Santa Monica City Council
October 11, 2022

incentives and concessions may be requested pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d).

Program Background:

On August 25, 2020, the City Council updated Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 which implements State density bonus law, to incorporate updates to the State Density Bonus Law for 100% affordable housing projects. At the time of the update in 2020, the City deferred amendments that would clarify how to apply State Density Bonus Law to the City’s commercial and mixed-use districts, pending further study, which has been ongoing since December 2019.

After the August 2020 update, Assembly Bill 2345 took effect on January 1, 2021, which expanded and enhanced development incentives for market rate projects that provide affordable housing. AB 2345 increases the maximum density bonus from thirty-five percent (35%) to fifty percent (50%). To be eligible for the maximum bonus of 50%, a project must set aside at least (i) fifteen percent (15%) of total units for very low-income households, (ii) twenty-four percent (24%) of total units for low-income households, or (iii) forty-four percent (44%) of for-sale units for moderate income households. Levels of bonus density between thirty-five percent (35%) and fifty percent (50%) are granted on a sliding scale.

As highlighted above, the City has failed to bring its density bonus ordinance into compliance with State law since August 25, 2020. The City has been “studying” how to comply with State law since December 2019. Yet, the City is not committing to bring its ordinance into compliance with State law until October 15, 2023. This is far too long of a delay. Keep in mind that when the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) reviewed the City’s latest draft Amended Housing Element, the City had committed to completing this revision by October 15, 2022. Also keep in mind that the statutory duty to adopt an ordinance that complies with and implements State Density Bonus Law (per Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(1)) is separate and apart from the City’s legal obligation to adopt a compliant Housing Element (per Gov’t Code § 65585).

Item 11.A
10/11/22
27 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1819 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022

The City has had plenty of time to comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City needs to bring its local ordinance into compliance immediately, not wait another year to do so. This failure by the City to comply with its obligations under State Density Bonus Law establishes one of the causes of action alleged in SMHC’s Petition for Administrative Mandate that is pending against the City in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV11610.

In this regard, Government Code Sections 65915-65919.11 constitute the State Density Bonus Law, and Government Code Section 65915(a)(1) provides in pertinent part as follows:

A city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented.

In addition, Government Code Section 65915(a)(3)(A) provides as follows:

In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application, the local government shall do all of the following:
(A) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a
density bonus application.
* * *
Furthermore, Government Code Section 65918 confirms that the State Density Bonus Law applies to charter cities:

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to charter cities.

As confirmed by the City in Program 2D, Santa Monica’s density bonus ordinance (i.e., Chapter 9.22 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance) does not comply with Government Code Section 65915. For example, the City’s ordinance purports to limit eligibility to projects located in residential districts and thereby fails to reflect the eligibility of mixed-use developments with market-rate units in nonresidential districts:

SMMC 9.22.040 Eligibility
A. Except as set forth in subsection B [setting forth grounds for ineligibility], a housing development project in a
residential district shall be eligible for a density bonus and Item 11.A
10/11/22
28 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1820 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022

additional incentives, concessions, waivers, and/or
reductions of development standards and parking ratios as set forth in this Section. (Emphasis added.)
In contrast, State Density Bonus Law expressly includes mixed-use developments:
“Housing development,” as used in this section [65915], means a development project for five or more residential units, including mixed-use developments. (Gov’t Code
§ 65915(i); emphasis added.)
Similarly, the City’s Zoning Ordinance limits density bonuses to a maximum of 35% (see SMMC § 9.22.050(B)), whereas State law grants density bonuses of up to 50% for many projects (see Gov’t Code § 65915(f)), and up to 80% (or more) for 100% affordable projects (Gov’t Code § 65915(f)(3)(D)).

Furthermore, contrary to the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(a)(3)(A), the City’s density bonus ordinance fails to provide timelines for processing density bonus applications. (See Zoning Ordinance Section 9.22.080, entitled “Procedures.”)
These are but a few of the key deficiencies of the City’s codified density bonus ordinance. These longstanding deficiencies have the direct effect of discouraging the production of housing, including affordable housing. As a result, the City perversely undercuts the State Legislature’s express intention to encourage the production of housing, including affordable housing, with reduced or no public subsidies:

The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the Density Bonus Law is to allow public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in
exchange for affordable units. It further reaffirms that the intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional public subsidy. (Gov’t Code § 65915(t)(1).)
There is no basis in law for the City to fail to immediately update its density bonus ordinance to comply with (or exceed) the provisions in State Law. The City faces Item 11.A
10/11/22
29 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1821 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022

an obligation to produce 8,895 new units, including 6,168 affordable units. The City continues to drag its feet in rising to this challenge.

Program 2.C
The City Council should revise Program 2.C "Update the City's Affordable Housing Production Program to Increase the Number of Affordable Housing Units at all Income Levels" to clearly state that Program 2.C will be implemented to be consistent with, and with the expectation that housing projects will utilize, State Density Bonus Law.

Prior discussions of Program 2.C’s implementation and the draft Zoning Ordinance redlines posted online for the October 12th Planning Commission meeting document that the City's intent is to mandate that all new housing projects must provide 15% affordable units that must be evenly distributed between very-low, low- and moderate-income units. Absent further refinements, this implementation will result in a conflict with State Density Bonus Law. Notably, in order to both comply with the City's contemplated new inclusionary housing requirements and achieve the full density bonus under State Density Bonus Law, the real-world effect of the City's mandate for low- and moderate-income units would result in an inclusionary housing requirement that is substantially higher than the safe-harbor 15% inclusionary requirement. (See Gov’t Code § 65850.01.) See also page 5 of HCD letter discussing “the real-world impact of the mandated moderate unit requirement.”
In this regard, attached is a copy of HCD’s letter to the City of West Hollywood dated September 2, 2022, on this very topic.1 HCD’s letter explains that West Hollywood's inclusionary mandate for moderate-income units may reduce a project's economic feasibility and constitute a governmental constraint. (See HCD letter at page 4.) HCD recommends several solutions, including:

1. To allow more deeply affordable units to be substituted for less deeply affordable units (e.g. very-low income units to be substituted for moderate income units), (HCD letter at p. 5) and

2. Drafting inclusionary housing ordinances to be consistent with, and with the expectation that housing projects will utilize, State Density Bonus Law and consider the overall resulting percentage of affordable units in evaluating economic feasibility. (HCD letter at p. 6.)
1 HCD’s letter expressly states: “This guidance is tailored to West Hollywood but is also intended to be helpful to other jurisdictions.” (HCD letter at p. 5.) Item 11.A
10/11/22
30 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1822 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022

Another solution we have previously suggested is, in the City's implementation of State Density Bonus Law, to allow low- and moderate-income units to receive the same level of density bonus and incentives as very-low income units in order to achieve moderate-income units without being in conflict with (and undercutting) providing the full density bonus and incentives/concessions authorized by State Density Bonus Law. (See also HCD letter at page 3 (“The City should be prepared to grant a request for a SDBL concession to modify provisions of the inclusionary ordinance, especially ordinances that mandate the level of affordability of inclusionary units or their ratios.”).) While this level of detail can be worked through in the Zoning Ordinance, the Housing Element should include a clear statement acknowledging the need for compatibility between the inclusionary housing program and the State Density Bonus Law to guide future implementation discussions.2

CONCLUSION
Prior to adopting the Amended Housing Element, the City Council should:
(a) revise the timeframe for implementation of Program 2.D to confirm that the City will adopt a compliant density bonus ordinance no later than December 31, 2022, if not sooner, and (b) include a statement in Program 2.C directing that Program 2.C be implemented so that it is consistent with, and with the expectation that housing projects will utilize, State Density Bonus Law.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
Enclosure
cc: David White (w/ encl.)
Douglas Sloan (w/ encl.)
Susan Y. Cola (w/ encl.)
David Martin (w/ encl.)
Jing Yeo (w/ encl.)
SMHC Board of Directors (w/ encl.)
Paul McDougall, HCD (w/o encl.)
Santa Monica Planning Commission (w/ encl.)
2 See Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal. App. 5th 549, 558 (2021) (“A local ordinance is preempted if it conflicts with the density bonus law by increasing the requirements to obtain its benefits.)
Item 11.A
10/11/22
31 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1823 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing Commission
October 10, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 11A. Adoption of Resolution Amending the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element to the City’s General Plan and Approval of Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tempore McCowan, and City Councilmembers, The Housing Commission recently became aware that the Housing Element is still in the revision process and has been since approximately 8 February 2022, when HCD rejected the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element. However, the Housing Commission has not been informed of this, despite the fact that the Housing Commission is tasked with advising the City Council on all matters related to housing in Santa Monica, particularly affordable housing.

Despite numerous requests of staff by multiple Commissioners over many months, the Housing Commission was never informed of the Housing Element's ongoing review process, nor were we given an opportunity to participate in it. Bringing this document to our attention is the responsibility of our affiliated city department staff. However, again, despite repeated requests by multiple housing commissioners, city housing staff has failed to bring a single substantive administrative item to the Housing Commission agenda in all of 2022. This failure was brought to the City Council and city staff previously with no response or remedy.

HCD’s letter dated 8 February 2022 states the following:
“Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households and commenters on this review, Item 11.A
10/11/22
32 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1824 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.”
HCD’s letter dated 6 September 2022 states the following:
“Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special-needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.”
In light of this direction by HCD and the city’s failure to include key stakeholder representatives, including the Housing Commission, in this review process, the Housing Commission strongly recommends that the Santa Monica City Council do one of two things:

1. Delay approving the final revised 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element until the Housing Commission can adequately review it and provide feedback.

2. If its approval cannot or will not be delayed, attach this letter as a comment by the Santa Monica Housing Commission to the final approved 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element that will be submitted to HCD by 15 October 2022.

Thank you in advance for your attention to and consideration of the Housing Commission’s urgent request. Our full and timely participation in the review of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element is crucial to ensuring representation of all Santa Monicans in the creation and revision of city housing plans.

Sincerely,
Michelle Gray
Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
On behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission
Item 11.A
10/11/22
33 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1825 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Steve Mizokami; Cary Fukui; Andy Agle
Subject: 10/11/22 City Council Meeting - Item 11.A. - Amending the previously adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element - PLEASE CONDITION ANY APPROVAL!

EXTERNAL
Dear Esteemed Councilmembers and Mayor Himmelrich -
I'm aware that I'm coming in very late on this issue as have been largely out-of-pocket on local issues since last Spring, but please CONDITION any approval tonight of the amended 6th Cycle Housing Element with direction to staff to return to HCP asap to lower the target units for the 6th Cycle back to the original target of around 9,000. Why? Because:
 The Amended EIR pertaining to the proposed Amended 6th Cycle HE clearly states or implies that, among many other negative impacts from upping the units goal to 13,000, adding what amounts to over 50% more units than originally targeted, will throw both the City's water sustainability and the City's water availability goals into question. Staff describes this IN ITALICS as "a potentially significant impact". I have not observed our typically measured & sober Staff writing in italics very often. **  Further, Santa Monica was originally given a 9,000-ish unit RHNA target for the 6th Cycle by DHP yet, through negotiations, our target somehow has been upped by over 50% to 13,000. How did this happen?! The charge from DHP, as I understand it, was to identify more SITES that DHP would deem feasible, not to ADD MORE UNITS. Let me repeat that and put it in italics: DHP's comments to the first draft submitted DID NOT APPEAR TO REQUIRE THAT SM ASSUME MORE UNITS THAN ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED! So whatever negotiations occurred have significantly further impacted SM unfairly by upping the 6th Cycle target by 50%! Council needs to understand why!
So, Santa Monicans need (1) an explanation from Staff how an already unreachable, "pipe dream" number increased by 50% (egregious!!), and (2) action by Staff immediately to get it lowered back to the original number.

RECOMMENDATION: Technically Council needs to approve this element tonight so that Staff can submit to HCP by October 15th, right?, but there's nothing to stop you from conditioning your approval upon the requirement / direction that Staff go back to HCP and get the goal lowered back to the original number. This is only fair. If HCP is content with sites sufficient for 13,000 units in the revised HE, there should be more than enough for the original 9,000 or so.

HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO: Unless there is state law barring Council from conditioning it's amended HE approval on staff getting this HE back to the original target, you can both meet the October 15th approval deadline (a win) but also take care of our city with the approval condition (a win in every way - READ THE AMENDED EIR!!!) Honestly, it will be irresponsible for you to do otherwise.

So, again, please tonight condition any approval with the requirement that staff negotiate with HCP NOW to get us back to a number that, though still outlandishly unreasonable, was the original target for this RHNA cycle.

Item 11.A
10/11/22
34 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1826 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) 2 Thank you -
Sincerely,
Ann K. Bowman
Resident, 26 years
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 11.A., City Council meeting of October 11, 2011 - thank you!
**

1.4.5 Utilities • Impact UT-2 The City’s existing and projected water supply would be adequate to meet the increased water demand from the previously adopted Housing Element Update and the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

However, the increase in residential development planned for by the previously adopted Housing Element Update would create substantial increases in water demand which would delay or inhibit the City’s ability to achieve water selfsufficiency by 2023, a key City policy goal, which could create inconsistencies with City policy, a potentially significant impact.
https://smdp.com/2022/10/10/revised-plan-for-13000-new-housing-units-heads-tocouncil/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Council+to+debate+13%2C000+new+housing +units&utm_campaign=The+Current+10-10-22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
35 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1827 Attachment: Written Comments (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) City Council
Final Revised Housing Element
October 11, 2022

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1828 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Purpose
• Refresher on Content of Revised Housing Element authorized to submit by City Council on June 21, 2022
• HCD Deemed Draft Housing Element in Compliance with Housing Element Law on September 6, 2022
• No changes proposed to HCD-approved draft Housing Element except for maximum implementation dates and typographical errors
• Maximum implementation dates changed to align with State law • 1 year or 3 years from October 15, 2021 (statutory deadline) as applicable per Gov’t Code Sec. 65583.4 • Includes Planning Commission recommendation to move up maximum implementation dates for Programs 1F (Downtown rezoning), 1J (Citywide rezoning), 2C (AHPP), 2D (Density Bonus):
• 1 year or 3 2 years from October 15, 2021 (statutory deadline) as applicable per Gov’t Code Sec. 65583.4

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1829 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Key Housing Element Deadlines
• October 15, 2021 – Adopt a compliant
Housing Element
• February 12, 2022 – extra 120 days to
adopt a compliantHousing Element in
order to avoid updating Housing
Element every 4 years
• AB1398 took effect on January 1, 2022
replacing this provision with a requirement
to rezone for the RHNA by October 15, 2022
HCD’s position is that
HCD has to certify the
Housing Element after
Council adoption

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1830 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Qualifying for Addtl. Time for Rezoning
• Government Code Section 65583.4(a) and (b)
provides cities 3 years and 120 days (from October
15, 2021) to complete rezoning if certain conditions
are met:
 Statutory deadline for adoption of 6th Cycle Housing
Element was in 2021 calendar year (October 15, 2021)
 City failed to adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element within 120 days of statutory deadline (February 12, 2022)
 City adopts 6th Cycle Housing Element AND HCD finds
adopted Element to be in substantial compliance with
Housing Element law by October 15, 2022

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1831 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Out of Compliance - Consequences
Immediate short-term consequences
• Approvals of "builder's remedy" projects
• Must approve any project with 20% on-site units affordable to lower-income households or 100% moderate units even if the project exceeds zoning or LUCE maximums
• Conditions cannot render the project infeasible
• Loss of funding for affordable housing
• If October 15, 2022 deadline for HCD certification of Final Housing Element not completed
• Rezoning for RHNA complete by 10/15/22
• If rezoning not completed
• Must approve any project with at least 49% of housing units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households on SSI that meets the standards listed in the housing programs for rezoning
• State can start enforcement proceedings against City
• Continue to be out of compliance allowing further submittals of "builder's remedy" projects

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1832 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Out of Compliance - Consequences
Long-term consequences
• SB35 determination based on building permits issued
relative to pro-rated RHNA
• If Above Moderate RHNA not met – streamlined process for projects with at 10% affordability
• If Lower Income RHNA not met – streamlined process for projects with at least 50% affordability
• Requires ministerial approval process for housing projects that include these affordability levels
State can also seek judicial relief and impose penalties and fines

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1833 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) EIR Addendum
• HCD's February 2022 comment letter required the City to study approximately 2,000 additional units to
accommodate RHNA
• Exceeded maximum capacity studied in October 15, 2021 certified EIR
• EIR Addendum has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA to disclose impacts of the additional units
• EIR Addendum is attached to staff report and part of
Council recommendation

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1834 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Next Steps
• Adopt Compliant Housing Element
• September 21 – Planning Commission
• Refresher on Revised Housing Element
• September 22 – Planning Commission
• Formal Recommendation to City Council on Revised Housing Element • October 11 – City Council
• Adopt Revised Housing Element
• By October 15 – HCD certifies Revised Housing Element • Begin Zoning Redlines Review (Fall-Winter 22/23)
We are here

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1835 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Refresher on Housing Element Programs

1. Housing Production

2. Affordable Housing Production

3. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

4. Housing Stability

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1836 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing Production Programs
1 11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1837 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects
• Make permanent IZO 2692 (process thresholds) – expires May 31, 2022 • By-Right Approvals
• 100% Affordable housing projects
• Code-compliant housing projects including those granted modifications & waivers • Non-Downtown housing projects
• Downtown housing projects that do not exceed Tier 2
• Housing projects on 5th Cycle HE sites inventory that include at least 20% of units on-site as affordable to lower-income households [Government Code Section 65583.2(c)] • Written procedures to implement SB35
• Facilitate consolidation of sites for housing projects by continuing to process administrative lot tie agreements
Objective: Provide Approval Certainty for Housing Providers

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1838 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Streamline Design Review + Objective Design Standards
• Increase staff level approval for
smaller housing projects
• Expedite design review for larger
projects
• Ensure design review cannot
unreasonably delay housing
project approval (e.g. # of
hearings, time limits)
• Develop objective design
standards
Objective: Streamline Housing Approvals

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1839 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
for Housing Projects
• Reduce minimum parking requirements by applying Parking Overlay 1 rates
• Note: Impact of new State law on parking
• AB 2097 eliminates minimum parking requirements for residential and commercial projects within ½ mile of major transit stop Objective: Lower the cost of housing production

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1840 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Revise Design Standards in BAP
• Modify design guidelines in the BAP to
establish objective design standards to
support housing production
• Building modulation
• Ground floor uses
• Street frontages/pedestrian orientation
• Open space
• Reduction in parking minimums
• Live/work artist and commercial living
situations
Objective: Provide clarity in regulatory environment to incentivize housing production in the Bergamot area

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1841 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Rezone to Ensure Feasible Housing Projects
Rezoning based on Feasibility
Testing for Housing Projects
• Increase minimum FAR and
Height in all commercial zones
• Eliminate tiers for housing
projects except in Downtown
Remove Constraints
• Review standards that may be
constraints to housing
production such as ground floor
restrictions, unit mix, ground
floor height

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1842 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Equitable Distribution of Housing Capacity
across Santa Mnica

2.5 55’

2.0 45’

3.0 65’

2.75 60’

2.5 55’

2.5 55’

2.25 50’

2.25 50’

2.5 55’

3.25 70’

2.5 55’

2.5 55’

2.75 60’
• Overall Capacity
• ~13,600 units
• Need to ensure
buffer at each
income level to
account for future
pending projects
• Overall buffer – 53%
• Lower Income – 60%
buffer
• Moderate Income - 12% buffer
Map of FAR/Height

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1843 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Map of Height/FAR - Bergamot Area Plan

4.0 84’

2.50 55’

2.50 55’

