTALL ASPHALT REINFORCEMENT, TENSAR GLASGRID OR APPROVED EQUAL, UNDER ASPHALT COURSE 3. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN TO MEET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 560-C-3250. 2C-2 WATER MAIN SHOCK PAD INSTALLATION 12" MIN. 8"
2" CL.

TYP. 12" MIN. AC PAVEMENT SECTION No. 4 BAR, 6" ON CENTER TOP AND BOTTOM EACH 1:2 SLOPE (TYP.) WAY CONCRETE SLAB SEE NOTE 3 AC PAVEMENT BASE COURSE 12" 12" 6"
MIN. 6" MIN. VARIABLE AC EXP.CIVI L
STATE
OF
CA

LI FORNIA

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER VARIABLE BASE MATCH EXIST AB ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE (AB) EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE SAND BEDDING EXISTING SOIL LEGEND PIPE ZONE * SEE PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL ON SHEET 3 FULL DEPTH AC (THICKNESS OF AC SHALL MATCH ADJACENT AC THICKNESS) NOT TO SCALE 3VAR TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL IN CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *822 7553-006-043 7375-025-028 7373-008-023
17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' 50' 250' 250' WORK AREA100' S
T
S
170' G20-5aP R2-1(25) VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN G20-5aP R2-1(25) VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN 1 C30(CA) 1 C30(CA) 1 FLASHING ARROW SIGN (FAS) W4-2R 1 1 W20-1 1 R9-10 1 1 R9-10 G20-2 1 25' O.C. (TYP.) 5' O.C. (TYP.) C30(CA) 1 PCMS 1 W3-5(25) 1 C20(CA)R 1 1 W20-1 1 R2-12 1 (POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH) (REDUCED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH) W20-1 1 G20-2 1 W20-1 1 G20-2 1 1 G20-2
1 W20-1 15' 15' 12' 1 C30(CA) 20' O.C. (TYP.) PACIFIC COAST HWY (ROUTE 1)

NARBONNE
AVE

CYPRESS ST

LUCILLE AVE

LUCILLE
AVE 20' O.C. (TYP.) W20-1 1
1 G20-2
1 W20-1 G20-2 1 CYPRESS
ST EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK

CITY OF

LOMITA R/W

CITY OF
LOMITA R/W EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK

CITY OF

LOMITA R/W

CITY OF
LOMITA R/W 20' O.C. (TYP.) R9-11 1 CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W 1 M4-4 R3-1 R4-7 1 SEE TRAFFIC LOOP DETAIL ON SHEET 13
5 4 WV WV WV WMWM
TV P GV WV WV S S 728 124.30 ASMH D
TSPEPB PEPB WV S 776 122.85 ASMH WM
TSTS TCB TS WV TS GV TS816 125.28 TSPB WV D WVWVWV S GV S WV WV WV S 328' 2 3 REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 11 CLOSED AHEAD RIGHTLANE C20(CA)(R) LANE CLOSED C30(CA) END ROAD WORK G20-2 W4-2R ROAD WORK AHEAD W20-1 SPEED LIMIT 2 5R2-1 LANE/SHOULDER CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION WORK ZONE PORTABLE DELINEATOR/CONE/SURFACE TYPE III BARRICADE WITH SIGN WITH FLASHERS TYPE II BARRICADE WITH SIGN WITH REFLECTORS PCMS PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN NOPARKING R28(CA) ANY TIME WORK ZONE G20-5aP FLAGGER TRAFFIC CONTROL LEGEND FRAME SIGN MESSAGE 25ZONE AHEAD WILL BE ENFORCED 1ST FRAME 2ND FRAME PCMS 25 W3-5 (25) R9-10 FAS TRAILER-MOUNTED ARROWBOARD PORTABLE FLASHING BEACON PORTABLE RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEM FLASHING ARROW SIGN (FAS) USE OTHER SIDE SIDEWALK CLOSED WORK END ZONE SPEED LIMIT R2-12 YOUR SPEED VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNMATCH LINE STA 16+50 SEE SHEET 12 MATCH LINE STA 20+20 SEE SHEET 12

S SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
T STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION R9-11 SIDEWALK CLOSED AHEAD CROSS HERE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN (TCP) GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL WORK AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF: · THE CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREET AND HIGHWAYS (CAMUTCD) · WORK AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (WATCH MANUAL) · CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS · STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION "GREENBOOK" · ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS· CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 2. REDUCED SPEED LIMIT SHALL BE 25 MPH ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NARBONNE AVENUE. 3. WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ACTIVE, REDUCED SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHALL BE COVERED. 4. NO WORK IS PERMITTED ON HOLIDAYS AND OBSERVED HOLIDAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED IN THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS HEREIN AND APPROVED BY AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY. 5. DURING NON-WORKING HOURS OR WHEN WORK IS NOT SCHEDULED, ALL ROADWAY LANES SHALL BE RETURNED TO THEIR FULL TRAFFIC USE BY PLATING OR BACKFILLING AND PAVING THE OPEN TRENCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR. AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NOT IN USE. 6. PARKING TO REMAIN OPEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET DURING CONSTRUCTION. POST NOTICES 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. 7. PROVIDE ACCESS TO DRIVEWAYS AT ALL TIMES. DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SIGNED FOR RIGHT TURN ONLY WHEN CONTRACTOR'S WORK RESTRICTS LEFT TURN MOVEMENT. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL SIGNS, DELINEATORS, BARRICADES, ETC., PROPERLY INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO ASSURE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL PROPERTY DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. 11. PROTECTIVE VEHICLE RECOMMENDED - MAY BE A WORK VEHICLE STRATEGICALLY LOCATED TO SHIELD THE WORK AREA. 12. COORDINATE WITH CITY OF LOMITA AND / OR CALTRANS AS APPROPRIATE IF SIDEWALKS WILL BE CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN DETOURS. 13. PROVIDE SCHEDULE FOR LANE CLOSURE TO CITY FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CLOSING LANE. 14. FLASHING ARROW BOARDS SHALL BE USED FOR EACH TRAFFIC LANE CLOSURE. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND RESIDENTS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROJECT LIMITS, AND THE CITY OF LOMITA THREE (3) DAYS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK INVOLVING APPROVED NON-WORKING HOURS, WEEKEND WORK, LANE/ROAD CLOSURES, AND/OR DETOURS. NOTIFICATIONS FOR OTHER TYPES OF WORK MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY. 16. ANY DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF LOMITA AND / OR CALTRANS AS APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHALL REMAIN IN OPERATION AT ALL TIMES. CONFLICTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INDICATIONS SHALL BE COVERED AND SIGNAL OPERATION DURING EACH CONSTRUCTION PHASE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. 18. ADJUST SIGN SPACING AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR VISIBILITY FROM SIDE STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS. 19. CONTRACTOR TO EMAIL LA METRO AT [email protected] A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) BUISINESS DAYS BEFORE WORKING ALONG BUS ROUTES. PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY BUS STOP RELOCATIONS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BUS SERVICE. 20. PLACE FLASHING BEACON ON TOP OF W20-1 SIGN FOR WORKING AT NIGHT, PARTICULARLY ON STANDARD LANE CLOSURE SET UP WITHIN CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. 21. CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSETS, INCLUDING LOOP DETECTORS, CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLES, INTERCONNECT CABLES, FIBER OPTIC CABLES, POWER, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, ARE SITUATED IN BOTH SURFACE AND SUBTERRANEAN AREAS ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AT THE INTERSECTION WITH NARBONNE AVENUE. SHOULD DAMAGE OCCUR, REPAIRS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PERMITS SPECIAL PROVISIONS, CALTRANS 2023 STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. 22. THE TESTING OF NEW LOOPS SHALL ADHERE TO THE CALTRANS 2023 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 87-1.03V(2), WHICH INCLUDES THE METAL LOOP TEST. NOTES: 1. CLOSURE HOURS ARE MON-FRI 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. TRAVEL INTERRUPTIONS IN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ARE PROHIBITED FROM 5:00 AM TO 9:00 AM. NIGHT WORK IS REQUIRED FOR THE PORTION OF NARBONNE AVENUE THAT INTERSECTS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OR IMPEDES TRAVEL OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND IS ONLY ALLOWED SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHTS. LANE SHIFT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHALL BE PREPARED BY CONTRACTOR AND SUBMITTED TO CITY OF LOMITA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AT LEAST TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR WORK AT THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY / NARBONNE AVENUE INTERSECTION SHALL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY FROM THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR WORK IN NARBONNE AVENUE. CLOSURE HOURS: MON-FRI 9:00 AM TO 3:00 PM R4-7 SIGN LEGEND CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 INSTALL BARRICADE/SIGN AS SHOWN REMOVE/REPLACE WITH TYPE F LOOP DETECTOR PER CALTRANS STD PLAN ES-5B (SEE SHEET 13) 23 REPLACE TYPE E LOOP DETECTOR PER CALTRANS STD PLAN ES-5B (SEE SHEET 13) 4 REMOVE EXISTING R10-12 SIGN ON MAST ARM, INSTALL R3-6 SIGN ON MAST ARM, REINSTALL R10-12 SIGN AFTER CONSTRUCTION (SEE SHEET 13) 5 REMOVE EXISTING R10-12 SIGN ON MAST ARM, INSTALL R61-5(CA) SIGN ON MAST ARM, REINSTALL R10-12 SIGN AFTER CONSTRUCTION (SEE SHEET 13) NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: COORDINATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH CALTRANS FOR NARBONNE AVE NORTH-SOUTH SPLIT PHASING (SEE SHEET 13) TRUCK M4-4 R3-1 ONLY R61-5 (CA) YIELD LEFT TURN ON GREEN R10-12 R3-6 YIELD LEFT TURN ON GREEN R10-12 LPLPMM EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *823