4.0 84’

4.0 84’

2.50 55’

2.50 55’

4.0 84’

3.25 70’

3.25 70’

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1844 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Map of FAR/Height
- Downtown
NV Zone Tier 3

4.0 84’
All DCP Tier 1: 2.75 FAR, 60’
Tier 2

3.5 70’
Tier 2

3.0 65’
Tier 2

3.0 65’
NV Zone Tier 3

4.0 84’
Tier 2

3.5 70’
Tier 2

3.0 65’
Tier 2

3.0 65’
Tier 2

3.5 70’

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1845 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Incentivize Development of ADUs
• Develop ADU Accelerator program
• ADU user-friendly handbook
• Illustrative floor plan ideas for ADUs
• Aim to issue building permits for an
average of 47 ADUs/year
• Update ADU ordinance for
consistency with State law
Objective: Streamline approvals and facilitate development of ADUs

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1846 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Adaptive Reuse of Existing Commercial Buildings
for Housing
• Amend ZO to incentivize
conversion of existing commercial
space
• Zoning changes may include:
• Relaxing minimum parking requirements
• Unit mix
• Open space
• Technical Code adjustments
Objective: Increase flexibility for reuse of vacant commercial space to residential use
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/axiometrics/2017/03/29/how-commercialreal-estate-use-is-changing-5-adaptive-reuse-success-stories/?sh=62a28e1a5576

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1847 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Innovations in Construction Technology
• Construction technologies such
as mass timber could lower cost
of residential construction
• Streamline building permit review
process for innovative
construction methods
Objective: Remove impediments to innovation in construction

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1848 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Adequate Sites
• Accommodate at least
1,880 lower income units on
City-owned sites
[Government Code Sections
65583(f) and 65583.2(h)]
• Allow 100% residential use
• Require at least 50% of floor
area be for residential use
• Additional mixed-use
zoning districts
• Allow for 100% residential
use
• Comply with No Net Loss by
ensuring adequate
inventory available to meet
RHNA
Objective: Create opportunity to accommodate lower income RHNA Summary of Total Land Capacity – Sites Inventory with
Housing Element Programs
Total
Capacity Capacity for Affordable Units
# Units
Total
Affordable
Capacity ELI VLI LI Moderate
Category 1 Approved 2,205 637 127 347 148 15
Category 1 Pending 2,168 420 24 224 41 131
Category 4 City Sites 1,880 1,880 627 627 627 -
Category 11 Religious
Sites
257 130 32 32 32 34
Category 12 Parking Lots 96 9 - - 9 -
All Remaining Categories 6,619 6,619 1,655 1,655 1,655 1,655 ADUs 376 249 56 8 162 23
Total 13,600 9,944 2,521 2,819 2,703 1,901
RHNA Targets 8,895 6,168 1,397 1,397 1,672 1,702
Buffer +4,705 +3,776 + 1,124 + 1,495 + 1,031 +199
53%

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1849 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Update State Density Bonus
• Projects entitled to % increase in
density bonus based on
percentage of on-site affordable
units
• Create by-right menu of “incentives and concessions” to request relief to any development
standard
• Off-menu incentives may be requested
• Note: Consistency with new
updates to State density bonus involving converting FAR to units Excerpt from State Density Bonus table (Gov Code 65915) Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
Objective: Ensure consistency with State law

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1850 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Affordable Housing Production Programs
2 11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1851 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Moderate Income Affordable Housing Overlay
120% AMI Targeted to certain areas
(e.g. around major transit stops)
• Up to 120% AMI targeted to at least 3 areas
of the city such as Downtown, Bergamot,
and 17th St Metro stations
• Must be 100% moderate-income units
• Development incentives
• Extra 3 stories or 33 feet
• 50% density bonus above base FARs
• Up to 4 incentives/concessions
• No minimum parking requirements
• Flexibility in unit size/mix in exchange for
additional common area amenities

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1852 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Right of First Offer For
Nonprofit Affordable Housing Providers
Objective: Support 100% affordable housing by assisting nonprofit providers to be competitive in the land acquisition market • Modelled after San Francisco’s COPA
ordinance
• Allows non-profit affordable housing
providers to receive advanced notice
and submit offer when land goes on
sale

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1853 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Update the City’s AHPP
• Establish minimum 15% of new multi-unit housing units are affordable to lower and moderate income households
• Aim to achieve Quantified Objective for lower income
households
• Areas of consideration
• Increase threshold to at least 6 units where on-site/off-site units are required
• Eliminate menu and replace with one base affordability percentage
• Increase off-site to be higher than on-site
• Allow off-site units to be anywhere in the city
• Re-evaluate in-lieu fee
• Evaluate mixed-compliance option
• Allow compliance with off-site option through acquisition/rehabilitation Objective: Ensure that the AHPP provides housing developers viable options for compliance

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1854 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) City Sites for Affordable Housing & Affordable Housing
Financing
• Commit to 1,880 affordable units across City-owned Sites • Continue to provide technical and financial assistance for affordable housing production
Sites Unit Capacity Notes
Parking Structure 3 104 RFP already released
Wilshire Parking Lots (3) 130 RFP planned for 2023
4th Street and Arizona 362 Bank leases don’t terminate until 2026
Bergamot Arts Center 707 Property management agreement
until April 2027. Annual leases with
30 businesses that renew each
calendar year until redevelopment
Main Street Parking Lots 577 Replacement parking will be necessary (Coastal Zone)
Total 1,880

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1855 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) City Owned Sites & Lower Income Shortfall
• Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i) states that candidate sites must be rezoned to address the shortfall in lower income units
• Under existing zoning, the lower income shortfall is approximately 1,100 units
• City-owned sites have lower income capacity of 1,880 units to accommodate the shortfall.
• Per State law, these sites must allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area • Loss of a City-owned site means that there will be a shortfall in lower income capacity = must identify alternate site to make up for the loss

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1856 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing for Special Needs & Homeless
• Housing for seniors, persons with
disabilities
• Consider new housing types to serve
persons with disabilities
• Support Permanent Supportive Housing –
already a permitted use in all zones
• Seek regional cooperation
• Add Low Barrier Navigation Centers as
by-right use
• Review of special needs housing for
consistency with State law
Support Special Needs Housing and
Permanent Supportive Housing

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1857 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Programs to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
3 11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1858 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Santa Monica’s Fair Housing Strategy leads with housing preservation • Program 2F, 2G, and 2I
• Goal 3 Programs – reflection of all Santa Monica’s actions on anti-displacement and housing preservation
• Goal 6 Program – housing assistance
• Goal 7 Programs – fair housing enforcement
To create more equitable access to housing, additional AFFH programs are proposed • Program 4.A -Allow housing as a permitted use in areas formerly prohibiting housing (e.g., office campus, creative conservation sector, and industrial conservation) • Program 4.B – Incentivize housing production on surface parking lots of community assembly uses, including religious congregation sites
• Program 4.C – ADU Accelerator and Incentivize ADUs in R1 • Program 4.D - Continue Right to Return Pilot Program
• Program 4.E - Combined SB9/ADU projects on parcels over 10,000 sf • Program 4.F - Mid-cycle monitoring of housing production in R1 zones

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1859 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing Preservation: Location of Rent Control Units
Zoning
Parcels with
Rent Control
Units
% Parcels
with Rent
Control Units
Total Rent
Control
Units
% of all Rent Control
Units
R1 60 0.9% 60 1.5%
R2 2261 53.3% 2463 63.0%
R3 510 66.5% 644 16.5%
R4 16 44.4% 17 0.4%
OPD 10 40.0% 10 0.3%
OP1 13 8.4% 13 0.3%
OP2 480 38.9% 554 14.2%
OP3 13 35.1% 46 1.2%
OP4 10 13.0% 10 0.3%
MUBL 41 9.7% 43 1.1%
MUB 1 0.6% 1 0.0%
GC 12 5.1% 12 0.3%
HMU 11 15.5% 11 0.3%
OF 2 5.0% 2 0.1%
CCS 1 3.8% 1 0.0%
DCP 22 4.5% 22 0.6%
• 25.7% of all residentially zoned parcels contain rent control units
• 97.6% of all rent control units are in residential zones

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1860 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing as Permitted Use & Incentives
Dispersed Housing
Adding Housing as Permitted Use in
Areas where it has been prohibited
• Office Campus, and Industrial
Conservation
Upzonefor Housing Potential in
Areas that Have Not
Accommodated Housing in the Past
• Main Street, Montana, Ocean
Park Boulevard, Office
Campus, and Industrial
Conservation

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1861 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots
in Residential Zones
Objective: Incentivize housing on underutilized sites that would not displace existing tenants
• Restore underlying maximum
allowable density
• Flexibility in commercial parking
replacement, lot consolidation,
street access
• Some lots are located in R1 zones
- Opportunity to increase
housing opportunities in some
high resource residential
neighborhoods without
displacing existing residents

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1862 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Incentivize Surface Parking Lots for
Production of Affordable Housing
• Community assembly sites scattered throughout
the city with many located in high opportunity
residential neighborhoods
• Allow not more than 50% market rate
• Additional height of 33 feet and unlimited density
• No minimum parking

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1863 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) New Housing Choice & Affordability in
High Opportunity Areas – Additional ADUs
ADU Incentive Program within the R1 Zone
District
• Existing: Maximum number of units on R1 parcel is
three
• Proposed: One additional ADU if the property owner
is willing to deed restrict one of the ADUs as a rental unit
• Program helps achieve affirmatively furthering fair
housing by providing more affordable rental
housing opportunities within the R1 zone district
Existing:
1 SFR +
1 JADU + 1 ADU
Proposed:
1 SFR + 1 JADU + 1 ADU +
1 deed-restricted ADU
Objective: Increase equitable access
to all neighborhoods through nominal
density increases that may lower
barrier to housing access

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1864 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in
High Opportunity Areas - SB9
• Adopt SB9 ordinance
• Administrative process with no
public hearing
• Strong incentives for R1 Zone
parcels of at least 10,000 sf to
add ADUs in addition to SB9
units
• Would allow potentially up to 6
units through multi-step process
Objective: Increase equitable
access to all neighborhoods
through small increases that
may lower barrier to housing
access in high opportunity
neighborhoods
**Illustrative scenario intended to assist in understanding of how SB9 might be used and not intended to represent all possible scenarios under SB9**

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1865 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Right To Return Pilot
Continue Right to Return • Initiated in July 2021 by Council • Prioritizes housing for historically displaced households in City during the 1950s and
1960s due to urban renewal
• Qualifying households place on the City’s
affordable housing waitlist with Second
Priority

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1866 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing Production Targets in R1 and Mid-Cycle
Monitoring
• Aim to issue at least 47 building permits per year for additional housing units and types in R1 Zones
• Review progress by December 31, 2025
• If targets not met, adjust strategies as necessary within 1 year Objective: Increase number of net new housing units in R1

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1867 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) 4 Housing Stability Programs

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1868 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins))

1. Rental Assistance
Need for financial support for seniors, families, persons with disabilities, etc

2. Resident Services / Tenant Protections
Need for continued tenant protection/assistance

3. Support Services Programs that Serve Homeless/At-Risk Individuals Continued support services, case management

4. Preserve Housing Affordability
Rehabilitating existing housing including covenant and non-covenant units Resident Needs

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1869 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Protect Existing Rental Units
• Compliance with SB8/SB330 with
replacement of protected units
• Replacement requirements for units
occupied by lower income
households within past 5 years
• Continue to restrict condo conversion • Facilitate conservation of restricted and non-restricted at-risk housing
Restrict Removal of Existing Rental Units &
Require Replacement of Demolished Units

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1870 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Tenant/Landlord Support & Outreach
• Education and outreach workshops
on Anti-Discrimination and
Rehab/Maintenance
• Maintain Low-Income Residential
Repair Program
• Continue Right to Counsel Program
Continue Educating Tenants and Property
Owners on Rights and Responsibilities

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1871 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
• Reduce the Number of Homeless
Individuals Living on the Streets of
Santa Monica through the Provision of
a Range of Housing Options w/an
Emphasis on Affordable, Permanent,
and Supportive Housing
• Add Low Barrier Navigation Centers
as a by-right use
Increase Permanent Supportive Housing Units

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1872 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Housing Assistance & Supportive Programs
• Maintain/Enhance Rental Housing Voucher Programs & Seek Rental Assistance Funding for Vulnerable At-Risk of
Displacement
• Maintain & Expand the Preserving Our Diversity (POD)
Program
• Information & Outreach for Tenants + Landlords on Housing Programs/Resources
• Provide Permanent & Temporary Tenant Relocation
Assistance
• Maintain Reasonable Accommodations to Ensure Equal
Opportunity for Housing
• Maintain Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Programs • Provide Tenant / Landlord Mediation & Legal Services
• Maintain the Anti-Discrimination Tenant Protection Program Assistance for Vulnerable Households

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1873 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) Recommendation

1. Review, approve, and adopt the Addendum to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
20212269242021)

2. Adopt a Resolution adopting an Amended 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan

11.A.j
Packet Pg. 1874 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5191 : Housing Element Adoption (90 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 11, 2022
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Approval of 2022 Report on Water Quality and Public Health Goals Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing, receive public comments, and approve the attached 2022 City of Santa Monica Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals.

2. Adopt the determination that the City’s 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals is exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061 (b) and pursuant to categorical exemption under Section 15308.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works – Water Resources Division delivers high-quality drinking water to over 93,000 residents as well as businesses and visitors throughout the City. The City’s drinking water supply complies with all Federal and State drinking water standards. Provisions of the California Health and Safety Code section 116470 require public water systems to prepare a report every three years that includes information on the detection of any elements in the water at levels above Public Health Goals (PHGs) or the equivalent Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). PHGs are adopted by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and MCLGs are set by the EPA. A public hearing is required to accept and respond to public comments on the report. Staff has prepared the attached 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (Attachment A) to provide information on the water quality of the City’s drinking water supply relative to adopted PHGs and MCLGs. Staff has also prepared a brief summary of the report (Attachment B).

12.A
Packet Pg. 1875
2 of 4
Discussion
The City’s water quality complies with all of the health-based drinking water standards established by the California State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

With advances in technology, the water industry can leverage ever-more sophisticated testing procedures to detect the presence of chemicals in water at levels of parts per billion (or roughly the equivalent of a single drop of water in an Olympic size swimming pool). While the presence of any level of contaminants may be concerning to the public, State and Federal health standards for drinking water are based on widely-accepted medical science data. The water quality of the City’s drinking water supply is monitored 24/7 across the water system and over 10,000 tests are conducted annually to ensure its quality and safety.

California’s State Water Resource Control Board/Division of Drinking Water and the EPA are responsible for setting regulations and drinking water standards. Drinking water goals include PHGs and MCLGs. PHGs are set by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and they are the recommended target levels.

MCLGs are set by EPA and are the levels of contaminants in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to public health. Both PHGs and MCLGs are not water quality standards and they are not required to be met by any public water system. PHGs and MCLGs are goals identifying extremely small risks. These risks, when normally assessed, pertain to one in one million persons drinking the water over a seventy-year period who may be at risk to a contaminant based on assumptions and theoretical extrapolations available.

Drinking water standards are referenced as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Notification Levels (NLs). MCLs are the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. They are set as closely to PHGs and MCLGs as economically and technically feasible. MCLs are enforceable water quality standards that public water

12.A
Packet Pg. 1876
3 of 4
systems must meet. NLs are the concentrations of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that public water systems must comply with.

The City’s water quality complies with all of the health-based drinking water standards established by the California State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (Attachment A) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code. The report assesses the quality of the City’s groundwater and imported water supplies against PHGs and MCLGs. Trace substances in the City’s water supply are all below the applicable drinking water MCLs required by state and federal regulatory agencies for a safe and high-quality drinking water supply (please refer to Attachment C for the City’s latest annual water quality report). No additional actions are recommended for the treatment of the City’s potable water supply. Copies of the report are available for public review at the City Clerk’s office, the Water Resources Division office, the Main Library, and online at https://bit.ly/3JUvNhx. A public notice advising of the availability of the report was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on July 7th, 2022.

Environmental Review
The City of Santa Monica Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals is categorically exempt from the California Water Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to guidelines under Section 15061 (b), as a Class 8 exemption (Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines), actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action.

12.A
Packet Pg. 1877
4 of 4
Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals B. Attachment B - 2022 Water Quality Report Summary
C. Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report
D. PowerPoint Presentation

12.A
Packet Pg. 1878

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

REPORT ON WATER QUALITY

RELATIVE TO
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS (PHGs)
June 2022

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1879 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 1

BACKGROUND
A Public Health Goal (PHG) is a health risk assessment, not a proposed drinking water standard. It is the level of a constituent in drinking water, which is considered not to pose a significant risk to health if consumed for a lifetime. This determination is reassessed every three years and made without regard to cost or treatability.

The California legislature created the concept of PHGs, and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal-EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) researches and establishes PHGs. The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) - Division of Drinking Water (DDW), formerly the California Department of Public Health, then uses PHGs to evaluate health-related drinking water standard Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). PHGs, as well as cost and technical feasibility estimates, provide the basis for revising and setting new contaminant MCLs.

Provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) (Exhibit A) require that large water utilities (>10,000 service connections) prepare a special report by July 1, 2022 if their water quality measurements exceeded any PHGs in the three previous calendar years. The law also requires that where OEHHA has not adopted a PHG for a contaminant, the water suppliers are to use the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). MCLGs are the federal equivalent to PHGs, but they are not identical. This report includes only constituents that have both a California primary drinking water standard, AL, or MCL, and either a set PHG or MCLG. The notable exception is Hexavalent Chromium, which is still in the process of an approved MCL. Exhibit B is a list of all regulated constituents with MCLs and PHGs or MCLGs.

There are a few constituents that are routinely detected in water systems at levels usually well below the drinking water standards for which no PHG nor MCLG have yet been adopted by OEHHA or USEPA. These include total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) among others.

This report provides the following information as specified in the Health and Safety Code (Exhibit A) for each constituent detected in the City of Santa Monica’s (City) water supply in 2019, 2020, and 2021 at a level exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG:
 Numerical public health risk associated with the MCL and the PHG or MCLG (Exhibit C).
 Category or type of risk to health that could be associated with each constituent.  Best Available Treatment Technology that could be used to reduce the constituent level.
 Estimate of the cost to install that treatment if it is appropriate and feasible.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1880 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 2
APPLICATION OF PHGs
 PHGs are set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) which is part of Cal-EPA.
 PHGs are based solely on public health risk considerations. None of the riskmanagement factors that are considered by DDW in setting drinking water standards are considered in setting the PHGs. These factors include analytical detection capabilities, treatment technology available, benefits and costs.  PHGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met by any public water system.

MCLGs are federal equivalent to PHGs and are set by the USEPA.

WATER QUALITY DATA CONSIDERED
All the water quality data collected for Santa Monica’s water system between 2019 and 2021 for purposes of determining compliance with drinking water standards was considered. This information was summarized in our Annual Water Quality Reports made available to all Santa Monica customers, residents, and businesses in June 2020, June 2021 and June 2022 (Exhibit D).

A majority of DDW mandated constituents with a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) were tested for in Santa Monica’s water system and were reported as Not Detected (ND). Constituents with the greatest relevance to the public are listed in the Annual Water Quality Reports. A constituent reported as ND generally means that the laboratory did not detect the compound, or that it was detected at a level less than California’s Detection Level for purposes of Reporting (DLR).

GUIDELINES FOLLOWED
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup, which prepared guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing PHG reports. These guidelines were used in the preparation of this report. No general guidelines are available from the state regulatory agencies. ACWA’s workgroup also prepared guidelines for water utilities to use in estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to the MCL. Exhibit E provides cost estimates in 2021 dollars for the best treatment technologies that are available today.

BEST AVAILABLE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND COST ESTIMATES
Both the USEPA and DDW have adopted what are known as Best Available Technologies (BATs), which are the best-known methods of reducing contaminant levels to achieve compliance with MCLs. Capital construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs can be estimated for such technologies. However, since

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1881 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 3
many PHGs and MCLGs are set much lower than the MCL, it is not always possible or feasible to determine the treatment needed to meet the PHG or MCLG. For example, USEPA sets the MCLG for potential cancer-causing chemicals at zero. Estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to zero is difficult, if not impossible, because it is not possible to verify by analytical means that the level has been lowered to zero. In some cases, installing treatment to try and further reduce very low levels of one constituent may have adverse effects on other aspects of water quality.

CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PHG OR A MCLG
The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected in one or more of the City’s drinking water sources at levels exceeding the PHG or, if no PHG exists, above the MCLG. Water sources that directly enter the distribution system are comprised of the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant, Santa Monica Well #1, and imported MWD water from Weymouth Plant and Jensen Plant. Constituents that were detected in one or more drinking water sources at levels above the MCLs are reduced to acceptable levels. The health risk information for regulated constituents with MCLs, PHGs or MCLGs is provided in Exhibit C.
 Total Coliform Bacteria
Total coliform bacteria are measured at approximately 100 sites around the City. The MCL requires that no more than 5% of all samples collected in a month can be positive for total coliforms, and the MCLG requires zero positive samples per month. There is no PHG for total coliform bacteria, thus the MCLG is followed. The reason for the total coliform drinking water standard is to minimize the possibility of the water containing pathogens, which are organisms that cause waterborne disease. Total coliform analysis serves as a surrogate indicator of the potential presence of pathogens, it is not possible to state a specific numerical health risk. While USEPA normally sets MCLGs “at a level where no known or anticipated adverse effects on persons would occur”, USEPA indicates that it cannot do so with total coliforms. Nevertheless, without the ability to determine a specific numerical risk, the MCLG has been set at zero for total coliform bacteria.

Coliform bacteria are a group of indicator organisms that are ubiquitous in nature and are not generally considered harmful. They are used because of the ease in monitoring and analysis. If a positive sample is found, it indicates a potential problem that needs to be investigated with follow-up sampling. It is not at all unusual for a system to have an occasional positive sample. In Santa Monica, approximately 80 of the total coliform bacteria sample sites are taken from resident or business taps, such as hose bibbs.

Many of these taps are exposed to the environment and while they provide a satisfactory sample point most of the time, occasionally the tap itself may become exposed to bacteria from the environment, e.g. overgrown plants, pets and humans.

When samples are drawn from these exposed taps, they may test positive on rare occasion.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1882 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 4
During the 2019 – 2021 period, the City collected between 119 and 142 samples each month for total coliform analysis. No repeat samples were confirmed positive for Total Coliform Bacteria from 2019 - 2021. The Annual Water Quality Reports, also known as CCRs, state that the highest percent of monthly samples positive was 0.69% in 2019,

1.60% in 2020, and 0.69% in 2021. This percent includes sample locations that initially tested positive, however, they were resampled and confirmed having no presence of Coliform Bacteria. City of Santa Monica’s water system was well below the 5% monthly positive rate that would require further corrective action/investigation to take place.

In order to reduce the potential for positive results due to taps exposed to the open environment, the Water Resources Division (WRD) has a program to prioritize the sites and install more dedicated sampling stations in conjunction with the WRD’s main line replacement program. The dedicated sampling stations are enclosed in a lockable box and are protected from the environment.

The WRD already maintains an effective cross connection control program, a disinfectant residual throughout the system, an effective monitoring and surveillance program, and positive pressure in all parts of the distribution system. The WRD has already taken all steps described by the DDW as Best Available Technology (BAT) for Coliform Bacteria in Section 64447, Title 22, CCR. Since it is unlikely that any change to the treatment process at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant would prevent the occasional positive test result at distribution sampling sites, staff recommends no change to the existing treatment.
 Lead and Copper
There are no MCLs for lead or copper. Lead and copper are not present in our water sources, but they can leach into drinking water through the resident’s plumbing systems and faucets. Instead of MCLs, every three years a set of special samples is collected, and the results evaluated to determine whether the City’s water system has achieved “optimized corrosion control”. The samples collected are first-draw at the tap of thirty or more homes identified as high-risk (new plumbing installed with lead solder before it was banned). To meet drinking water standards, the 90th percentile reading (meaning 90% of the samples were lower) of all samples collected by the City from these household taps cannot exceed an Action Level (AL) of 0.015 mg/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L for copper. The PHG for lead is 0.0002 mg/L (0.2 ppb) and the PHG for copper is 0.3 mg/L.

There are three categories of health risk associated with lead - chronic toxicity (neurobehavioral effects in children, hypertension in adults) and cancer. The numerical health risk of ingesting drinking water with lead above the Action Level is 2X10-6, or two additional theoretical cancer cases in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1883 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 5
The last round of testing for lead and copper was conducted by the Water Resources WRD in 2019 (next round is summer 2022). The 90th percentile reading for lead in the last round was 0.00230 mg/L and was 0.302 mg/L for copper. These levels were above the PHGs, but below the Action Levels, which means the City continued to meet water quality standards for lead and copper and was again considered to have “optimized corrosion control”.

In general, optimizing corrosion control is considered the Best Available Technology to address corrosion issues and any lead and copper findings. The WRD will continue to monitor water quality parameters that relate to corrosivity, such as pH, hardness, alkalinity, and total dissolved solids, and will act, if necessary, to maintain our system in an “optimized corrosion control” condition.

Since the City’s water supply continues to meet the “optimized corrosion control” requirements, it is not prudent to initiate additional corrosion control treatment until such time as changing conditions might warrant further action. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included in this report and no recommendations for further action are advised.  Arsenic
The PHG for Arsenic is 0.000004 mg/L (4.0 ppt). The MCL for Arsenic is 0.01 mg/L.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring metallic element found in water generally at low levels throughout California and elsewhere due to the erosion of mineral deposits. It can also enter water supplies from runoff from agricultural and industrial sites. The MCL was lowered in 2006 due to increasing evidence of potential detrimental health effects even at low levels. The concern is that long-term exposure to Arsenic in drinking water may cause skin damage, problems with circulatory systems, and may cause cancer.

Arsenic was below the MCL in all the City’s water sources during 2019 – 2021; however, several sources exceeded the PHG during this period. Arsenic readings for all sources during this report period ranged from ND (Reporting Limit was 0.0005 mg/L) to a high of 0.0014 mg/L, which occurred in source water well Santa Monica Well #1.

The annual average for the Jensen and Weymouth supply was ND for 2019 – 2021.

The City’s single well not treated by the Arcadia Treatment Plant is Santa Monica Well #1. Santa Monica Well #1 had annual averages that ranged from 0.0010 mg/L to

0.0014 mg/L during 2019 – 2021. One detection at the reporting limit of 0.0005 mg/L (Reporting Limit was 0.0005 mg/L) of Arsenic was found in water from the Arcadia Treatment Plant in 2021, but was ND for 2019 and 2020.

An increased risk of cancer the health risk category for long-term exposure to drinking water containing Arsenic above the MCL. The numerical health risk of ingesting drinking water with Arsenic above the PHG is 1X10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer cases in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1884 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 6
The following BATs are designated for Arsenic removal: Ion Exchange, Wells Blending, Granular Ferric Oxide Resin Adsorption; Coagulation Filtration, and Reverse Osmosis (RO). The City’s RO softening plant, commissioned in December 2010, is achieving reduction of Arsenic to below the level it can be analytically measured (Reporting Limit).

BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCLs, and not necessarily the PHGs. It is unlikely that Arsenic will be removed to a level lower than the very low Arsenic PHG. The PHG is also lower than laboratory tests can detect, so it would be impossible to confirm whether water out of the Arcadia Treatment Plant, or any given water supply, contains Arsenic lower than the PHG level.

It is not practical or feasible to estimate costs for the reduction of Arsenic from the supplemental water the City purchases from MWD, the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant or Santa Monica Well #1. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included in this report and no recommendations for further action are advised.  Uranium
The PHG for Uranium is 0.43 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) and the MCL is 20 pCi/L.

Uranium is a naturally occurring metallic element which is weakly radioactive and is ubiquitous in the earth’s crust. Uranium is found in ground and surface waters due to its natural occurrence in geological formations. The average Uranium concentrations in surface and ground water are 1 and 2 pCi/L respectively. The Uranium intake from water is about equal to the total from other dietary components.

Uranium levels always tested below the MCL for all water sources from 2019 – 2021; however, all sources exceeded the PHG at least once during this period except for MWD’s Jensen plant in 2019.

Uranium readings in water out of the Arcadia Treatment Plant ranged from 1.5 pCi/L to

3.7 pCi/L; the annual averages from the plant ranged from 2.2 to 2.5 pCi/L for 2019 – 2021. Annual averages of water from MWD’s Weymouth and Jensen plants ranged from ND (Reporting Limit was 0.7 pCi/L) to 3 pCi/L for years 2019 – 2021.

An increased risk of developing cancer is the health risk category associated with drinking water containing Uranium above the MCL for many years. OEHHA has determined that the numerical cancer risk for Uranium above the PHG level is 1x10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer case in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

There are several BATs designated to lower Uranium to below the MCL including RO.

The City’s RO softening plant, commissioned in December 2010, is achieving some reduction of Uranium from most of the City’s groundwater supplies. However, BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCL only, and not PHGs; thus, RO treatment did not achieve reduction of Uranium to below the PHG.

Further treatment to reduce Uranium at the Arcadia Treatment Plant is neither practical, nor feasible.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1885 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 7
The City’s single well not treated by the Arcadia Treatment Plant is Santa Monica Well #1. The water for this well had a Uranium level that ranged from 0.8 pCi/L (Reporting Limit is 0.7 pCi/L) to 1.1 pCi/l for 2019 – 2021, thus it must be evaluated for treatment for removal of Uranium to below the PHG. Of the designated BATs for Uranium, the most effective and economical approach would be to use RO treatment at the well site.

Based on 2021 flow rates and 2012 estimated costs indexed to 2021 dollars, this would be approximately $939,634 per year not including the cost for waste (brine) disposal (cost from Exhibit E, Table 3, No. 12). However, this well is located in the center median of San Vicente Blvd in a residential neighborhood where it would not be feasible to construct a small treatment plant at the well site. Again, it is also unclear whether treatment to below the PHG for Uranium could be achieved using RO, as BATs are designed to achieve compliance only to the corresponding MCL. Also, this cost estimate may be imprecise as treatment and operational costs can vary widely depending on variables of the situation.

It is not practical or feasible to estimate costs for the reduction of Uranium from the supplemental water the City purchases from MWD. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included in this report and no recommendations for further action are advised.  Other Radionuclides
There are several radionuclides for which OEHHA has not set PHGs, but for which an MCLG has been designated by USEPA. The standards include the following radionuclides: alpha emitters, beta/photon emitters, combined radium as well as the standard for Uranium described above. In addition to these standards, USEPA has designated an MCLG of zero for each. The groundwater and supplemental water supplies for Santa Monica always tested below the MCLs for these constituents during 2019 – 2021; however, the MCLGs of zero for some of these radionuclides were exceeded at some sources at various times during this period.

Radionuclides are radioactive elements that are found in nature or are man-made.

They are unstable and emit particles or waves of high energy from the nucleus or other parts of the atom. There are three basic kinds of high-energy radiation: alpha, beta, and gamma (included in a broader group called photons). Many radionuclides emit more than one kind of radiation, but they are classified by their most important kind. The MCL for alpha emitters limits the level of “gross alpha” radiation other than what is contributed by Uranium and radon. The MCL for beta/photon emitters limits the level of radiation from a group of 179 man-made radioactive materials. The MCL for combined radium limits the radiation on two kinds (or “isotopes”) of radium: radium-226 and radium-228. These MCLs were adopted to address concern with the health effects from radiation inside the body after consuming the radionuclides because evidence suggests that long-term exposure to radionuclides in drinking water may cause cancer.

The level of alpha emitters in the City’s groundwater and supplemental supplies always tested below the MCL of 15 pCi/L during 2019 – 2021; however, alpha emitters did

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1886 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 8
exceed the MCLG of zero in some monitoring data. Gross alpha readings for this period ranged from ND (Reporting Limit was 3 pCi/L) for all supplies to a high of 5.8 pCi/L, which came from Arcadia Water Treatment Plant in 2020. Annual averages from all the supplies ranged from ND to 4.2 pCi/L, the high came from Arcadia Water Treatment Plant in 2019.

The standard for beta/photon emitters does not apply to the City’s groundwater and as such, is not covered by this report. The standard for beta/photon emitters does apply to supplemental water that the City received from MWD. The MWD water always tested below the beta/photon emitters MCL of 50 pCi/L, but it was verified to exceed the MCLG of zero data during 2021 at Weymouth. Beta/photon emitter readings for both MWD supplies for this period ranged from ND (Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting or DLR was 4 pCi/L) to a high of 6 pCi/L in the water coming from MWD’s Weymouth Treatment Plant during 2021. The annual averages ranged from ND to 5 pCi/L for the Jensen and Weymouth supplies respectively, for the period covered by this report.

The level of combined radium in the City’s groundwater and supplemental supplies always tested below the MCL of 5 pCi/L during 2019 – 2021. No detections of combined radium were reported for the City’s supplies or MWD imported water from Weymouth and Jensen plant.

The BATs for these radionuclides are similar to those for Uranium, which includes RO.

The City’s RO softening plant, commissioned in December 2010, is achieving some reduction of these radionuclides from the City’s groundwater supply. BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCL only, and not PHGs, so the addition of RO softening, considered a BAT for these other radionuclides, did not achieve reduction to below the MCLGs in all cases. Further treatment to reduce other radionuclides at the Arcadia Treatment Plant is neither practical, nor feasible.

Thus, the analysis for treatment of Santa Monica Well #1 and the MWD supplies is the same as for Uranium and no recommendations for further action are advised.  Bromate
Bromate is a disinfection byproduct (DBP) formed when water containing naturally occurring bromide ion is ozonated. Long-term exposure to bromate in drinking water may cause cancer; thus, the Bromate MCL was adopted in 2002 to address the potential health effect. The standard applies only to water treatment plants that apply ozone for disinfection and does not apply to the City’s groundwater or treatment system.

The standard does apply to supplemental water the City imports directly from MWD’s Jensen and Weymouth Treatment Plants. After more than two decades of planning and construction, MWD has retrofitted all five of its water treatment plants to use ozone, rather than chlorine, as the primary disinfectant. The upgrade has driven DBP levels in MWD’s system to historically low levels and complies with stringent regulations that limit the level of DBPs in drinking water. Ozonation also improves drinking water aesthetics, offers protection from pathogens, and reduces other potential contaminants such as

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1887 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 9
cyanotoxins. MWD controls Bromate by adjusting pH, or by adding chloramine (a combination of ammonia and chlorine) prior to the water reaching the ozone contactors.

The PHG for bromate is 0.0001 mg/L. The MCL for bromate is 0.010 mg/L. The MCL for bromate does not apply to single readings but is instead compared to a Running Annual Average (RAA). For 2019 – 2021, the highest RAAs from the imported water sources, MWD’s Weymouth Plant (0.0056 mg/L in 2019) and Jensen Plant (0.0045 mg/L in 2021), stayed below the RAA MCL for bromate, but they exceeded the PHG during 2019 – 2021.

An increased risk of developing cancer is the category for health risk associated with drinking water containing bromate above the MCL for many years. OEHHA has determined that the numerical cancer risk for bromate above the PHG level is 1x10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer case in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

The BAT to reduce bromate is control of the ozone treatment process. The City does not have any control over imported water quality and as such, this is a process that is under the control and jurisdiction of MWD that is already being conducted. Therefore, no recommendations for further action will not be addressed in this report.  Perchlorate
The PHG for Perchlorate is 0.001 mg/L (1.0 ppb) as of 2015. The MCL for Perchlorate is 0.006 mg/L. Perchlorate is an inorganic oxidizing chemical that can occur in the environment either through industrial contamination or from natural sources. Some industrial uses include use in solid rocket propellant, fireworks, explosives, flares, and matches. Perchlorate has been shown to decrease the uptake of iodide by the thyroid gland and therefore reducing the production of thyroid hormones, leading to adverse effects associated with inadequate hormone levels. Thyroid uptake of iodide is key to hormone production needed for normal prenatal growth and development of the fetus, as well as for normal growth and development in the infant and child. In adults, thyroid hormones are key to metabolic and mental function.

Perchlorate was below the MCL in all the City’s water sources during 2019 – 2021; however, one source exceeded the PHG during this period. Perchlorate readings for all sources during this report period ranged from ND (Reporting Limit was 0.0005 mg/L) to a high of 0.0019 mg/L, which occurred in source water well Santa Monica Well #1. No PHG exceedances were found at Arcadia Water Treatment Plant for 2019 – 2021. The annual average for the Jensen and Weymouth supply was ND for 2019 – 2021.

The City’s single well not treated by the Arcadia Treatment Plant is Santa Monica Well #1. Santa Monica Well #1 had annual averages that ranged from 0.0010 mg/L to

0.0019 mg/L during 2019 – 2021. One detection at 0.0019 mg/L (Reporting Limit was

0.0005 mg/L) of Perchlorate was found in water from Santa Monica Well #1 in 2020, but was 0.0010 mg/L for 2019 and 2021.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1888 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 10
For perchlorate, there is no cancer risk associated with drinking water above the PHG or the MCL.

The recommended technologies for Perchlorate removal are ion exchange or biological fluidized bed reactor technology. Of the designated BATs for Perchlorate, the most effective and economical approach would be to use ion exchange resin at the well site.

Based on 2021 flow rates and 2012 estimated costs indexed to 2021 dollars, this would be approximately $153,100 per year not including the cost for any waste disposal. (cost from Exhibit E, Table 2, No. 4). However, this well is located in the center median of San Vicente Blvd in a residential neighborhood where it would not be feasible to construct a small treatment plant at the well site. Again, it is also unclear whether treatment to below the PHG for Perchlorate could be achieved using ion exchange, as BATs are designed to achieve compliance only to the corresponding MCL. Also, this cost estimate may be imprecise as treatment and operational costs can vary widely depending on variables of the situation. As such, no recommendations for further action are advised.
 Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium VI)
A PHG for chromium VI was set at 0.00002 mg/L in July 2011. The MCL for chromium VI was set at 0.01 mg/l in July 2014, repealed in May 2017, and at the time of this report in the MCL approval process. The total chromium MCL of 0.05 mg/l was established in 1977 to address the non-cancer toxic effect of chromium VI.

Chromium is an odorless and tasteless metallic element. It is found naturally in rocks, plants and can also be produced by industrial processes. The most common types of chromium found in natural waters in the environment are Chromium III and Chromium VI. Total chromium is the sum of Chromium III and Chromium VI. Chromium III and Chromium VI are covered together under the total Chromium MCL because these forms of chromium can convert back and forth in water depending on environmental conditions.

Chromium III is an essential human dietary element and naturally occurs in many vegetables, fruits, grains and yeast. Chromium VI also occurs naturally in the environment from the erosion of natural chromium deposits from rocks and can also be released in the environment from industrial processes via storage leaks, discharges and improper disposal practices.