PVT DRWY

PVT DRWY
VISTA LOMITA LN 7553-003-030
7553-003-037
7553-003-(44 - 88)
7553-002-013
7553-002-(102 - 125)
7553-002-019
7553-002-021
7553-002-131
7553-002-131
7553-003-(90 - 113)
7553-003-013
7553-006-042
7553-006-189
7553-006-039
7553-006-038
7553-006-041
7553-006-041
7553-006-017
7553-006-163
7553-006-039
7553-005-003
7553-005-002
7553-005-031
7553-006-(112 - 157) 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 50' 250' 250' 328' 50' 50' 50' 50' 160' G20-5aP W4-2R R2-1(25) VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN (POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH) (REDUCED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH) 20' O.C. (TYP.) FLASHING ARROW SIGN (FAS) W20-1 1 PCMS 1 W3-5(25) 1 C20(CA)R 1 1 1 R28(CA) 1 1 1 C30(CA) 1 C30(CA) G20-2 1 EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK R2-12 1 NARBONNE AVE CITY OF LOMITA R/W CITY OF LOMITA R/W CITY OF LOMITA R/W CITY OF LOMITA R/W

T WM WV WV WV WM
T WM S

P EPB WM S
T
T

T TPC WM S D
WM WV
D D
S
S WM

T TPC WMWM

T WV WV WV WM S
T
S WM
UR
ER

T TPC WM WMWMT WM

T WV WM
SL
134.83
545

WM WM WM

T TPC S WVWV S UTIL TPC WM

T TPC TV WM

P TPC T P WV
U TPC

TPC CO WV TV WV WMWMWMWM WMWMWM
WMWM
T TS
T TPC
BOLL
127.87
668 TFC EDW
127.78
671 TV GV 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 24+81 80' 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' 250' 1 1 R3-5(L)
256TH STREETNARBONNE AVE C20(CA)L 1 W20-1 1 G20-2 1 20' O.C. (TYP.) 1 W3-5(25) 1 C20(CA)L 1 PCMS 1 W20-1 1 1 C30(CA) EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK R2-12 (POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH) (REDUCED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH) G20-2 G20-5aP R2-1(25) VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN CITY OF LOMITA R/W CITY OF LOMITA R/W 1 170' REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE
R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 MATCH LINE STA 16+50
SEE SHEET 11 12 CLOSED AHEAD RIGHTLANE C20(CA)(R) LANE CLOSED C30(CA) END ROAD WORK G20-2 W4-2R ROAD WORK AHEAD W20-1 SPEED LIMIT 2 5R2-1 LANE/SHOULDER CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION WORK ZONE PORTABLE DELINEATOR/CONE/SURFACE TYPE III BARRICADE WITH SIGN WITH FLASHERS TYPE II BARRICADE WITH SIGN WITH REFLECTORS PCMS PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN NOPARKING R28(CA) ANY TIME WORK ZONE G20-5aP FLAGGER TRAFFIC CONTROL LEGEND FRAME SIGN MESSAGE 25ZONE AHEAD WILL BE ENFORCED 1ST FRAME 2ND FRAME PCMS 25 W3-5 (25) NOTES: 1. TRAVEL INTERRUPTIONS IN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ARE PROHIBITED FROM 5:00 AM TO 9:00 PM. NIGHT WORK IS REQUIRED FOR THE PORTION OF NARBONNE AVENUE THAT INTERSECTS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OR IMPEDES TRAVEL OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND IS ONLY ALLOWED SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHTS. LANE SHIFT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHALL BE PREPARED BY CONTRACTOR AND SUBMITTED TO CITY OF LOMITA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AT LEAST TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR WORK AT THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY / NARBONNE AVENUE INTERSECTION SHALL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY FROM THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR WORK IN NARBONNE AVENUE. R9-10 FAS SUPPORT OT TRAILER PORTABLE FLASHING BEACON PORTABLE RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEM FLASHING ARROW SIGN (FAS) ONLY R3-5(L) USE OTHER SIDE SIDEWALK CLOSED WORK END ZONE SPEED LIMIT R2-12 YOUR SPEED VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION

T STOP CONTROLED INTERSECTION
S
MATCH LINE STA 20+20
SEE SHEET 11 CONSTRUCTION NOTES INSTALL BARRICADE/SIGN/DEVICE AS SHOWN 1 R9-11 SIDEWALK CLOSED AHEAD CROSS HERE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN (TCP) GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL WORK AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF: · THE CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREET AND HIGHWAYS (CAMUTCD) · WORK AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (WATCH MANUAL) · CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS · STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION "GREENBOOK" · ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS· CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 2. REDUCED SPEED LIMIT SHALL BE 25 MPH ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NARBONNE AVENUE. 3. WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ACTIVE, REDUCED SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHALL BE COVERED. 4. NO WORK IS PERMITTED ON HOLIDAYS AND OBSERVED HOLIDAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED IN THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS HEREIN AND APPROVED BY AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY. 5. DURING NON-WORKING HOURS OR WHEN WORK IS NOT SCHEDULED, ALL ROADWAY LANES SHALL BE RETURNED TO THEIR FULL TRAFFIC USE BY PLATING OR BACKFILLING AND PAVING THE OPEN TRENCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR. AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NOT IN USE. 6. PARKING TO REMAIN OPEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET DURING CONSTRUCTION. POST NOTICES 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. 7. PROVIDE ACCESS TO DRIVEWAYS AT ALL TIMES. DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SIGNED FOR RIGHT TURN ONLY WHEN CONTRACTOR'S WORK RESTRICTS LEFT TURN MOVEMENT. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL SIGNS, DELINEATORS, BARRICADES, ETC., PROPERLY INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO ASSURE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL PROPERTY DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. 11. PROTECTIVE VEHICLE RECOMMENDED - MAY BE A WORK VEHICLE STRATEGICALLY LOCATED TO SHIELD THE WORK AREA. 12. COORDINATE WITH CITY OF LOMITA AND / OR CALTRANS AS APPROPRIATE IF SIDEWALKS WILL BE CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN DETOURS. 13. PROVIDE SCHEDULE FOR LANE CLOSURE TO CITY FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CLOSING LANE. 14. FLASHING ARROW BOARDS SHALL BE USED FOR EACH TRAFFIC LANE CLOSURE. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND RESIDENTS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROJECT LIMITS, AND THE CITY OF LOMITA THREE (3) DAYS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK INVOLVING APPROVED NON-WORKING HOURS, WEEKEND WORK, LANE/ROAD CLOSURES, AND/OR DETOURS. NOTIFICATIONS FOR OTHER TYPES OF WORK MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY. 16. ANY DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF LOMITA AND / OR CALTRANS AS APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHALL REMAIN IN OPERATION AT ALL TIMES. CONFLICTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INDICATIONS SHALL BE COVERED AND SIGNAL OPERATION DURING EACH CONSTRUCTION PHASE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. 18. ADJUST SIGN SPACING AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR VISIBILITY FROM SIDE STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS. 19. CONTRACTOR TO EMAIL LA METRO AT [email protected] A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) BUISINESS DAYS BEFORE WORKING ALONG BUS ROUTES. PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY BUS STOP RELOCATIONS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BUS SERVICE. 20. PLACE FLASHING BEACON ON TOP OF W20-1 SIGN FOR WORKING AT NIGHT, PARTICULARLY ON STANDARD LANE CLOSURE SET UP WITHIN CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. 21. CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSETS, INCLUDING LOOP DETECTORS, CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLES, INTERCONNECT CABLES, FIBER OPTIC CABLES, POWER, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, ARE SITUATED IN BOTH SURFACE AND SUBTERRANEAN AREAS ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AT THE INTERSECTION WITH NARBONNE AVENUE. SHOULD DAMAGE OCCUR, REPAIRS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PERMITS SPECIAL PROVISIONS, CALTRANS 2023 STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. 22. THE TESTING OF NEW LOOPS SHALL ADHERE TO THE CALTRANS 2023 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 87-1.03V(2), WHICH INCLUDES THE METAL LOOP TEST. CLOSURE HOURS: MON-FRI 9:00 AM TO 3:00 PM TRUCK M4-4 R3-1 SIGN LEGEND LPLPMM EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *824