Total Chromium and Chromium VI were below the MCL in all of the City’s water sources at all times, but exceeded the PHG for chromium VI at least once during the period covered in this report. Supplemental water from the Jensen and Weymouth Treatment Plants had no detection of Chromium or Chromium VI during this reporting period.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1889 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 11
Water coming from the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant had a Chromium VI level at

0.0002 mg/l (Reporting Limit is 0.00002 mg/l) for the Arcadia Treatment Plant from 2019 – 2021.

The City’s single well not treated by the Arcadia Treatment Plant is Santa Monica Well #1, had levels of Chromium VI for 2019 – 2021 ranging from 0.0005 to 0.0018 mg/l.

Chromium VI is known to be a potent carcinogen when inhaled. It was found to also cause cancer in laboratory mice and rats when exposed through drinking water.

OEHHA has determined that the numerical cancer risk for Chromium VI above the PHG level is 1x10-6, or one additional theoretical cancer cases in one million people drinking two liters of water a day for 70 years.

The recommended technologies for Chromium VI removal are weak base anion exchange resin or reverse osmosis technology. The City’s RO softening plant, commissioned in December 2010, is achieving some reduction of Chromium VI from the City’s groundwater supply. BATs are designed for treatment to achieve compliance with the corresponding MCL only, and not PHGs, so the addition of RO softening, considered a BAT for Chromium VI, did not achieve reduction to below the PHG in all cases. Further treatment to reduce Chromium VI at the Arcadia Treatment Plant is neither practical, nor feasible. Thus, no recommendations for further action are advised for Arcadia Treatment Plant. The cost estimate provided for treatment of Uranium at Santa Monica Well #1 applies for Chromium VI along with the same recommendation that such treatment is neither practical or feasible.
 Fluoride
The PHG for Fluoride is 1 mg/L as of 1997. The MCL is 2 mg/L. Fluoride is a natural occurring element found in natural deposits, which enters groundwater through erosion.

It is commonly found as an additive in drinking water supplies as a public health measure to prevent tooth decay. The main concern is mild dental fluorosis (discoloration of teeth) in children and adults at the 2 mg/L MCL and higher levels.

Fluoride, in addition to being naturally found at levels close to 0.3 mg/L in Santa Monica groundwater sources, is raised to a target level of 0.7 mg/L with a control range of 0.6 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L throughout the distribution system. The control range was issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The control range in the distribution system was below the PHG of 1 mg/L for 2019 and 2020, however the control range was 0.6 mg/L to 1.1 mg/L in 2021. There was no MCL or control range exceedance in the 2019 – 2021 period.

City water is actively fluoridated to increase the natural occurring levels that are below the PHG due in part to existing RO softening that removes fluoride. As such, no BAT’s are recommended beyond operator controlled adjustments to the active dosing at Arcadia Water Treatment Plant and Santa Monica Well #1 where dosing takes place before entry into the distribution system. Imported supplemental MWD water is also

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1890 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 12
difficult to control and for that reason, City fluoride dosing may exceed the PHG, but not the control range or MCL. As such, no recommendations for further action are advised.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
The drinking water quality of the City of Santa Monica meets all SWRCB/Division of Drinking Water and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect public health. The City’s RO softening plant commissioned in December 2010 is achieving further reduction of many of the constituents identified in this report from the City’s groundwater supply. To further reduce the levels of these constituents that are already significantly below the established health-based Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) would typically require that additional costly treatment processes be constructed. The effectiveness of the additional costly treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in constituent levels at these already low values below the MCL and in some cases, laboratory detection levels, is uncertain. The health protection benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not clear and may not be quantifiable. Therefore, no action is proposed at this time.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1,4-Dioxane
No MCL, MCLG, or PHG exists for 1,4-Dioxane, and as such, is not a requirement for this report. However, DDW has a Notification Level (NL) for 1,4-Dioxane, which was lowered to 0.001 mg/l in 2010. As reported to City Council in 2002, the City’s Olympic Wells (Santa Monica Wells 3&4) were found to have 1,4-Dioxane above the NL. The City was advised by DDW in 2002 that it was acceptable to continue the use of these wells as long as the level remained less than 100 times the NL. However, construction of a new treatment plant targeting 1,4-Dioxane and other contaminants in the Olympic Wells are currently underway with an anticipated completion date by the end of 2023.The target reduction is well below the Notification Level of 0.001 mg/l.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1891 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
June 2022 Page 13
EXHIBITS:

A. California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)
B. List of Regulated Constituents with MCLs, PHGs or MCLGs C. Numerical Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports.

Prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Feb 2022 D. Tables excerpted from Annual Water Quality Reports for 2019 - 2021 E. Cost Estimates for Treatment Technologies
F. Acronyms

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1892 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Exhibit A
Health and Safety Code
Section 116470 (b)
(b) On or before July 1, 1998, and every three years thereafter, public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections that detect one or more contaminants in drinking water that exceed the applicable public health goal, shall prepare a brief written report in plain language that does all of the following:
(1) Identifies each contaminant detected in drinking water that exceeds the applicable public health goal.
(2) Discloses the numerical public health risk, determined by the office, associated with the maximum contaminant level for each contaminant identified in paragraph (1) and the numerical public health risk determined by the office associated with the public health goal for that contaminant.
(3) Identifies the category of risk to public health, including, but not limited to, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and acute toxicity, associated with exposure to the contaminant in drinking water, and includes a brief plainly worded description of these terms.
(4) Describes the best available technology, if any is then available on a commercial basis, to remove the contaminant or reduce the concentration of the contaminant. The public water system may, solely at its own discretion, briefly describe actions that have been taken on its own, or by other entities, to prevent the introduction of the contaminant into drinking water supplies.
(5) Estimates the aggregate cost and the cost per customer of utilizing the technology described in paragraph (4), if any, to reduce the concentration of that contaminant in drinking water to a level at or below the public health goal. (6) Briefly describes what action, if any, the local water purveyor intends to take to reduce the concentration of the contaminant in public drinking water supplies and the basis for that decision.
(c) Public water systems required to prepare a report pursuant to subdivision (b) shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report. Public water systems may hold the public hearing as part of any regularly scheduled meeting.
(d) The department shall not require a public water system to take any action to reduce or eliminate any exceedance of a public health goal.
(e) Enforcement of this section does not require the department to amend a public water system’s operating permit.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1893 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) (f) Pending adoption of a public health goal by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 116365, and in lieu thereof, public water systems shall use the national maximum contaminant level goal adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the corresponding contaminant for purposes of complying with the notice and hearing requirements of this section.
(g) This section is intended to provide an alternative form for the federally required consumer confidence report as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 300g-3(c).

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1894 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) ATTACHMENT NO. 1
2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 1 MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated
Drinking Water Contaminants
(Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L),
unless otherwise noted.)
Last Update: S eptembe r 14, 2021
This table includes:

California's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
Detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLRs)
Public health goals (PHGs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
Also, the PHG for NDMA (which is not yet regulated) is included at the bottom of this table.

Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of
PHG
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64431—Inorganic Chemicals Aluminum 1 0.05 0.6 2001
Antimony 0.006 0.006 0.001 2016
Arsenic 0.010 0.002 0.000004 2004
Asbestos (MFL = million fibers per liter;
for fibers >10 microns long) 7 MFL 0.2 MFL 7 MFL 2003
Barium 1 0.1 2 2003
Beryllium 0.004 0.001 0.001 2003
Cadmium 0.005 0.001 0.00004 2006
Chromium, Total - OEHHA withdrew the

0.0025-mg/L PHG 0.05 0.01 withdrawnNov. 2001 1999
Chromium, Hexavalent - 0.01-mg/L MCL
& 0.001-mg/L DLR repealed September
2017
-- -- 0.00002 2011
Cyanide 0.15 0.1 0.15 1997
Fluoride 2 0.1 1 1997
Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 0.001 0.0012 1999
(rev2005)*
Nickel 0.1 0.01 0.012 2001
Nitrate (as nitrogen, N) 10 as N 0.4
45 as
NO3 (=10
as N)
2018
Nitrite (as N) 1 as N 0.4 1 as N 2018
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 as N -- 10 as N 2018
Perchlorate 0.006 0.004 0.001 2015
Selenium 0.05 0.005 0.03 2010
Thallium 0.002 0.001 0.0001 1999
(rev2004)
Copper and Lead, 22 CCR §64672.3
Values referred to as MCLs for lead and copper are not actually MCLs; instead, they are called "Action Levels" under the lead and copper rule
Copper 1.3 0.05 0.3 2008

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1895 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) ATTACHMENT NO. 1
2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 2 Lead 0.015 0.005 0.0002 2009
Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR §64441 and §64443—Radioactivity [units are picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise stated; n/a = not applicable] Gross alpha particle activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not
practical
15 3 none n/a
Gross beta particle activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not
practical
4 mrem/yr 4 none n/a
Radium-226 -- 1 0.05 2006
Radium-228 -- 1 0.019 2006
Radium-226 + Radium-228 5 -- -- --
Strontium-90 8 2 0.35 2006
Tritium 20,000 1,000 400 2006
Uranium 20 1 0.43 2001
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64444—Organic Chemicals
(a) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Benzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 2001
Carbon tetrachloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 2000
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.0005 0.6 1997
(rev2009)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) 0.005 0.0005 0.006 1997
1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.003 2003
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 1999
(rev2005)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 0.006 0.0005 0.01 1999
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 0.0005 0.013 2018
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 0.0005 0.05 2018
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 0.005 0.0005 0.004 2000 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 1999
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 1999
(rev2006)
Ethylbenzene 0.3 0.0005 0.3 1997
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) 0.013 0.003 0.013 1999 Monochlorobenzene 0.07 0.0005 0.07 2014
Styrene 0.1 0.0005 0.0005 2010
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2003
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.00006 2001
Toluene 0.15 0.0005 0.15 1999
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 0.0005 0.005 1999
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) 0.2 0.0005 1 2006
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.0003 2006 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.0017 2009
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 0.15 0.005 1.3 2014

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1896 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) ATTACHMENT NO. 1
2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 3 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane
(Freon 113) 1.2 0.01 4 1997(rev2011)
Vinyl chloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.00005 2000
Xylenes 1.75 0.0005 1.8 1997
(b) Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)
Alachlor 0.002 0.001 0.004 1997
Atrazine 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 1999
Bentazon 0.018 0.002 0.2 1999
(rev2009)
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.0001 0.000007 2010
Carbofuran 0.018 0.005 0.0007 2016
Chlordane 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 1997
(rev2006)
Dalapon 0.2 0.01 0.79 1997
(rev2009)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 0.00001 0.000003 2020 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 0.07 0.01 0.02 2009 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 0.005 0.2 2003
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 0.004 0.003 0.012 1997 Dinoseb 0.007 0.002 0.014 1997
(rev2010)
Diquat 0.02 0.004 0.006 2016
Endothal 0.1 0.045 0.094 2014
Endrin 0.002 0.0001 0.0003 2016
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 2003
Glyphosate 0.7 0.025 0.9 2007
Heptachlor 0.00001 0.00001 0.000008 1999
Heptachlor epoxide 0.00001 0.00001 0.000006 1999
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00003 2003
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.001 0.002 2014
Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.000032 1999
(rev2005)
Methoxychlor 0.03 0.01 0.00009 2010
Molinate 0.02 0.002 0.001 2008
Oxamyl 0.05 0.02 0.026 2009
Pentachlorophenol 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 2009
Picloram 0.5 0.001 0.166 2016
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.0005 0.0005 0.00009 2007 Simazine 0.004 0.001 0.004 2001
Thiobencarb 0.07 0.001 0.042 2016
Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 0.00003 2003
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.000005 0.000005 0.0000007 2009 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 3x10-8 5x10-9 5x10-11 2010
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 0.001 0.003 2014
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64533—Disinfection Byproducts Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 -- -- --
Bromodichloromethane -- 0.0010 0.00006 2020

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1897 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) ATTACHMENT NO. 1
2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Bromoform -- 0.0010 0.0005 2020
Chloroform -- 0.0010 0.0004 2020
Dibromochloromethane -- 0.0010 0.0001 2020
Haloacetic Acids (five) (HAA5) 0.060 -- -- --
Monochloroacetic Acid -- 0.0020 -- --
Dichloroacetic Adic -- 0.0010 -- --
Trichloroacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- --
Monobromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- --
Dibromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- --
Bromate 0.010 0.0050** 0.0001 2009
Chlorite 1.0 0.020 0.05 2009
Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants.

N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) -- -- 0.000003 2006
*OEHHA's review of this chemical during the year indicated (rev20XX) resulted in no change in the PHG.
**The DLR for Bromate is 0.0010 mg/L for analysis performed using EPA Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 321.8, or 326.0.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1898 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
2022 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal
Exceedance Reports
Health Risk Information for
Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports
Prepared by
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
February 2022
NEW for the 2022 Report: New in this document are an updated Public Health Goal(PHG) for 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) and newly established PHGs for the trihalomethanes bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane.

Background: Under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections are required to prepare a report every three years for contaminants that exceed their respective PHGs.1This document contains health risk information on regulated drinking water contaminants to assist public water systems in preparing these reports. A PHG is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHGs are developed and published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using current risk assessment principles, practices and methods.2
The water system’s report is required to identify the health risk category (e.g., carcinogenicity or neurotoxicity) associated with exposure to each regulated contaminant in drinking water and to include a brief, plainly worded description of these risks. The report is also required to disclose the numerical public health risk, if available,associated with the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and with the PHG foreach contaminant. This health risk information document is prepared by OEHHA every three years to assist the water systems in providing the required information in their reports.
1 Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)
2 Health and Safety Code Section 116365

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1899 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
2022 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal
Exceedance Reports
Numerical health risks: Table 1 presents health risk categories and cancer risk valuesfor chemical contaminants in drinking water that have PHGs.

The Act requires that OEHHA publish PHGs based on health risk assessments using the most current scientific methods. As defined in statute, PHGs for non-carcinogenic chemicals in drinking water are set at a concentration “at which no known or anticipatedadverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safety.” For carcinogens, PHGs are set at a concentration that “does not pose any significant risk to health.” PHGs provide one basis for revising MCLs, along with cost and technological feasibility.OEHHA has been publishing PHGs since 1997 and the entire list published to date is shown in Table 1.

Table 2 presents health risk information for contaminants that do not have PHGs but have state or federal regulatory standards. The Act requires that, for chemical contaminants with California MCLs that do not yet have PHGs, water utilities use the federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for the purpose of complying with the requirement of public notification. MCLGs, like PHGs, are strictly health based and include a margin of safety. One difference, however, is that the MCLGs for carcinogensare set at zero because the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) assumes there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to such chemicals. PHGs, on the other hand, are set at a level considered to pose no significant risk of cancer; this is usually no more than a one-in-one-million excess cancer risk (1´10-6) level for a lifetime of exposure. In Table 2, the cancer risks shown are based on the US EPA’s evaluations.

For more information on health risks: The adverse health effects for each chemicalwith a PHG are summarized in a PHG technical support document. These documentsare available on the OEHHA website (https://oehha.ca.gov/water/public-health-goals- phgs).

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1900 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 3
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Alachlor carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.004 NA5,6 0.002 NA
Aluminum neurotoxicity and
immunotoxicity
(harms the nervous and
immune systems)

0.6 NA 1 NA
Antimony hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.001 NA 0.006 NA
Arsenic carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000004
(4×10-6)
1´10-6
(one per
million)

0.01 2.5´10-3
(2.5 per
thousand)
Asbestos carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
7 MFL7
(fibers >10
microns in
length)
1´10-6 7 MFL
(fibers >10
microns in
length)
1´10-6
(one per
million)
Atrazine carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00015 1´10-6 0.001 7´10-6
(seven per
million)
1 Based on the OEHHA PHG technical support document unless otherwise specified. The categories are the hazard traits defined by OEHHA for California’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse (online at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/risk-assessment//gcregtext011912.pdf). 2 mg/L = milligrams per liter of water or parts per million (ppm) 3 Cancer Risk = Upper bound estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1´10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 MCL = maximum contaminant level.
5 NA = not applicable. Cancer risk cannot be calculated. 6 The PHG for alachlor is based on a threshold model of carcinogenesis and is set at a level that is believed to be without any significant cancer risk to individuals exposed to the chemical over a lifetime. 7 MFL = million fibers per liter of water.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1901 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 4
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Barium cardiovascular toxicity
(causes high blood
pressure)
2 NA 1 NA
Bentazon hepatotoxicity and
digestive system toxicity
(harms the liver,
intestine, and causes
body weight effects8)

0.2 NA 0.018 NA
Benzene carcinogenicity
(causes leukemia)

0.00015 1´10-6 0.001 7´10-6
(seven per
million)
Benzo[a]pyrene carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000007
(7´10-6)
1´10-6 0.0002 3´10-5
(three per
hundred
thousand)
Beryllium digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach or
intestine)

0.001 NA 0.004 NA
Bromate carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1´10-6 0.01 1´10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
Cadmium nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.00004 NA 0.005 NA
Carbofuran reproductive toxicity
(harms the testis)

0.0007 NA 0.018 NA
8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1902 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 5
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Carbon
tetrachloride
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1´10-6 0.0005 5´10-6
(five per
million)
Chlordane carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1´10-60.0001 3´10-6
(three per
million)
Chlorite hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
neurotoxicity
(causes neurobehavioral
effects)

0.05 NA 1 NA
Chromium,
hexavalent
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00002 1´10-6none NA
Copper digestive system toxicity
(causes nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea)

0.3 NA 1.3 (AL9) NA
Cyanide neurotoxicity
(damages nerves)
endocrine toxicity
(affects the thyroid)

0.15 NA 0.15 NA
Dalapon nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.79 NA 0.2 NA
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
adipate (DEHA)
developmental toxicity
(disrupts development)

0.2 NA 0.4 NA
9 AL = action level. The action levels for copper and lead refer to a concentration measured at the tap. Much of the copper and lead in drinking water is derived from household plumbing (The Lead and Copper Rule, Title 22, California Code of Regulations [CCR] section 64672.3).

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1903 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 6
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(DEHP)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.012 1´10-6 0.004 3´10-7
(three per
ten million)
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane
(DBCP)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000003
(3x10-6)
1´10-6

0.0002 7´10-5
(seven per
hundred
thousand)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
(o-DCB)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.6 NA 0.6 NA
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
(p-DCB)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.006 1´10-6 0.005 8´10-7
(eight per
ten million)
1,1-Dichloroethane
(1,1-DCA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.003 1´10-6 0.005 2´10-6
(two per
million)
1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0004 1´10-6 0.0005 1´10-6
(one per
million)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.01 NA 0.006 NA
1,2-Dichloroethylene, cisnephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.013 NA 0.006 NA
1,2-Dichloroethylene, transimmunotoxicity
(harms the immune
system)

0.05 NA 0.01 NA

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1904 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 7
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Dichloromethane
(methylene
chloride)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.004 1´10-6 0.005 1´10-6
(one per
million)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D)
hepatotoxicity and
nephrotoxicity
(harms the liver and
kidney)

0.02 NA 0.07 NA
1,2-Dichloropropane
(propylene
dichloride)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0005 1´10-6 0.005 1´10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
1,3-Dichloropropene
(Telone IIâ)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0002 1´10-6 0.0005 2´10-6
(two per
million)
Dinoseb reproductive toxicity
(harms the uterus and
testis)

0.014 NA 0.007 NA
Diquat ocular toxicity
(harms the eye)
developmental toxicity
(causes malformation)

0.006 NA 0.02 NA
Endothall digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach or
intestine)

0.094 NA 0.1 NA
Endrin neurotoxicity
(causes convulsions)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.0003 NA 0.002 NA
Ethylbenzene
(phenylethane)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.3 NA 0.3 NA

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1905 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 8
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Ethylene
dibromide (1,2-
Dibromoethane)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00001 1´10-6 0.00005 5´10-6
(five per
million)
Fluoride musculoskeletal toxicity
(causes tooth mottling)
1 NA 2 NA
Glyphosate nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.9 NA 0.7 NA
Heptachlor carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000008
(8×10-6)
1´10-6

0.00001 1´10-6
(one per
million)
Heptachlor
epoxide
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000006
(6×10-6) 1´10-6 0.00001 2´10-6
(two per
million)
Hexachlorobenzenecarcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1´10-6 0.001 3´10-5
(three per
hundred
thousand)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(HCCPD)
digestive system toxicity
(causes stomach
lesions)

0.002 NA 0.05 NA
Lead developmental
neurotoxicity
(causes neurobehavioral
effects in children)
cardiovascular toxicity
(causes high blood
pressure)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0002 <1´10-6
(PHG is
not based
on this
effect)

0.015
(AL9)
2´10-6
(two per
million)

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1906 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 9
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Lindane
(g-BHC)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000032 1´10-6 0.0002 6´10-6
(six per
million)
Mercury
(inorganic)
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.0012 NA 0.002 NA
Methoxychlor endocrine toxicity
(causes hormone
effects)

0.00009 NA 0.03 NA
Methyl tertiarybutyl ether
(MTBE)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.013 1´10-60.013 1´10-6
(one per
million)
Molinate carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.001 1´10-6 0.02 2´10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Monochlorobenzene
(chlorobenzene)
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)

0.07 NA 0.07 NA
Nickel developmental toxicity
(causes increased
neonatal deaths)

0.012 NA 0.1 NA
Nitrate hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
45 as
nitrate
NA 10 as
nitrogen
(=45 as
nitrate)
NA
Nitrite hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
3 as
nitrite
NA 1 as
nitrogen
(=3 as
nitrite)
NA

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1907 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 10
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Nitrate and
Nitrite
hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
10 as
nitrogen10
NA 10 as
nitrogen
NA
N-nitrosodimethyl-amine
(NDMA)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.000003
(3´10-6)
1×10-6 none NA
Oxamyl general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)

0.026 NA 0.05 NA
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0003 1´10-6 0.001 3´10-6
(three per
million)
Perchlorate endocrine toxicity
(affects the thyroid)
developmental toxicity
(causes neurodevelopmental deficits)

0.001 NA 0.006 NA
Picloram hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.166 NA 0.5 NA
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00009 1´10-6 0.0005 6´10-6
(six per
million)
Radium-226 carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.05 pCi/L 1´10-6 5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226+228)
1´10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
10 The joint nitrate/nitrite PHG of 10 mg/L (10 ppm, expressed as nitrogen) does not replace the individual values, and the maximum contribution from nitrite should not exceed 1 mg/L nitrite-nitrogen.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1908 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 11
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Radium-228 carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.019 pCi/L 1´10-6 5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226+228)
3´10-4
(three per
ten
thousand)
Selenium integumentary toxicity
(causes hair loss and
nail damage)

0.03 NA 0.05 NA
Silvex (2,4,5-TP) hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.003 NA 0.05 NA
Simazine general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)

0.004 NA 0.004 NA
Strontium-90 carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.35 pCi/L 1×10-6 8 pCi/L 2´10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Styrene
(vinylbenzene)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0005 1×10-6 0.1 2´10-4
(two per
ten
thousand)
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1´10-6 0.001 1´10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD, or
dioxin)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer) 5´10-11 1´10-6 3´10-8 6´10-4
(six per ten
thousand)

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1909 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 12
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Tetrachloroethylene
(perchloroethylene, or
PCE)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00006 1´10-6 0.005 8´10-5
(eight per
hundred
thousand)
Thallium integumentary toxicity
(causes hair loss)

0.0001 NA 0.002 NA
Thiobencarb general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)
hematotoxicity
(affects red blood cells)

0.042 NA 0.07 NA
Toluene
(methylbenzene)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
endocrine toxicity
(harms the thymus)

0.15 NA 0.15 NA
Toxaphene carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00003 1´10-6 0.003 1´10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneendocrine toxicity
(harms adrenal glands)

0.005 NA 0.005 NA
1,1,1-Trichloroethaneneurotoxicity
(harms the nervous
system),
reproductive toxicity
(causes fewer offspring)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
hematotoxicity
(causes blood effects)
1 NA 0.2 NA

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1910 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 13
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
1,1,2-Trichloroethanecarcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0003 1x10-6 0.005 2´10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0017 1´10-60.005 3´10-6
(three per
million)
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
accelerated mortality
(increase in early death)

1.3 NA 0.15 NA
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
(1,2,3-TCP)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0000007
(7×10-7)
1x10-6 0.000005
(5×10-6)
7´10-6
(seven per
million)
1,1,2-Trichloro1,2,2-trifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
4 NA 1.2 NA
Trihalomethanes:

Bromodichloromethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00006 1x10-6 0.080* 1.3´10-3
(1.3 per
thousand)11
Trihalomethanes:

Bromoform
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0005 1x10-6 0.080* 2´10-4
(two per ten
thousand)12
* For total trihalomethanes (the sum of bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane). There are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes. 11 Based on 0.080 mg/L bromodichloromethane; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.
12 Based on 0.080 mg/L bromoform; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1911 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 14
Chemical Health Risk Category1
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Trihalomethanes:

Chloroform
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0004 1x10-6 0.080* 2´10-4
(two per ten
thousand)13
Trihalomethanes:

Dibromochloromethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.0001 1x10-6 0.080* 8´10-4
(eight
per ten
thousand)14
Tritium carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
400 pCi/L 1x10-6 20,000
pCi/L 5´10-5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
Uranium carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.43 pCi/L 1´10-6 20 pCi/L 5´10-5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
Vinyl chloride carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.00005 1´10-6 0.0005 1´10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
Xylene neurotoxicity
(affects the senses,
mood, and motor
control)

1.8 (single
isomer or
sum of
isomers)
NA 1.75 (single
isomer or
sum of
isomers)
NA
* For total trihalomethanes (the sum of bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane). There are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes. 13 Based on 0.080 mg/L chloroform; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.
14 Based on 0.080 mg/L dibromochloromethane; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1912 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 15
Chemical Health Risk Category1
US EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs)
Chloramines acute toxicity
(causes irritation)
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach)
hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
45,6 NA7 none NA
Chlorine acute toxicity
(causes irritation)
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach)
45,6 NA none NA
Chlorine dioxide hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
neurotoxicity
(harms the nervous
system)

0.85,6 NA none NA
Disinfection byproducts: haloacetic acids (HAA5)
Monochloroacetic
acid (MCA)
general toxicity
(causes body and organ
weight changes8)

0.07 NA none NA
1 Health risk category based on the US EPA MCLG document or California MCL document unless otherwise specified.
2 MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by US EPA. 3 Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1´10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California. 5 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG.
6 The federal Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), or highest level of disinfectant allowed in drinking water, is the same value for this chemical. 7 NA = not available.
8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1913 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 16
Chemical Health Risk Category1
US EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Dichloroacetic
acid (DCA)
Carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 0 none NA
Trichloroacetic
acid (TCA)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)

0.02 NA none NA
Monobromoacetic
acid (MBA)
NA none NA none NA
Dibromoacetic
acid (DBA)
NA none NA none NA
Total haloacetic
acids (sum of

MCA, DCA, TCA,
MBA, and DBA)
general toxicity,
hepatotoxicity and
carcinogenicity
(causes body and organ
weight changes, harms
the liver and causes
cancer)
none NA 0.06 NA
Radionuclides
Gross alpha
particles9
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (
210Po
included)
0 15 pCi/L10
(includes
radium but
not radon
and
uranium)
up to 1x10-3
(for 210Po,
the most
potent alpha
emitter)
9 MCLs for gross alpha and beta particles are screening standards for a group of radionuclides.

Corresponding PHGs were not developed for gross alpha and beta particles. See the OEHHA memoranda discussing the cancer risks at these MCLs at
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/reports/grossab.html. 10 pCi/L = picocuries per liter of water.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1914 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) ATTACHMENT NO. 2
2022 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal
Exceedance Reports
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2022 17
Chemical Health Risk Category1
US EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Beta particles
and photon
emitters9
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (
210Pb
included)
0 50 pCi/L
(judged
equiv. to 4
mrem/yr)
up to 2x10-3
(for 210Pb,
the most
potent betaemitter)

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1915 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS, CONTACT JACK MIYAMOTO, LEAD CHEMIST AT (310) 434-2672

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR 2019 LOCAL IMPORTED IMPORTED Dates Meets MAJOR SOURCES
PHG/ State WELL WATER SM WELL #1(a) SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER Sampled Std IN DRINKING WATER Parameter [MCLG]/ MCL/ Arcadia Plant Weymouth Plant Jensen Plant if other {MRDLG} {MRDL} Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range than 2019(b)

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS) Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.06 100% ≤ 0.3 0.04 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.5 0.4 - 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 City-wide LR41A: 16 Range: 4 - 55 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 City-wide LRAA: 2 Range: ND - 9 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} City-wide Average: 1.2 Range: 0.2 - 2.4 Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.6 1.6 - 8.4 1.9 ND - 8.1 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon N/A TT N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.3 2.0 - 2.5 2.4 1.7 - 2.6 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppm) 0.6 1 (0.2*) ND ND 0.02 0.02 0.058 ND - 0.29 0.12 ND - 0.11 Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND 1.2 1.2 ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium [Total] (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.8 ND ND ND ND Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 City-wide 90th percentile 2.8 0 site out of 34 exceeded the AL (e) Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.7 0.6 - 0.8 2.9 2.7 - 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Y Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits
Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 4.2 4.2 ND ND ND ND - 3 ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A ND ND ND ND Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 2.2 2.1 -2.5 0.8 0.8 ND ND -1 ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Highest percent of monthly samples positive was 0.69% Range: ND - 0.69% No violations City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples
City-wide LRAA: 12.9 Range: 4.5 - 41.7
City-wide LRAA: 2.0 Range: ND - 7.4
City-wide Average: 1.58 Range: ND - 3.0
City-wide, 90th percentile: 0.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL Control Range: 0.6 - 1.2 Citywide Range: 0.6 - 0.9
City-wide, 90th percentile: 2.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL Primary Drinking Water Standards = MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal, The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDL = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level, The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

N/A = Not Applicable
NS = No Standard
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.

Variances and Exemptions: State Board permission to exceed an MCL or not comply with a treatment technique under certain conditions.
ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = secondary standard
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year. (c) = Two consecutive Total Coliform-positive samples, one of which contains Fecal Coliform / E. Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No violations occurred for 2019.
(d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control.

Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1916 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS, CONTACT JACK MIYAMOTO, LEAD CHEMIST AT (310) 434-2672

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR 2020 LOCAL IMPORTED IMPORTED Dates Meets MAJOR SOURCES
PHG/ State WELL WATER SM WELL #1(a) SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER Sampled Std IN DRINKING WATER Parameter [MCLG]/ MCL/ Arcadia Plant Jensen Plant Weymouth Plant if other {MRDLG} {MRDL} Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range than 2020(b)

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS) Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.04 100% ≤ 0.3 0.04 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.3 ND - 0.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 City-wide LR41A: 16 Range: 4 - 55 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 City-wide LRAA: 2 Range: ND - 9 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} City-wide Average: 1.2 Range: 0.2 - 2.4 Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.4 1.4 - 6.0 2 ND - 4.2 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon N/A TT N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2 1.8 - 2.3 2.4 2.1 - 2.6 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppm) 0.6 1 (0.2*) ND ND 0.02 0.02 0.116** ND - 0.220 0.149** 0.008 - 0.210 Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND 1.4 1.4 ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 ND ND ND ND Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) 2019 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 City-wide 90th percentile 2.8 0 site out of 34 exceeded the AL (e) 2019 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.6 0.4 - 0.7 3.8 3.7 - 4.0 ND ND ND ND Y Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits
Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 1.9 1.9 ND ND ND ND Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 2.9 ND - 5.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A ND ND ND ND Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 2.3 1.5 -3.3 1.1 1.1 ND ND -3 2 1 - 3 Y Erosion of natural deposits City-wide Highest Monthly: 1.60% Range: ND - 1.60% No violations City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples
City-wide LRAA: 15.9 Range: 4.6 - 33.9
City-wide LRAA: 2.0 Range: ND - 7.8
City-wide Average: 2.30 Range: ND - 2.9
City-wide, 90th percentile: 0.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL Control Range: 0.6 - 1.2 City-wide Range: 0.6 - 1.0
City-wide, 90th percentile: 2.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL (d) PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standards are MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal, The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.

Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible.

Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDL = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level is the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water.

There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal is the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level is the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

N/A = Not Applicable
NS = No Standard
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique is a required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = secondary standard
** = Highest Running Annual Average (RAA)
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year. (c) = Two consecutive Total Coliform-positive samples, one of which contains Fecal Coliform / E. Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No violations occurred for 2020. (d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control. Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years. erosion of natural deposits

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1917 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
Summary of Results for Primary Drinking Water Standards for 2021 PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standards are MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal is the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

MRDL = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level is the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level is the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

NA = Not Applicable
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NS = No Standard
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = secondary standard
** = Highest Running Average (RAA)
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year. (c) = The E. coli MCL is based on routine and repeat samples testing positive for coliforms and/or E. coli or failure to collect required repeat samples. Fecal Coliform/E. Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No Level 1 Assessments or MCL violations occurred for 2021.
(d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control.

Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years.

FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS CONTACT THE LEAD CHEMIST, CLEMENT DO, AT (310) 434-2672.

LOCAL IMPORTED IMPORTED Dates Meets MAJOR SOURCES
PHG/ State WELL WATER SM WELL #1(a) SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER Sampled Std IN DRINKING WATER PARAMETER [MCLG]/ MCL/ Arcadia Plant Weymouth Plant Jensen Plant if other {MRDLG} {MRDL} Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range than 2021(b) Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.03 100% ≤ 0.3 0.03 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.4 ND - 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 City-wide LR41A: 16 Range: 4 - 55 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 City-wide LRAA: 2 Range: ND - 9 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} City-wide Average: 1.2 Range: 0.2 - 2.4 Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.5 1.2 - 9.8 ND ND - 7.0 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon (ppm) N/A TT N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 1.1 - 2.0 2.4 1.8 - 2.5 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppm) 0.6 1 (0.2*) ND ND 0.01 0.01 0.064** ND - 0.120 0.148** ND - 0.240 Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND-0.5 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 ND ND 110 110 Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.7 ND ND ND ND Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) 2019 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 2019 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.5 0.4 - 0.7 3.6 3.1 - 3.9 ND ND ND ND Y Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 ND ND 3.3 3.3 ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 NA NA NA NA ND ND 5 4-6 Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 2.5 1.9 -3.7 0.8 0.8 ND ND -3 2 1-3 Y Erosion of natural deposits Citywide Highest Monthly 0.69% Range: ND - 0.69% No violations Citywide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples
Citywide LRAA: 23.6 Range: 5.1 - 70.1
Citywide LRAA: 3.1 Range: ND - 10.4
Citywide Average: 1.80 Range: ND - 3.2
Citywide, 90th percentile: 0.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL Control Range: 0.6 - 1.2 Citywide Range: 0.6 - 1.1
Citywide, 90th percentile: 2.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL (d)

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS)

SURFACE WATER
Weymouth Plant
Average Range

SURFACE WATER
Jensen Plant
erage Range

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1918 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public

ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Table 1
Reference: 2012 ACWA PHG Survey

COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated Unit Cost
2012 ACWA Survey
Indexed to 2021*
($/1,000 gallons treated)
1 Ion Exchange Coachella Valley WD, for GW, to reduce Arsenic concentrations. 2011 costs. 2.40
2 Ion Exchange City of Riverside Public Utilities, for GW, for Perchlorate treatment. 1.16
3 Ion Exchange
Carollo Engineers, anonymous utility, 2012 costs for
treating GW source for Nitrates. Design souce water
concentration: 88 mg/L NO3. Design finished water
concentration: 45 mg/L NO3. Does not include
concentrate disposal or land cost. 0.88
4 Granular
Activated Carbon
City of Riverside Public Utilities, GW sources, for TCE, DBCP (VOC, SOC) treatment.

0.58 5 Granular
Activated Carbon
Carollo Engineers, anonymous utility, 2012 costs for
treating SW source for TTHMs. Design souce water
concentration: 0.135 mg/L. Design finished water
concentration: 0.07 mg/L. Does not include concentrate
disposal or land cost. 0.42
6 Granular
Activated Carbon,
Liquid Phase
LADWP, Liquid Phase GAC treatment at Tujunga Well
field. Costs for treating 2 wells. Treament for 1,1 DCE (VOC). 2011-2012 costs.

1.78 7 Reverse Osmosis
Carollo Engineers, anonymous utility, 2012 costs for
treating GW source for Nitrates. Design souce water
concentration: 88 mg/L NO3. Design finished water
concentration: 45 mg/L NO3. Does not include
concentrate disposal or land cost. 0.94
8 Packed Tower
Aeration
City of Monrovia, treatment to reduce TCE, PCE
concentrations. 2011-12 costs. 0.52
9 Ozonation+
Chemical addition
SCVWD, STWTP treatment plant includes chemical
addition + ozone generation costs to reduce THM/HAAs
concentrations. 2009-2012 costs. 0.11

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1919 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report)

COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated Unit Cost
2012 ACWA Survey
Indexed to 2021*
($/1,000 gallons treated)
10 Ozonation+
Chemical addition
SCVWD, PWTP treatment plant includes chemical
addition + ozone generation costs to reduce THM/HAAs
concentrations, 2009-2012 costs. 0.23
11 Coagulation/Filtra
tion
Soquel WD, treatment to reduce manganese
concentrations in GW. 2011 costs. 0.88
12 Coagulation/Filtra
tion Optimization
San Diego WA, costs to reduce THM/Bromate,
Turbidity concentrations, raw SW a blend of State
Water Project water and Colorado River water, treated
at Twin Oaks Valley WTP. 1.00
13 Blending (Well) Rancho California WD, GW blending well, 1150 gpm, to reduce fluoride concentrations. 0.83
14 Blending (Wells) Rancho California WD, GW blending wells, to reduce arsenic concentrations, 2012 costs. 0.68
15 Blending Rancho California WD, using MWD water to blend with GW to reduce arsenic concentrations. 2012 costs. 0.81
16 Corrosion
Inhibition
Atascadero Mutual WC, corrosion inhibitor addition to
control aggressive water. 2011 costs. 0.10
*Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR) annual average Construction Cost Index of 12,1332021

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1920 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report)

ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Table 2
Reference: Other Agencies

COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated 2012 Unit Cost
Indexed to 2021* ($/1,000
gallons treated)
1 Reduction -
CoagulationFiltration
Reference: February 28, 2013, Final Report
Chromium Removal Research, City of Glendale,
CA. 100-2000 gpm. Reduce Hexavalent
Chromium to 1 ppb.

1.91 - 11.96
2 IX - Weak Base
Anion Resin
Reference: February 28, 2013, Final Report
Chromium Removal Research, City of Glendale,
CA. 100-2000 gpm. Reduce Hexavalent
Chromium to 1 ppb.

1.96 – 8.19
3 IX Golden State Water Co., IX w/disposable resin, 1
MGD, Perchlorate removal, built in 2010. 0.60
4 IX
Golden State Water Co., IX w/disposable resin,
1000 gpm, perchlorate removal (Proposed; O&M
estimated).

1.31 5 IX
Golden State Water Co., IX with brine
regeneration, 500 gpm for Selenium removal, built
in 2007.