GV WV WV S

PEPB WV
TS GV
S 7375-025-028 7373-008-023
18+00 19+00
S PACIFIC COAST HWY (ROUTE 1)
NARBONNE AVE EX. C&GEX. SIDEWALK EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK EX. C&G EX. SIDEWALK

CITY OF

LOMITA R/W

CITY OF

LOMITA R/W CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W SEE TRAFFIC LOOP DETAIL HERON 5 4
TV

P GV WV WV
S
S 728 124.30 ASMH D
TS
PEPB

PEPB WV
S 776 122.85 ASMH WM

TSTS TCB
TS WV
TS GV
TS816 125.28 TSPB WV

D WVWVWV
S GV

S WV WV WV
S Ø7 & Ø4** Ø4** Ø4PØ2P Ø1 Ø1Ø6Ø6 Ø6P Ø3 & Ø4P Ø8** Ø3 & Ø8** Ø8** Ø8P Ø6P Ø5 Ø5 Ø2 Ø2 Ø2P Ø8P Ø7 & Ø4** CLOSURE HOURS: MON-FRI 9:00 AM TO 3:00 PM PROPOSED TRAFFIC LOOP DETAIL (NO SCALE) 2 3 LOOPS 6 LOOPS (3 FRONT & 3 ADVANCED LEFT-TURN LOOPS) 3 SC
00 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
3 0
4 5
6 7
8 EXISTING PHASE DIAGRAM
0 0
0 0
1 2
4 5 TEMPORARY PHASE SEQUENCE
1 INSTALL BARRICADE/SIGN AS SHOWN2 REMOVE/REPLACE WITH TYPE F LOOP DETECTOR PER CALTRANS STD PLAN ES-5B3SC SPLICE NEW TO EXISTING CONDUCTORS REPLACE TYPE E LOOP DETECTOR PER CALTRANS STD PLAN ES-5B TRAFFIC SIGNAL NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR TO REWIRE PER SPLIT PHASING. RESTORE EXISTING PHASE SEQUENCE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. 2. SEE CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4 AND 5 4 REMOVE EXISTING R10-12 SIGN ON MAST ARM, INSTALL R3-6 SIGN ON MAST ARM, REINSTALL R10-12 SIGN AFTER CONSTRUCTION 5 REMOVE EXISTING R10-12 SIGN ON MAST ARM, INSTALL R61-5(CA) SIGN ON MAST ARM, REINSTALL R10-12 SIGN AFTER CONSTRUCTION P
0 2
0 5
01 0
6 0
6 P OR
0 2
P
0 2
0 6
0 6
P
0 7
+
0 4
P
0 8
+
0 3
0 8
P ONLY R61-5 (CA) YIELD LEFT TURN ON GREEN R10-12 R3-6 YIELD LEFT TURN ON GREEN R10-12 NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: COORDINATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH CALTRANS FOR NARBONNE AVE NORTH-SOUTH SPLIT PHASING REV. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE ENGR. CITY DATE R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. P R O J E C T A N D S H E E T T I T L E DESIGNED BY : PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY : SHT OF 13 SHTS SUBMITTED BY DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES : MARIE MARSTON, PE PROJECT MANAGER DATE PREPARED BY: TEL. (310) 325-7110 FAX. (310) 325-4024 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CA 90717 T
T
R
G I NEERCE 38798 Exp. 03/31/25
STA
C
T A M