8.57 6 GFO/Adsorption
Golden State Water Co., Granular Ferric Oxide
Resin, Arsenic removal, 600 gpm, 2 facilities, built
in 2006.

2.24 - 2.39
7 RO
Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino
Basin Desalter. RO cost to reduce 800 ppm TDS,
150 ppm Nitrate (as NO3); approx. 7 mgd.

2.93 8 IX
Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino
Basin Desalter. IX cost to reduce 150 ppm Nitrate
(as NO3); approx. 2.6 mgd.

1.63 12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1921 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report)

9 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino
Basin Desalter. PTA-VOC air stripping, typical
treated flow of approx. 1.6 mgd.

0.49 10 IX
Reference: West Valley WD Report, for Water
Recycling Funding Program, for 2.88 mgd
treatment facility. IX to remove Perchlorate,
Perchlorate levels 6-10 ppb. 2008 costs.

0.68 - 0.97
11 Coagulation
Filtration
Reference: West Valley WD, includes capital,
O&M costs for 2.88 mgd treatment facility- Layne
Christensen packaged coagulation Arsenic
removal system. 2009-2012 costs.

0.45 12 FBR
Reference: West Valley WD/Envirogen design
data for the O&M + actual capitol costs, 2.88 mgd
fluidized bed reactor (FBR) treatment system,
Perchlorate and Nitrate removal, followed by
multimedia filtration & chlorination, 2012. NOTE:

The capitol cost for the treatment facility for the
first 2,000 gpm is $23 million annualized over 20
years with ability to expand to 4,000 gpm with
minimal costs in the future. $17 million funded
through state and federal grants with the
remainder funded by WVWD and the City of
Rialto.

2.02 – 2.13
* Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR) annual average Construction Cost Index of 12,133 for 2021. .

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1922 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report)

ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Table 3
Reference: Updated 2012 ACWA Cost of Treatment Table

COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated 2012 Unit
Cost Indexed to 2021*
($/1,000 gallons treated)
1 Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for California Urban Water Agencies, large surface water treatment plants
treating water from the State Water Project to meet
Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate regulation, 1998

0.69 - 1.31
2 Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC
treatment (PCE), 95% removal of PCE, Oct. 1994,1900
gpm design capacity

0.32 3 Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Carollo Engineers, est. for a large No. Calif. surf. water treatment plant ( 90 mgd capacity) treating water from the State Water Project, to reduce THM
precursors, ENR construction cost index = 6262 (San
Francisco area) - 1992

1.51 4 Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for
135 mgd central treatment facility for VOC and SOC
removal by GAC, 1990

0.59 - 0.86
5 Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data
for "rented" GAC to remove VOCs (1,1-DCE), 1.5 mgd
capacity facility, 1998

2.71 6 Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data
for permanent GAC to remove VOCs (TCE), 2.16 mgd
plant capacity, 1998

1.75 7 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for California Urban Water Agencies, large surface water treatment plants
treating water from the State Water Project to meet
Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate regulation, 1998

2.036 –

3.89 8 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000
ppm TDS in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 1.0 mgd
plant operated at 40% of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991

4.80 9 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000
ppm TDS in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 1.0 mgd
plant operated at 100% of design flow, high brine line
cost, May 1991

2.96 10 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000
ppm TDS in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0
mgd plant operated at 40% of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991

3.20 12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1923 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report)

COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)

Office of
Environm
ental
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated 2012 Unit
Cost Indexed to 2021*
($/1,000 gallons treated)
11 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000
ppm TDS in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design flow, high brine line
cost, May 1991

2.48 12 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale,
AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 1.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of
design capacity, Oct. 1991

8.04 13 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale,
AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 1.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design capacity, Oct. 1991

4.75 14 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale,
AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 10.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of design capacity, Oct. 1991

3.55 15 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale,
AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 10.0 mgd plant operated at 100%
of design capacity, Oct. 1991

2.20 16 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for
135 mgd central treatment facility with RO to remove
nitrate, 1990

2.22 - 3.89
17 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal...
(AWWARF publication), Kennedy/Jenks, for a 1.4 mgd
facility operating at 40% of design capacity, Oct. 1991

1.27 18 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal...
(AWWARF publication), Kennedy/Jenks, for a 14.0 mgd
facility operating at 40% of design capacity, Oct. 1991

0.68 19 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC
treatment (PCE) by packed tower aeration, without offgas treatment, O&M costs based on operation during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 16 hr/day air stripping
operation, 1900 gpm design capacity, Oct. 1994

0.34 20 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Carollo Engineers, for PCE treatment by
Ecolo-Flo Enviro-Tower air stripping, without off-gas
treatment, O&M costs based on operation during 329
days/year at 10% downtime, 16 hr/day air stripping
operation, 1900 gpm design capacity, Oct. 1994

0.35 21 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for
135 mgd central treatment facility - packed tower
aeration for VOC and radon removal, 1990

0.55 - 0.90

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1924 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report)

COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)

Office of
Environm
ental
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated 2012 Unit
Cost Indexed to 2021*
($/1,000 gallons treated)
22 Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC
treatment (PCE) by UV Light, Ozone, Hydrogen
Peroxide, O&M costs based on operation during 329
days/year at 10% downtime, 24 hr/day AOP operation,
1900 gpm capacity, Oct. 1994

0.67 23 Ozonation
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for CUWA, large
surface water treatment plants using ozone to treat water from the State Water Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and
bromate regulation, Cryptosporidium inactivation
requirements,1998

0.15 - 0.32
24 Ion Exchange
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for
135 mgd central treatment facility - ion exchange to
remove nitrate, 1990

0.73 - 0.97
* Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR) annual average Construction Cost Index of 12,133 for 2021.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1925 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) E

XHIBITF

ACRONYMS
ACWA - Association of California Water Agencies
AL - Action Level
BAT - Best Available Technology
Cal/EPA - California Environmental Protection Agency
CCR - California Code of Regulations
DBP - Disinfection Byproduct
DDW – Division of Drinking Water
DLR - Detection Level for purposes of Reporting
GAC - Granular Activated Carbon
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
mg/l - milligrams per liter
MWD - Metropolitan Water District
ND - Not Detected NL - Notification Level
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pCi/l - picoCuries per liter
PHG – Public Health Goal
PPM – Parts Per Million (1 / 1,000,000)
PPB – Parts Per Billion (1 / 1,000,000,000)
PPT – Parts Per Trillion (1 / 1,000,000,000,000)
PTA - Packed Tower Aeration
RAA - Running Annual Average
RO - Reverse Osmosis
SWRCB – State Water Resource Control Board
TCE –Trichloroethylene
TTHMs - Total Trihalomethanes
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC - Volatile Organic Compound

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: Attachment A - 2022 Water Quality Report Relative to the Public Health Goals (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Summary of City of Santa Monica Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals
Each year the City of Santa Monica publishes its Annual Water Quality Report which includes details about the water that Santa Monica residents and businesses use every day. Along with information regarding important current water issues, the annual report includes information required by the Federal and State governments to illustrate how the quality of the water at the consumer’s tap compares against established water quality standards. These water quality standards are established by Federal and State regulations as MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels). Consistently, Santa Monica’s water is shown to be in full compliance with all regulatory water quality standards.

Every three years, all water agencies in California are required to prepare a Public Health Goal (PHG) report. A PHG is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHG standards are lower than Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), are strictly health based, and include a margin of safety. The purpose of this report is to provide consumers with information on levels of contaminants even below the enforceable MCLs to inform them of whatever risks might be posed by the presence of these contaminants at levels below the MCLs. PHGs are not enforceable because the Best Available Technology to reach such low levels has not been defined and/or may not be available, and cost analyses are not reliable since estimates are speculative and theoretical.

Details about Public Health Goals, how they were developed, what they mean, and the current state of the City’s water quality are included in the 2022 City of Santa Monica Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals. The report will be received and filed at a public hearing by the Santa Monica City Council on Tuesday, October 11, 2022. Public comments can also be heard at this time. This report is available for public review at the City Clerk’s office in City Hall, the Main Library, the Water Resources Division office, and online at the Water Resources Division website at: https://bit.ly/3JUvNhxpdf

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Water Quality Report Summary (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

TO DOWNLOAD THIS REPORT VISIT
WATERQUALITY.SMGOV.NET
ANNUAL
WATER

QUALITY
REPORT
JUNE 2022

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1928 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

Dear Community Members,
The City of Santa Monica strives to provide safe, reliable, and clean drinking water to our residents. On behalf of the City, I am pleased to present this Annual Drinking Water Quality Report which provides a summary of water quality data for 2021. All federal and state drinking water standards were met by the City of Santa Monica.

The City’s Water Resources Division prioritizes sustainable, clean and high-quality drinking water for its residents today and for the future. As we enter the 3rd year of the current drought cycle, water conservation continues to be of
significant importance for the City and our community has done an amazing job conserving water to date. However,
more work will likely be needed due to the lack of rain/snow in the State this year to recharge our groundwater aquifers and replenish other water supplies.

Looking to the future and addressing climate change
impacts on our water supply, we are well underway
implementing the water self-sufficiency projects outlined in our 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update to
enhance the reliability and drought resiliency of our
water supply. Notable projects include completion of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) in summer of 2022 to increase the City’s recycled water supply and groundbreaking on the expansion of our Arcadia Water
Treatment Plant in January 2022.

The City continues to invest in our water infrastructure through new water supply projects, advanced treatment
technologies, infrastructure upgrades and modernization, all culminating in a sustainable and drought resilient water supply portfolio for the community.

On behalf of the City of Santa Monica Public Works
Department and the employees of the Water Resources
Division, thank you for allowing us to serve you.

Sincerely,
Sunny Wang
Water Resources Manager
The City of Santa Monica currently obtains up to 75% of its water from local groundwater wells within the City and in West Los Angeles. The City extracts its water from three sub-basins within the Santa Monica Basin (Charnock,
Olympic, and Arcadia Sub-basins), with the Charnock
Sub-basin being a local supply since 1924!
Over 20 years ago, Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and
tert-Butyl Alcohol (TBA), compounds once used as
gasoline additives, were detected in three of the Charnock Sub-basin wells. These contaminants found their way into the groundwater via Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
from various gasoline stations within the Charnock Subbasin. In response, the City of Santa Monica established the Charnock Well Field Restoration Project. The treatment from this project uses virgin Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) filtration, from coconut shells, to successfully treat MTBE and TBA concentrations to levels well below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ppb.

TO PUT THESE UNITS INTO CONTEXT:

One part per billion (ppb) = 1 second in 31.7 years
= 1 teaspoon in 1.3 million gallons
One part per million (ppm) = 1 second in 11.6 days
= 1 teaspoon in 1,302 gallons
The treated water from the Charnock Well Field is then
sent to the Arcadia Treatment Plant, and along the way it blends with water from the Olympic and Arcadia Sub-basin wells. Once the water arrives at the Arcadia Treatment
Plant, it undergoes a treatment process that includes Iron/ Manganese removal, filtration, Reverse Osmosis (RO)
softening, aeration, disinfection, and fluoridation.

Softening is the process of removing scale-forming calcium and magnesium from hard water. RO performs softening
by forcing hard water through membranes with very small Santa Monica’s Water Source
And Treatment System
The City of Santa Monica Water Resources Division values transparency, we hope that you find this report clear and easy to understand. If you have any questions, please call us at (310) 434-2672.

El Departamento de Recursos de Agua de la ciudad
de Santa Monica valora una gestión transparente; por
consiguiente, esperamos que encuentre este informe claro y fácil de entender. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta, por favor comuníquese al (310) 434-2672.

Arcadia Water Treatment Plant

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1929 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

SANTA MONICA WATER TREATMENT PROCESS
Charnock Well Field
Charnock Wells
Groundwater contaminated
with the gasoline additive
MTBE is pumped
up from 400 feet below
ground surface.

Greens and Filtration
The well water is
filtered through greens and
media to remove iron and
manganese which would
foul the
carbon filters.

GAC Filtration
The MTBE is removed by
filtering through
Granular Activated
Carbon (GAC) filters.

Pump to Treatment
Plant
The filtered water is
combined with the flow of
other wells and pumped to
the Santa Monica Water
Treatment Plant.

Santa Monica
Water Treatment
Plant
Pretreatment
To protect the sensitive Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters, the combined well flow is filtered again through greensand and cartridge filters to remove more iron, manganese and any remaining sediment.

Reverse Osmosis Filtration
Filtration through a three-stage Reverse Osmosis
(RO) membrane system softens the water by removing
minerals (calcium and magnesium). RO uses pressure to
force water through membranes with pores so small the
minerals can’t pass through.

Water Quality
Adjustments
The mineral content is adjusted to
the desired softness. The pH is
adjusted, fluoride is added and
the water undergoes final
disinfection with chloramine.

Aeration and Storage
The final step, aeration, uses the existing
air stripping technology in the five million
gallon reservoir to remove any remaining
volatile groundwater
contaminants as
trichloroethene (TCE).

REVERSE

OSMOSIS

FILTRATION
Final Delivery
Santa Monica residents and businesses
receive water for everyday use. Water
conservation by end users is key to ensuring
water reliability and sustainability.
4 12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1930 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. pores, sized from 0.0001 - 0.001micrometers.The complete treatment process is further outlined on the following pages.

The remaining 25% of Santa Monica’s drinking water is
purchased from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Treated MWD water is blended with our locally produced water,
and then distributed to our residents. MWD imports water from two separate sources. One is the Colorado River
water, which is delivered from Lake Havasu through a
242-mile-long aqueduct and originates as snowmelt from
mountainous regions in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado.

The second is from the State Water Project, which is
delivered through the 441-mile-long California Aqueduct and originates in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. MWD water is filtered at their treatment plants and undergoes extensive treatment before entering Santa Monica’s water system.

For more information about the City’s treatment facilities, please call the Water Resources Division (see back cover for contact information).

Background on
Drinking Water Contaminants
The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems,
agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife.

Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming.**
Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses.

Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and
volatile organic chemicals, that are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come
from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems.

Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally-occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining
activities.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the
California State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board) prescribe regulations that limit the concentration of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. State Board regulations also establish limits
for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health.

Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some
contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not
necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791).

Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in
drinking water than the general population.

Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with
cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have
undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or
other immune system disorders, some elderly people,
and infants can be particularly at risk of infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the
risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791).
** You can help protect source water purity by controlling what enters storm drains and the water table. The following sites provide guides on how you can protect Drinking Water Sources:
www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/easy-things-
you-can-do-protect-drinking-water-sources.

Information on environmentally friendly products is
available at www.santamonica.gov/categories/programs/
sustainability-and-the-environment.

To report storm drain pollution, please contact the City’s Wastewater Department. See back cover for contact information.

The California Aqueduct.

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1931 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

Source Water
Vulnerability Assessments
Between 2000 and 2012, the California State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water
(DDW) completed Source Water Vulnerability Assessments
for all the City’s groundwater wells. The assessments
are required for all water utilities nationwide to evaluate the vulnerability of drinking water sources for “possible contaminating activities.” Vulnerabilities most associated with contamination include commercial, industrial, urban runoff and municipal activities. Based on the vulnerability assessments, Santa Monica Wells #3 and #4 located
mid-city, Arcadia Wells #4 and #5, and Charnock Wells #13, #16, #18, #19 and #20, located in West L.A. are considered most vulnerable to commercial, industrial, residential, and municipal activities. Santa Monica Well #1, located on the north side of the city, Wells #3 and #4, and the Arcadia Wells are considered most vulnerable by their proximity to sewer collection systems, although monthly analyses have detected no related contamination.

For more information, please contact the Water Resources Division.*
In March and June 2012, MWD completed a source water
assessment of its Colorado and State Project supplies.

Based upon the vulnerability assessments, the Colorado
River and State Project supplies are most vulnerable
to contamination resulting from recreation, urban/storm water runoff, increasing urbanization in the watershed, and wastewater.

A copy of the assessment can be obtained by contacting
MWD (see back cover for contact information).

Santa Monica’s
Drinking Water Quality
Permission and oversight to operate a community water
system is granted annually by the DDW and the USEPA.

Santa Monica’s water supply undergoes constant field and laboratory testing to ensure the highest water quality before reaching your tap. The water is sampled and analyzed
daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and triennial. In addition, our water quality management practice includes operating and maintaining optimum performance
of the source wells, treatment plants, distribution system; managing reservoirs to meet demand; and testing the water at over 100 locations throughout City’s distribution system monthly.

We look for more than 100 substances including
microorganisms, pesticides, herbicides, asbestos, lead, copper, petroleum-based products, and by-products of
industrial and water treatment processes. As a result, we conduct more than 8,000 laboratory tests each year.

Our state certified laboratory perform routine tests to ensure clean and healthy drinking water.

Water Quality Data Tables
Santa Monica Water continues to meet and exceed all
USEPA and State Drinking Water Health Standards.

The following data tables compare our water quality with Drinking Water Health Standards. The data is organized by source of water in two categories, each with two sub-parts:

Local Groundwater
— Arcadia Treatment Plant: Collects water from 9 wells, completes treatment, and sends to distribution.
— Santa Monica Well #1: Treats supply at the source and pumps directly into distribution.

Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Treatment Plants from where Santa Monica receives treated water
— Weymouth Plant
— Jensen Plant
The results are presented in two tables: Primary Drinking Water Quality Results and Secondary Drinking Water
Quality Results. The primary results cover contaminants that may affect the public’s health. These contaminants include hazardous chemicals, metals, bacteria, and radioactivity.

The secondary results cover parameters that may affect
the aesthetics of the water, such as taste, appearance, and odor. These parameters include turbidity, minerals, and pH among others.

For questions regarding water quality, call the Water
Resources Division (see back cover for contact information).

Using gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS),
chemists test for volatile organics in the water.

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1932 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
Summary of Results for Primary Drinking Water Standards for 2021 PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standards are MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements.

PHG = Public Health Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal is the level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

MRDL = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level is the highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

LRAA = Locational Running Annual Average. The running annual average is based on monitoring location.

AL = Regulatory Action Level is the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

NA = Not Applicable
ND = Monitored for but Not Detected
NS = No Standard
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.

TT = Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/l) ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) pCi/L = picocuries per liter
* = secondary standard
** = Highest Running Average (RAA)
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = The City is not required to test for every parameter each year. If indicated, data is from a previous year. (c) = The E. coli MCL is based on routine and repeat samples testing positive for coliforms and/or E. coli or failure to collect required repeat samples. Fecal Coliform/E. Coli constitutes an acute MCL violation. No Level 1 Assessments or MCL violations occurred for 2021.
(d) = The MCL has been replaced with a treatment technique requiring agencies to optimize corrosion control.

Results given are from first draw, at-the-tap monitoring performed every three years.

FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS CONTACT THE LEAD CHEMIST, CLEMENT DO, AT (310) 434-2672.