REG I S

I V I L

RN I A NO
R
F RE
E
EID
PRO
S
O
M
A
R

ESS I NAL EN
E
OF O
CAL I F 17542 17th Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92780 Phone: 714.665.4500 13 NOTES: 1. CLOSURE HOURS ARE MON-FRI 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. TRAVEL INTERRUPTIONS IN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ARE PROHIBITED ON FROM 5:00 AM TO 9:00 AM. NIGHT WORK IS REQUIRED FOR THE PORTION OF NARBONNE AVENUE THAT INTERSECTS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OR IMPEDES TRAVEL OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND IS ONLY ALLOWED SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHTS. LANE SHIFT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS SHALL BE PREPARED BY CONTRACTOR AND SUBMITTED TO CITY OF LOMITA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AT LEAST TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR WORK AT THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY / NARBONNE AVENUE INTERSECTION SHALL BE PREPARED SEPARATELY FROM THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR WORK IN NARBONNE AVENUE. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN (TCP) GENERAL NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL WORK AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF: · THE CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREET AND HIGHWAYS (CAMUTCD) · WORK AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (WATCH MANUAL) · CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS · STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION "GREENBOOK" · ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS· CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 2. REDUCED SPEED LIMIT SHALL BE 25 MPH ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NARBONNE AVENUE. 3. WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ACTIVE, REDUCED SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHALL BE COVERED. 4. NO WORK IS PERMITTED ON HOLIDAYS AND OBSERVED HOLIDAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED IN THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS HEREIN AND APPROVED BY AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY. 5. DURING NON-WORKING HOURS OR WHEN WORK IS NOT SCHEDULED, ALL ROADWAY LANES SHALL BE RETURNED TO THEIR FULL TRAFFIC USE BY PLATING OR BACKFILLING AND PAVING THE OPEN TRENCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR. AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NOT IN USE. 6. PARKING TO REMAIN OPEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET DURING CONSTRUCTION. POST NOTICES 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE. 7. PROVIDE ACCESS TO DRIVEWAYS AT ALL TIMES. DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SIGNED FOR RIGHT TURN ONLY WHEN CONTRACTOR'S WORK RESTRICTS LEFT TURN MOVEMENT. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL SIGNS, DELINEATORS, BARRICADES, ETC., PROPERLY INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO ASSURE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL PROPERTY DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. 11. PROTECTIVE VEHICLE RECOMMENDED - MAY BE A WORK VEHICLE STRATEGICALLY LOCATED TO SHIELD THE WORK AREA. 12. COORDINATE WITH CITY OF LOMITA AND / OR CALTRANS AS APPROPRIATE IF SIDEWALKS WILL BE CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN DETOURS. 13. PROVIDE SCHEDULE FOR LANE CLOSURE TO CITY FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CLOSING LANE. 14. FLASHING ARROW BOARDS SHALL BE USED FOR EACH TRAFFIC LANE CLOSURE. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND RESIDENTS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROJECT LIMITS, AND THE CITY OF LOMITA THREE (3) DAYS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK INVOLVING APPROVED NON-WORKING HOURS, WEEKEND WORK, LANE/ROAD CLOSURES, AND/OR DETOURS. NOTIFICATIONS FOR OTHER TYPES OF WORK MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY. 16. ANY DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF LOMITA AND / OR CALTRANS AS APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHALL REMAIN IN OPERATION AT ALL TIMES. CONFLICTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INDICATIONS SHALL BE COVERED AND SIGNAL OPERATION DURING EACH CONSTRUCTION PHASE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. 18. ADJUST SIGN SPACING AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR VISIBILITY FROM SIDE STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS. 19. CONTRACTOR TO EMAIL LA METRO AT [email protected] A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) BUISINESS DAYS BEFORE WORKING ALONG BUS ROUTES. PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY BUS STOP RELOCATIONS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BUS SERVICE. 20. PLACE FLASHING BEACON ON TOP OF W20-1 SIGN FOR WORKING AT NIGHT, PARTICULARLY ON STANDARD LANE CLOSURE SET UP WITHIN CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. 21. CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSETS, INCLUDING LOOP DETECTORS, CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLES, INTERCONNECT CABLES, FIBER OPTIC CABLES, POWER, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, ARE SITUATED IN BOTH SURFACE AND SUBTERRANEAN AREAS ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AT THE INTERSECTION WITH NARBONNE AVENUE. SHOULD DAMAGE OCCUR, REPAIRS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PERMITS SPECIAL PROVISIONS, CALTRANS 2023 STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. 22. THE TESTING OF NEW LOOPS SHALL ADHERE TO THE CALTRANS 2023 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 87-1.03V(2), WHICH INCLUDES THE METAL LOOP TEST. ** ** RKSMMM EXHIBIT A Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *825