LOCAL IMPORTED IMPORTED Dates Meets MAJOR SOURCES
PHG/ State WELL WATER SM WELL #1(a) SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER Sampled Std IN DRINKING WATER PARAMETER [MCLG]/ MCL/ Arcadia Plant Weymouth Plant Jensen Plant if other {MRDLG} {MRDL} Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range than 2021(b) Clarity
Maximum Turbidity (NTU) NS 95% < 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.03 100% ≤ 0.3 0.03 100% ≤ 0.3 Y Soil runoff Microbiological
Total Coliform Bacteria [0] 5% City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Naturally present in the environment (% positive samples/month)
Fecal Coliform/E. Coli [0] (c) City-wide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples Y Human and animal fecal waste Organic Chemical
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (ppb) 13 13(5*) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Leaking underground storage tanks Trichloroethylene (ppb) 1.7 5 0.4 ND - 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from metal degreasing sites Disinfection
Byproducts & Residuals
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) NS 80 City-wide LR41A: 16 Range: 4 - 55 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids (ppb) NS 60 City-wide LRAA: 2 Range: ND - 9 Y By-product of drinking water chlorination Total Chlorine/Chloramines (ppm) {4} {4} City-wide Average: 1.2 Range: 0.2 - 2.4 Y Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Bromate (ppb) 0.1 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.5 1.2 - 9.8 ND ND - 7.0 Y By-product of drinking water ozonation Total Organic Carbon (ppm) N/A TT N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 1.1 - 2.0 2.4 1.8 - 2.5 Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum (ppm) 0.6 1 (0.2*) ND ND 0.01 0.01 0.064** ND - 0.120 0.148** ND - 0.240 Y Erosion of natural deposits; used in water treatment process Arsenic (ppb) 0.004 10 ND ND-0.5 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Barium (ppm) 2 1 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 ND ND 110 110 Y Discharge from oil and metal industries; Erosion of natural deposits Chromium (ppb) [100] 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Discharge from steel and pulp mills; natural deposits erosion Chromium 6 (ppb) 0.02 NS 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.7 ND ND ND ND Y Naturally occuring; industrial waste discharge Copper (d) (ppm) 0.3 AL=1.3 (1.0*) 2019 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Fluoride After Treatment (ppm) 1 2 Y Water additive for dental health Lead (d) (ppb) 0.2 AL=15 2019 Y Corrosion of household plumbing systems Nitrate (as N) (ppm) 10 10 0.5 0.4 - 0.7 3.6 3.1 - 3.9 ND ND ND ND Y Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from sewage; erosion of natural deposits Perchlorate (ppb) 1 6 ND ND 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND Y Industrial waste discharge Radionuclides
Alpha emitters (pCi/L) [0] 15 ND ND 3.3 3.3 ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Beta/photon emitters (pCi/L) [0] 50 NA NA NA NA ND ND 5 4-6 Y Decay of natural and man-made deposits Combined Radium (pCi/L) [0] 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Y Erosion of natural deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 0.43 20 2.5 1.9 -3.7 0.8 0.8 ND ND -3 2 1-3 Y Erosion of natural deposits Citywide Highest Monthly 0.69% Range: ND - 0.69% No violations Citywide Maximum: 0 Positive Samples
Citywide LRAA: 23.6 Range: 5.1 - 70.1
Citywide LRAA: 3.1 Range: ND - 10.4
Citywide Average: 1.80 Range: ND - 3.2
Citywide, 90th percentile: 0.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL Control Range: 0.6 - 1.2 Citywide Range: 0.6 - 1.1
Citywide, 90th percentile: 2.30 0 sites out of 30 exceeded the AL (d)

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (MANDATORY HEALTH-RELATED STANDARDS)

SURFACE WATER
Weymouth Plant
Average Range

SURFACE WATER
Jensen Plant
erage Range

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1933 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
Summary of Results for Secondary Drinking Water Standards for 2021

LOCAL IMPORTED IMPORTED
PHG/ State WELL WATER SM WELL #1(a) SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER PARAMETER [MCLG] MCL Arcadia Plant Weymouth Plant Jensen Plant Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range

SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS (AESTHETIC STANDARDS) Chemical Parameters
Chloride (ppm) NS 500 47 42 - 62 108 107 - 109 72 65-80 96 95 - 97 Y Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes Color (units) NS 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 -10 2 1 -2 1 1 Y Naturally-occurring organic materials Iron (ppb) NS 300 12 ND - 30 27 27 ND ND ND ND Y Leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes Manganese (ppb) NS 50 3.5 ND - 5.0 2.2 2.2 ND ND ND ND Y Leaching from natural deposits Odor- Threshold (units) NS 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1 1 1 Y Naturally-occurring organic materials; chlorine Specific Conductance (µmho/cm) NS 1600 516 458 - 663 1345 1288 - 1375 588 519 - 598 964 962 - 965 Y Substances that form ions when in water; seawater influence Sulfate (ppm) NS 500 79 63 - 115 251 238 - 257 66 61 - 72 219 217 - 221 Y Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes Total Dissolved Solids (ppm) NS 1000 289 253 - 324 935 935 300 298 - 302 604 599 - 609 Y Runoff/leaching from natural deposits Turbidity (NTU) — 5 0.13 0.06 - 0.23 0.21 0.10 - 0.67 ND ND ND ND Y Soil runoff

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
PHG = Public Health Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental
Protection Agency.

MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary
MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is
economically and technologically feasible. Secondary
MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

NL = Notification Level is a health based advisory level established by Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for chemicals in
drinking water that lack maximum contaminant levels, but warrants notification.

NA = Not Applicable
NS = No Standard
ND = Monitored for, but Not Detected
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units - used to measure cloudiness of drinking water.
ppb = Parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (ug/l) ppm = Parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l) ppt = Parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter (ng/l) umho/cm = micromhos per centimeter
< = less than
(a) = SM Well#1 is pumped into a transmission line, is blended with Imported Surface Water and enters the system at 19th St. & Idaho Ave.
(b) = We are not required to test for each parameter every year.

If indicated, data is from a previous year.
(c) = MWD has developed a flavor-profile analysis method that can more accurately identify odor occurences.

Meets
Std

ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity (ppm) NS NS 108 95 - 130 332 328 - 335 92 86 - 97 126 123 - 128 Boron (ppb) NS NL=1000 190 190 210 210 180 180 130 130
Calcium (ppm) NS NS 38 30 - 53 126 120 - 131 30 27 - 32 67 64 - 70 Hardness (as CaCO3) (ppm) NS NS 159 129 - 202 586 571 - 609 122 110 - 133 272 270 - 273 Magnesium (ppm) NS NS 15 14 - 16 58 58 12 12 -13 26 25 - 26 pH (units) NS NS 8.2 8.1 - 8.4 7.1 6.9 - 7.2 8.3 8.3 - 8.4 8.1 8.1 Potassium (ppm) NS NS 1.4 1.3 - 1.4 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 - 2.7 4.6 4.4 - 4.7 Radon (pCi/L) NS NS ND ND 440 440 ND ND ND ND
Sodium (ppm) NS NS 46 41 - 50 104 104 64 61 - 68 98 95 - 101 1, 4-Dioxane (ppb) NS NL=1 ND ND ND ND NA NA NA NA
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) (ppt) 3 NL=10 NA NA NA NA 2.6 2.6 ND ND tert-Butyl Alcohol (TBA) (ppb) NS NL=12 ND ND NA NA ND ND ND ND Dates
Sampled
if other
than 2019(b)
FOR ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY QUESTIONS, CONTACT CLEMENT DO, LEAD CHEMIST AT (310) 434-2672

MAJOR SOURCES
Weymouth Plant

IN DRINKING WATER
verage Rang

SURFACE WATER
Jensen Plant
erage Range
other
2021(b)

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1934 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

COVID-19 and
Drinking Water Safety
According to the USEPA and CDC, the COVID-19 virus
has not been detected in drinking water supplies. Current research shows no evidence that Covid-19 virus can be
spread to people by consuming treated drinking water.

Filtration and disinfection methods used in water treatment plants remove and kill viruses, bacteria and pathogens.

The Santa Monica Water Treatment Plant carries out a
multi-step treatment processes and complies with all federal and state regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Compliance with these regulations has been
established for many years to protect the public health from disease or illness caused by pathogenic organisms.

Santa Monica water treatment uses chlorine / chloramine disinfection that inactivates pathogens in the water and then physically removes them through advance technology, reverse osmosis (RO). Imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) undergoes numerous treatment
processes and complies with the same federal and state
regulations. Their treatment process is effective in killing bacteria and viruses.

The Santa Monica community can continue to use and drink water from their tap as usual.

Additional information on COVID-19 and drinking water can be found on United State EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/frequent-questions-relatedcoronavirus-covid-19 and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/index.html
Facts about Radon
Radon is a radioactive gas that you cannot see, taste, or smell. It is found throughout the U.S. Radon can move up through the ground and into a home through cracks and
holes in the foundation. Radon can build up to high levels in all types of homes. Radon can also get into indoor air when released from tap water from showering, washing dishes, and other household activities. Compared to radon entering the home through soil, radon entering the home through
tap water will in most cases be a small source of radon in indoor air. Radon is a known human carcinogen. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung cancer. Drinking water containing radon may also cause increased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concerned about radon in your home,
test the air in your home. Testing is inexpensive and easy.

You should pursue radon removal for your home if the level of radon in your air is 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L) or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radon problem that are not too costly. For additional information, call your state radon program (1-800-745-7236), the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act Hotline (1-800-426-4791), or the National Safety Council Radon Hotline (1-800-767-7236).

Information is also available at the California EPA website:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DRSEM/Pages/
EMB/Radon/Radon-Testing.aspx
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of compounds containing carbon to
fluorine chemical bonds, one of the strongest in organic chemistry. They are manufactured and used to enhance
repellency of water, grease, and soil in consumer products; thus, they are very stable and resistant to environmental degradation. If exposed, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) are readily absorbed but not readily eliminated from the human body. According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
potential health concerns, long-term exposure can cause harmful health effects to a developing fetus or infant; suppress the immune system; disrupt the thyroid function, increased liver weight; and can lead to cancer.

California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has issued drinking water notification levels (NLs) and response levels (RLs) for PFAS. According to OEHHA recommendations, these levels provide
some health risk protection in sensitive populations and demonstrate low cancer risk with 70-year lifetime exposure.

If a utility exceeds the RL(s), regulations require the water source be taken out of service, provide treatment, or notify customers.

Operators performing repairs on RO Equipment.

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1935 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report.

PFAS Compound Notification Level Response Level
(ppt) (ppt)
Perfluorooctanoic 5.1ppt 10 ppt
Acid (PFOA)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic 6.5 ppt 40 ppt
Acid (PFOS)
Parts per trillion (ppt) = 1 second in 31,709.8 years
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
In April 2019, the SWRCB investigated source water wells in California most vulnerable to PFAS contamination. This included those near airports and landfills, and later those near secondary sources of PFAS activities. SWRCB did not require Santa Monica to sample its sources. However, City staff proactively sampled the City’s Drinking Water sources in August/September of 2019, and PFAS was not detected
in our drinking water supply. All PFAS samples analyzed by an outside laboratory were Non-Detect (ND).

Additionally, Granular activated carbon (GAC) and reverse osmosis (RO), both part of the City’s treatment process, are effective at removing many PFAS compounds.

Answers to the Most
Commonly Asked Questions
About Your Tap Water
What affects the taste of my water?
The taste of drinking water is affected by its mineral content, as well as the presence of chloramine, which is used to protect against potential pathogens. Occasionally pipes can cause a metallic taste when the water has been static in the pipes for many hours.

How hard is my water?
The water delivered to our customers has an average
hardness of 159 ppm. To convert to grains per gallon, divide the hardness in ppm by 17.1. The average hardness in our water is 9.30 grains per gallon.

What type of disinfectant is in my water?
A low level of chloramine disinfectant is added to your tap water to protect from waterborne pathogens. Chloramine
is formed when a small amount of ammonia is added to
chlorinated water. This type of disinfectant is very stable and reduces the formation of disinfection by-products in your water. These by-products are an unintended consequence
of the disinfection process but are far below the allowable limit in Santa Monica water. We carefully monitor the
amount of the chloramine disinfectant to protect the quality of your water.

Is the City’s water fluoridated?
The City of Santa Monica is required by state law to add fluoride to drinking water to help prevent dental decay in consumers. Current regulations require fluoride levels in the treated water be maintained between 0.6 to 1.2 ppm
with an optimum dose of 0.7 ppm. Our monitoring showed
that fluoride levels in the treated water distribution system averaged 0.75 ppm.

According to the American Dental Association and CDC, it is safe to use optimally fluoridated water for preparing infant formula. If an infant is primarily fed infant formula prepared with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of the infant or the health of the infant’s teeth. To lessen this chance, deionized, purified, distilled or demineralized bottled water can be used. If you have additional questions about fluoride, contact your health provider.

Additional information can be found at the State Board
website: www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/ drinkingwater/Fluoridation or the CDC website:
www.cdc.gov/fluoridation.

What about lead from my plumbing?
The lead contamination that made the news in Flint,
Michigan is highly unlikely in Santa Monica. The quality of our source water is much different than Flint’s, and our corrosion control processes comply with state drinking
water regulations. A pool of “high risk” homes, which were plumbed before the ban on lead in solder, have been tested every three years since 1992 and has continually indicated there is little tendency of our water to leach lead out of plumbing. Our laboratory chemists closely monitor lead
results to ensure healthy drinking water, and to evaluate and determine Santa Monica’s water system has achieved
“optimized corrosion control”. The next round of testing is scheduled for 2022.

If your home plumbing contains lead, there is a limited potential for lead to leach into your water. Fortunately, the minerals in our water help to protect against pipe corrosion, greatly reducing the potential of lead entering the water.

These minerals form a film called “scale” that prevents water from coming into direct contact with home plumbing. The most common place to find lead in household plumbing is in chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures. California enacted stricter regulations for plumbing fixtures in 2010 further reducing the potential for lead leaching from household plumbing.

If present, however, elevated levels of lead can cause
serious health problems, especially for pregnant women
and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The City of Santa Monica Water Resources Division is responsible for providing high quality drinking

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1936 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. *Contact information is available on the last page of this report. water but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting
for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you do so, you may wish to collect the flushed water and reuse it for another beneficial purpose, such as watering plants. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. To get your water tested, please call the Water Quality Office. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline* or at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.

Do I really need to buy a
water filter or home treatment system?
The decision to buy a water filter or home treatment system is a matter of personal preference. Our water meets or
exceeds rigid state and federal health standards. If you decide to buy a filter or system, be a smart shopper and do some homework. Any treatment device you buy should be
registered with the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF).

Contact NSF toll free at (800) 673-6275 or visit www.nsf.org.

What about bottled water?
Again, the decision is yours. You may find that keeping a pitcher of tap water in your refrigerator is a low-cost, water-thrifty alternative to buying more expensive bottled water, and it’s far better for the environment. Even when the bottle is reused or recycled, the petrochemicals used in creating the bottle and the transportation of the water have a significant impact on the environment.

Water Conservation
The City of Santa Monica has developed a sustainable
water supply and taken responsible steps to improve water conservation in the midst of a changing climate. The City is actively seeking ways to conserve and improve the City’s water supply for future generations. To continue meeting our water conservation goals, the City urges our residents to continue their conservation effort because small changes make a difference. For more information and water saving tips, please visit www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/ your-guide-to-water.

Sustainability
The City of Santa Monica is still offering incentives for environmentally friendly measures taken by the community.

For more information, please call or visit the Office of Sustainability website at www.santamonica.gov/topicexplainers/your-guide-to-water.

We need you!
Public involvement is fundamental to ensuring that we are meeting our water supply demand, water quality goals,
and the highest customer service level. We welcome your feedback and invite you to get involved with the City of Santa Monica in the following ways:
• Participate in conservation events
• Attend City Council and community meetings
• Sign up for the newsletters and alerts
• Please let us know how we are doing.

For information on these opportunities, please call Water Resources and the Office of Sustainability and the
Environment.* For a digital copy of this report, please visit:
waterquality.smgov.net.

Santa Monica Pier

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1937 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Water Resources Division
P.O. Box 2200, 1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90406-2200
This brochure is printed with vegetable-based inks
on paper made from recycled paper.

Where Can I Get More Information?
City of Santa Monica Public Works and
Water Resources Division Offices:

Water Resources/Water Quality .........(310) 434-2672
24-Hour Water Emergencies ..............(310) 434-2672
Wastewater.........................................(310) 458-8532 Lead Chemist......................................(310) 434-2672 Billing Office........................................(310) 458-8224 Visit our website:
www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/water-conservation Santa Monica City Council Meetings:
2nd & 4th Tuesdays of each month
Council Chamber
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
www.santamonica.gov/departments/city-clerks-office
City of Santa Monica Office of Sustainability and
the Environment ...................................(310) 458-2213 Conservation Office..............................(310) 458-8972 www.santamonica.gov/categories/programs/sustainabilityand-the-environment Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
of Southern California.......................... (213) 217-6850 Toll Free............................................... (800) 354-4420 www.mwdh2o.com
California State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water ....................(818) 551-2004 www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water
Safe Drinking Water Hotline .................(800) 426-4791 www.epa.gov/safewater/dwhealth.html
water.epa.gov/drink/guide

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1938 Attachment: Attachment C - 2022 Water Quality Report (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) Public Hearing -
2022 Report on Water Quality
Relative to Public Health Goals
October 11, 2022

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1939 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) 2022 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals • Public notice on availability of the Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on 7/5/2022.
• Public Hearing (10/11/2022) to receive public comments and adopt the Report

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1940 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) 2022 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals • Public Health Goals – concentration “at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects will occur”
• Adverse health risk of one person in one million drinking water daily for 70 years
• Not water quality standards and not required to be met by any public water systems
• The City’s water supply complies with all state and
federal drinking water regulations

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1941 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) 2022 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals Staff Recommended Action: Adopt the 2022 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 1942 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5202 : 2022 Public Health Goal Report) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 11, 2022
Agenda Item: 14.A
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Declare the City-owned properties located at 1855 Main Street (APN 4290-013- 901), 1636 5th Street (APNs 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290-011-905) and Expo Line Parking Lot (APN 4290-011-909) as “surplus land” within the meaning of the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”);

2. Adopt a Resolution declaring the City-owned properties at 1855 Main Street (APN 4290-013-901) (“Civic Auditorium”), 1636 5th Street (APNs 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290-011-905) (“Apple Building”) and Expo Line Parking Lot (APN 4290-011-909) as surplus lands, if required; and authorize the City Manager or designee to take implementing actions necessary to comply with the SLA; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to initiate lease negotiations for the City’s existing commercial buildings without complying with the noticing procedures under the SLA if the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines that the SLA does not apply to proposed leasing of existing non-residential buildings without demolition.

Summary
The California Surplus Land Act (Government Code 54220 et seq.) (the “SLA”) governs the disposition of local agency-owned properties. Effective January 1, 2020, the SLA requires local agencies, including the City of Santa Monica, to prioritize affordable housing development opportunities before proceeding with any proposed sale or lease of surplus lands. “Local agency” means every city, whether organized under general law or by charter, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class, empowered to acquire and hold real property. Under the SLA, local

14.A
Packet Pg. 1943
2 of 7
agency-owned properties must be declared “surplus” or “exempt surplus” by the legislative body of the local agency and supported by written findings. To ensure compliance with the SLA, Council is requested to adopt a resolution (Attachment A) declaring the following City-owned properties as surplus land, subject to determination by the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) that the SLA does not apply to the leasing of existing non-residential buildings without demolition:
• Civic Auditorium at 1855 Main Street (APN: 4290-013-901) • Apple Building at 1636 5th Street (APN: 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290-011- 905) and
• Expo Line Parking Lot (APN 4290-011-909)
Discussion
The SLA was enacted pursuant to Assembly Bills (AB) 1486 and 1255. The SLA requires local agencies to formally declare publicly owned properties (that are no longer necessary for the local agency’s use) as surplus land or exempt surplus land before beginning the disposition process. Prior to the City’s ability to enter into a lease or license agreement for 5 years or longer, the City must comply with the SLA process.

Under the SLA, for properties declared as surplus land, local agencies must follow a statutory noticing and negotiation period with certain designated entities, including eligible housing sponsors defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). A Notice of Availability (NOA) is sent to the Eligible Entities (i.e., other public agencies and prospective affordable housing developers) that have registered with the State for specified uses, including affordable housing, parks and recreation, and schools. If an Eligible Entity is interested in the purchase or lease of the surplus land, the entity must submit in writing to the City its Notice of Intent (NOI) to purchase or lease the land within 60 days after receipt of the City’s NOA to dispose of the land.