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *826

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *827

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *828

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *829

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *830

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *831

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *832

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *833

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *834

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *835

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *836

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *837

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *838

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *839

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *840

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *841

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *842

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *843

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *844

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *845

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *846

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *847

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *848

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *849

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *850

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *851

EXHIBIT B
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *852
1 TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Vialpando, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Andres Gonzalez, Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Construction Services Agreement with Hardy and Harper, Inc. for Street Reconstruction Project Zone G Phase 2

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a Construction Services Agreement to Hardy and Harper, Inc., for the Street Reconstruction Project Zone G Phase 2 in the amount of $1,627,460.00, with an additional 15% contingency of $244,119.00, for a total construction budget not to exceed $1,871,579.00; appropriate an additional $234,032.00 from the Gas Tax Fund; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

BACKGROUND
The City of Lomita’s 2022–2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Master Plan includes a comprehensive street improvement initiative for Zone G. As outlined in the 2020 Pavement Management Program (PMP), the project will involve asphalt concrete (AC) overlay and full reconstruction on selected streets. Key construction activities include removing and replacing deteriorated AC pavement, excavating unsuitable base materials, preparing new base layers, milling designated sections, and applying fresh AC overlay. The plan also calls for the installation of new curb ramps designed to meet current ADA standards and improve pedestrian accessibility.

Streets scheduled for improvement include 240th Street, 241st Street, Stanhurst Avenue, Callison Street, Falena Avenue, 246th Street, Abita Avenue, 247th Street, and 248th Street. In addition to pavement upgrades, the project will include the repair and enhancement of 10 curb ramps to ensure safe and accessible crossings for all residents.

CITY OF LOMITA

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Item No. SCH 8b
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *853
2 DISCUSSION
On July 31, 2025, The City of Lomita issued a Notice Inviting Bids for construction services, resulting in five submissions. The proposals were evaluated based on the established criteria identified in the NIB including compliance with the NIB requirements, proposal quality, project understanding, approach, methodology including responsiveness and flexibility, experience of assigned staff, similar project experience, schedule efficiency, and references. Staff determined that the proposal from Hardy and Harper, Inc. was the lowest, responsive and most qualified.

Hardy and Harper, Inc., has successfully constructed numerous street reconstruction projects and brings extensive experience in construction services. Their expertise aligns closely with the scope of the City of Lomita’s Street Reconstruction Project Zone G Phase

2. Hardy and Harper, Inc. is also well-versed in coordinating and constructing similar project in the South Bay Area with multiple stakeholders and navigating regulatory requirements, ensuring efficient project delivery.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Construction Services Agreement with Hardy and Harper, Inc, identified as the most qualified contractor for the Street Reconstruction Project Zone G Phase 2. The agreement totals $1,627,460.00 with an additional 15% contingency of $244,119,00. for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,871,579.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Construction Services Agreement is Planned to be funded as follows in the FY 2025- 2026 Budget:

FUND FY25-26 AMOUNT
Gas Tax (Fund 205) $1,060,790.00
Street Improvement Fund
(Fund 311)
$ 810,789.00
$1,871,579.00
The total construction budget with Hardy and Harper, Inc., is $1,871,579.00 which includes a base contract of $1,627,460.00 and a 15% contingency of $244,119.00. This project is funded by the Gas Tax and the Street Improvement Fund.

To cover the cost of the Street Reconstruction Project Zone G Phase 2, an additional appropriation of $234,032.00 is required from the Gas Tax Fund (Fund 205) and $234,032.00 from the Street Improvement Fund (Fund 311).

Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *854
3 VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
The City’s Vision, Mission, and Values set the standard for the organization, establish priorities, uniformity and guidelines; and provide the framework for policy decision making. The Strategic Outcomes were implemented to provide a pathway to achieving the City’s Vision. This item aligns with Strategic Outcome No. 5: City Infrastructure & Water Utility – Investing in reliable, sustainable infrastructure.

OPTIONS

1. Approve staff’s recommendation.

2. Provide alternative direction.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Contract Services Agreement with Hardy and Harper, Inc.

Approved by:
_____________________
Andrew Vialpando
City Manager
Prepared by:
. .
_______________________
Andres Gonzalez
Public Works Director
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Reg CC MTG, Page *855