If the City receives an NOI from any Eligible Entities, the SLA mandates a 90-day negotiation period with any designated entities that submit timely offers. If the City

14.A
Packet Pg. 1944
3 of 7
does not receive any NOI or the negotiations with an Eligible Entity does not result in a disposition, the local agency may negotiate with any other developers or interested parties for the disposition of the surplus land.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development has provided guidance to City staff that the SLA may not apply when a local government agency leases an existing non-residential building that would not entail demolition of the building as part of the lease. As a result, City staff has asked HCD to provide a written determination regarding proposals for long term commercial leases of existing buildings if the proposed renovations do not entail “demolition” within the meaning of Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.25.030 HCD. If HCD determines that these types of commercial leases and associated renovations are not subject to the SLA, then staff will bring these proposals to Council as negotiations proceed without proceeding with the noticing procedures under the SLA.

At its meeting on March 23, 2021, Council authorized the designation of the Apple Building as surplus land, but staff did not proceed with noticing under the SLA since the City had no immediate plans to lease the building. Recently, the City’s Economic Development Division (“EDD”) has received inquiries or proposals regarding the leasing of the Civic Auditorium and the Apple Building. EDD also anticipates future interest in redeveloping the portions of the Expo Line Parking Lot as part of a larger future redevelopment opportunity site.
1855 Main Street (Civic Auditorium Building); APN: 4290-013-901; Size: 3.7 acres The Civic Auditorium, owned by the City of Santa Monica, is largely in its original condition as constructed in 1958. Zoned as a recreational use under the City’s Civic Center Specific Plan, the Civic Auditorium is comprised of 27,000 square feet on the main floor with a capacity for up to 3,000 seated and 3,500 standing. The East Wing of the Civic Auditorium also provides 4,189 square feet and seating capacity of 500. In 2002, the City designated the Civic Auditorium as a City landmark to preserve key historic features such as the exterior façade and certain interior design elements such

14.A
Packet Pg. 1945
4 of 7
as the configuration of the lobby, the two original staircases, the volume of the Main Hall space and several other elements noted in the landmark designation.

The City’s former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) originally prioritized $51.9 million to fund significant seismic improvements and ADA upgrades to the Civic Auditorium. In March 2009, Council approved a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to engage a public private partnership to redevelop the Civic Auditorium. While there was high level of interest, the City received only one response. The Nederlander Organization submitted a proposal to renovate, program, and manage the Civic Auditorium, however, negotiations did not move forward due to the elimination of the RDA in 2011. As redevelopment funds were no longer available and operating the Civic Auditorium without the required seismic and ADA improvements was risky, the Civic Auditorium formally closed on June 30, 2013. Until 2020, the East Wing was used periodically to host community meetings, filming and staging but fully shuttered prior to COVID due to lack of budget and staffing
In December 2017, City staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals for a public private partnership to redevelop the Civic Auditorium. The RFP was well received however given the significant scope of work and investments the City received only one proposal. The proposal came from an experienced development team with an entertainment and sports venue background. Negotiations with the potential developer concluded in late 2019 due to project feasibility concerns and City participation constraints. Since then, renovation plans for this property have been put on hold due to lack of City funding.

The City has started to receive renewed interest in the Civic Auditorium from prospective commercial operators. Staff now seeks designation of the Civic Auditorium as surplus land or proceeding directly with negotiations if HCD confirms that the longterm leasing of the existing facility with only interior tenant improvements is not subject to the SLA.

14.A
Packet Pg. 1946
5 of 7
1635 5th Street (Parking Lot 29); APNs: 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290-011-905; Size: 0.32 acres
At its meeting on March 23, 2021, Council adopted a resolution to declare the Cityowned property at 1635 5th Street (Apple Building) as surplus land. The parcels associated with the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 parcels were acquired to implement the Exposition 4th Street Light Rail Terminus Station. Council authorized the purchase of the parcels at its October 24, 2006 meeting.

The Apple Building is currently vacant. Parking Lot 29, which is adjacent to the Apple Building, has an existing license agreement with EVgo Services, LLC (“EVgo”) for a 10-year term that will expire on July 13, 2031. There are currently no immediate plans for a longstanding redevelopment project at the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 due to lack of funding, however, the City may pursue short-term interim uses until a viable long-term redevelopment opportunity is available.

Expo Line Parking Lot; APN:4290-011-909; Size: 1.09 acres This property was acquired along with the purchase of the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 parcels as part of a land assemblage to facilitate the construction of Expo Terminus Station. Several of the parcels acquired by the City’s former Redevelopment Agency were sold to Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The City retained the Expo Line Parking Lot parcel to facilitate future transit-oriented development opportunities prioritizing affordable housing. As stated for the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 there are currently no immediate plans to redevelop this property.

Declaring this property as surplus lands now enables the City to pursue interim uses as opportunities arise.

Future Actions
Assuming these properties are designated as surplus lands, staff will proceed with noticing procedures under the SLA prior to commencing lease negotiations for commercial uses of these properties, unless HCD determines that leasing of existing non-residential buildings without demolition is not subject to the SLA. An example of the

14.A
Packet Pg. 1947
6 of 7
City's draft Notice of Availability (NOA) cover letter is provided as Attachment B.

Entities and organizations registered as interested developers would receive copy of the notice and would have 60 days to respond from the date of the NOA. If HCD determines that the leasing of the existing Civic Auditorium and Apple Building without demolition are not subject to the SLA, then staff will commence negotiations and return to Council for direction as to specific lease terms.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
10/24/2006 Authorization to Acquire Properties at 1632-1636 5th Street 3/23/2021 Adoption of a Resolution of Inventory of City-Owned Properties Subject to the Surplus Lands Act
Environmental Statement
The City has determined that the designation of this property as surplus does not have the potential for creating a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Adoption of the resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as no development is authorized by this resolution and any future disposition will require separate environmental analysis if and when the details of such disposition are known.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no immediate financial impacts or budget actions necessary because of the recommended actions. An analysis of the specific financial impacts for each property will be presented when staff returns with interim or long-term disposition proposals for Council consideration.

14.A
Packet Pg. 1948
7 of 7
Prepared By: Nia Tang, Senior Development Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 2006 10.24 Authorization to Acquire Properties at 1632-1636 5th Street (Web Link)
B. 2021 3.23 Adoption of a Resolution of Inventory of City-Owned Properties Subject to the Surplus Lands Act (Web Link)
C. Attachment A - SLA Resolution (10.11.2022 CC)
D. Attachment B - SLA Notice of Availability_Cover Letter (DRAFT) E. PowerPoint Presentation

14.A
Packet Pg. 1949
1 City Council Meeting: October 11, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____(CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING PURSUANT TO THE SURPLUS LAND ACT THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED AT 1855 MAIN STREET, 1636 5th STREET, AND THE EXPO LINE PARKING LOT IS SURPLUS LAND NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY’S USE; FINDING THAT SUCH

DECLARATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located at 1855 Main Street (the “1855 Main Street Parcel”), 1636 5
th Street (the “Parking Lot 29”), and the EXPO Line Terminus Parking Lot, in the City of Santa Monica, and described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part of hereof (collectively, the “City Owned Properties”); and WHEREAS, under the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code Sections 54220-54233) (the “SLA”), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City’s use; land must be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare the City Owned Properties as surplus land and not necessary for the City’s use; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the City Owned Properties be treated as surplus land within the meaning of the SLA, to the extent required by the SLA; and WHEREAS, the accompanying staff report provides supporting information upon

14.A.c
Packet Pg. 1950 Attachment: Attachment A - SLA Resolution (10.11.2022 CC) [Revision 2] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties (30 2 which the declaration and findings set forth in this Resolution are based; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that the City Owned Properties are surplus lands and not necessary for the City’s use.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby declares that the City Owned Properties be treated as surplus land within the meaning of the SLA, to the extent required by the SLA.

SECTION 4. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). City staff has determined that the designation of the City Owned Properties as surplus land does not have the potential for creating a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) because it is not a project as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Adoption of the Resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. If and when the property is sold or leased to a purchaser and that purchaser proposes a use for the property that requires a discretionary permit and CEQA review, that future use and project will be analyzed at the appropriate time in accordance with CEQA.

SECTION 5. The City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to submit the report of declared surplus land and exempt surplus land as part of the Annual Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conformance with state law, and file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines

14.A.c
Packet Pg. 1951 Attachment: Attachment A - SLA Resolution (10.11.2022 CC) [Revision 2] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties (30 3 Section 15062.

SECTION 6. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to do all things which are deemed necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken are hereby ratified and confirmed.

Such actions include negotiating in good faith in accordance with the requirements of the SLA with any of the authorized entities that submit a written notice of interest to purchase or lease the property in compliance with the SLA.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

14.A.c
Packet Pg. 1952 Attachment: Attachment A - SLA Resolution (10.11.2022 CC) [Revision 2] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties (30 EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
1855 Main Street (Civic Auditorium); APN: 4290-013-901; Size in Acres: 3.7 LOT COM AT MOST E COR OF LOT 27 BLK 3 BANDINI TRACT TH NW ON SW LINE OF 20 FT ALLEY TO SE LINE OF LAND DESC IN DOC NO 5186 12-14-62 TO L A CO TH SW ON SD SE LINE TO W LINE OF LOT 15 BLK 3 SD TR TH S THEREON TO NE LINE OF 3RD ST TH SE AND FOLLOWING SD ST TO E LINE OF MAIN ST TH S

THEREON AND NE ON NW LINE OF PICO BLVD TO BEG PART OF VAC STS AND ALLEY AND PART OF LOT 15 AND ALL OF LOTS 16, ...SEE ASSESSOR MAPBOOK FOR MISSING PORTION... JEPSON TR LOT
1635 5th Street (Parking Lot 29); APNs: 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290-011-905; Size: .32 acres
4290-011-903: TR=974 EX OF ST AND ALLEY LOT 17
4290-011-904: TR=974 EX OF ST AND ALLEY LOT 18
4290-011-905: TR=974 EX OF ALLEY LOT 19
Expo Terminus Line Parking Lot; APN:4290-011-909; Size: 1.09 acres TR=15603 FOR DESC SEE ASSESSOR'S MAPS POR OF LOT 1

14.A.c
Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: Attachment A - SLA Resolution (10.11.2022 CC) [Revision 2] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties (30

Economic Development Division
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 12
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel (310) 458-2201
Date --- 2022
To All Interested Parties:

RE: Notice of Availability/Offer to Lease Surplus Property In 2019, the State took several actions to make public lands available for affordable housing development, including modifications to the Surplus Land Act. The Surplus Land Act requires that prior to the disposition of land, unless an exemption applies, cities must provide notice to affordable housing developers, and in some cases public agencies that operate open space lands, that a property is potentially available for development. The Notice of Availability describes the location, land use and zoning designations, conditions of the property, and any development constraints that impact the property.

Within the Act, surplus land is defined as property no longer needed for an agency’s direct use. Additionally, the new Surplus Land Act regulations expanded the definition of disposition to include leases of City-owned property.

As required by Government Code Section 54220 of the State of California, the City of Santa Monica is providing notification that the City Council of the City of Santa Monica has determined that properties located at 1855 Main Street (APN 4290-013-901) and 1636 5th Street (APN 4290-011-906, 4290-011-905, 4290-011-904, 4290-011-903 and 4290-011-909), are no longer required for municipal purposes and has declared by resolution that these properties are eligible as surplus. The subject property at 1855 Main Street has a current land use designation of Institutional/Public Lands/Open Space, and a Zoning classification of Civic and Recreational. Allowed uses include the following:
those that are recreational in nature including cultural, sports and community/civic uses.

The subject properties at 1636 5th Street have a current land use designation of Downtown Core Commercial, and Zoning classification of Transit Adjacent. Allowed uses include the following: transit-oriented developments with office and residential. 1855 Main Street (Civic Auditorium Building); APN: 4290-013-901; Size: 3.7 acres The Civic Auditorium is largely in its original condition as constructed in 1958. Zoned as a recreational use under the City’s Civic Center Specific Plan, the Civic Auditorium is comprised of 27,000 square feet on the main floor with a capacity for up to 3,000 seated and 3,500 standing. The East Wing of the Civic Auditorium also provides 4,189 square feet and seating capacity of 500. In 2002, the City designated the Civic Auditorium as a City landmark to preserve key historic features such as the exterior façade and certain interior design elements such as the configuration of the lobby, the two original

14.A.d
Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: Attachment B - SLA Notice of Availability_Cover Letter (DRAFT) [Revision 1] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus

staircases, the volume of the Main Hall space and several other elements noted in the landmark designation.

The Civic Auditorium needs significant seismic improvements and ADA upgrades. Due to lack of funding to make these improvements, the Civic Auditorium formally closed on June 30, 2013. Until 2020, the East Wing was used periodically to host community meetings, filming and staging but fully shuttered prior to COVID due to lack of budget and staffing. This is interested in long-term leasing of the existing Civic Auditorium and East Wing with a tenant who is able to finance the seismic and ADA upgrades for these buildings along with interior tenant improvement upgrades. 1635 5th Street; APNs: 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290-011-905; 4290-011-905; Size: 0.52 acres
The parcels associated with 1635 5th Street are located within the City’s Transit Adjacent Zone, which roughly covers the area within a two-and-a-half-block radius from the Light Rail Station at the intersection of 4th Street and Colorado Avenue.

At its meeting on March 23, 2021, Council adopted a resolution to declare the City-owned property at 1635 5th Street (Apple Building) as surplus land. The 4-story office building is comprised of 17,000 square feet of space over three floors, including two levels of gated parking (43 spaces) on ground level and subterranean. It is currently vacant and requires ADA and Building Code upgrades. Parking Lot 29, which is adjacent to the Apple Building, is a City-operated surface parking lot and has an existing license agreement with EVgo Services, LLC (“EVgo”) for 12 electrical vehicle charging stations. The Agreement is for a 10-year term that will expire on July 13, 2031. There are currently no immediate plans for a longstanding redevelopment project at the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 due to lack of funding, however, the City may pursue short-term interim uses until a viable longterm redevelopment opportunity is available.

Expo Line Parking Lot; APN:4290-011-909; Size: 1.09 acres This property was acquired along with the purchase of the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 parcels as part of a land assemblage to facilitate the construction of Expo Terminus Station. This parcel is located behind the Apple Building and fronts on 4th Street. Several of the parcels acquired by the City’s former Redevelopment Agency were sold to Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The City retained the Expo Line Parking lot parcel to facilitate future transit-oriented development opportunities prioritizing affordable housing. As stated for the Apple Building and Parking Lot 29 there are currently no immediate plans to redevelop this property. The site currently operates as a “Kiss + Ride” drop-off and pick-up location for transit riders. The site is currently underutilized as a transit amenity due to location and redevelopment plans are on hold due to lack of funding. The City may pursue short-term interim uses until a viable long-term redevelopment opportunity is available.

14.A.d
Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: Attachment B - SLA Notice of Availability_Cover Letter (DRAFT) [Revision 1] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus

In accordance with Government Code Section 54222, you have sixty (60) days from the date this offer was sent via certified mail or electronic mail to notify the City your interest in leasing the property. However, this offer shall not obligate the City to lease the property to you. Instead, the City would enter into at least ninety (90) days of negotiations with you pursuant to Government Code Section 54223. If no agreement is reached on lease terms, the City may market the property to the general public.

As required by Government Code Section 54227, if the City receives more than one letter of interest during this 60-day period, it will give first priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households. If more than one such proposal is received, priority will be given to the proposal with the greatest number of affordable units. If more than one proposal specifies the same number of affordable units, priority will be given to the proposal that has the lowest average affordability level.

Entities proposing to submit a letter of interest are advised to review the requirements set forth in the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220-54234). In the event your agency or company is interested in purchasing or leasing the City-owned properties for an authorized purpose under the Act, you must notify the City of your interest within sixty (60) days of the date this Notice of Availability has been sent. Written notice must be sent, if at all, to, and must be received by Ms. Nia Tang within said 60-day period at the following address:

Ms. Nia Tang, Senior Development Analyst
Community Development Department, Economic Development Division 1685 Main Steet, Mail Stop 12
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
310.458.2201
The receipt of an email or notice by regular mail by way of the United States Postal Service is acceptable. If by regular mail, we suggest that you sent it via certified mail with return receipt requested.

If you have any questions regarding the development sites, you may contact Ms. Nia Tang at the email or telephone referenced above.

.

14.A.d
Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: Attachment B - SLA Notice of Availability_Cover Letter (DRAFT) [Revision 1] (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus California Surplus
Land Act
• Governs the sale or lease of City-owned
properties
• Assembly Bill (AB) 1486 became effective
January 1, 2020
• Goal: to promote and prioritize
development of affordable housing
• Requires local agency to formally declare
publicly owned properties no longer
necessary for local agency’s use as
“surplus” or “exempt surplus” before
initiating a lease or sale.

14.A.e
Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus 1855 Main
Street • City-owned Community
Recreation Facility (27,000 sf)
• Parcel Size = 3.7 acres • Part of the Civic Center Specific Plan
• “Mothballed” since June 2013 • “Surplus" status

14.A.e
Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus 1636 5th Street
• City-owned parking lot
• Parcel Size = 0.32 acres • Acquired as part of land assemblage for Expo Light Rail Station
• Evgo Services License through July 13, 2031 • “Surplus” status

14.A.e
Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Expo Line
Parking Lot • City-owned parking lot • Parcel Size = 1.09 acres • Acquired as part of land assemblage for Expo Light Rail
Station
• “Surplus” status

14.A.e
Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Surplus Land Act
Process
• Notice of Availability (NOA). Sent to the
Eligible Entities registered with the State
for specified uses, including affordable
housing, parks and recreation, and
schools.
• Notice of Intent (NOI). Eligible Entities
have 60 days after receipt of the City’s
NOA to submit proposal to purchase or
lease the property.
• The SLA mandates a 90-day negotiation
period with any designated entities that
submit timely offers.

14.A.e
Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Recommended
Actions
• Declare the City-owned properties located at
1855 Main Street, 1636 5th Street and Expo
Line Parking Lot as “surplus land”
• Adopt the Resolution declaring the Cityowned properties at 1855 Main Street 1636 5th Street and Expo Line Parking Lot as
surplus lands
• Authorize the City Manager or designee to
take implementing actions necessary to
comply with the SLA

14.A.e
Packet Pg. 1962 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5246 : Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 11, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Disabilities Commission for a term ending on 06/30/2025
Prepared By: Elizabeth De La Barra, Staff Assistant III Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List_Disabilities Commission

16.A
Packet Pg. 1963
Revised 9/19/22 at 12:30pm
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Disabilities Commission
Name Application Date
Matthew B. Sussman 8/22/2022
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 0
*Identified person with a disability
*Incumbents listed in red

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1964 Attachment: Applicant List_Disabilities Commission (5352 : 16.A. Appointment: Disabilities Commission (5 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 11, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request by Councilmember De la Torre that: 1) The City Attorney commit to actively monitor City Council meetings for City Council adherence to Robert's Rules of Order as required by Res 11360 and intervene as often as necessary to ensure that adherence, in order to facilitate effective, efficient, and fair City Council meetings; 2) The City Manager or City Attorney arrange for all Councilmembers to receive a crash course of training in Robert's Rules of Order by a professional parliamentarian within 30 days, in a public forum that is broadcast live by video and remains available for future viewing, so everyone—including the public and current and future city officials—can learn from it.

Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 1965
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elaine Golden-Gealer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 10:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Support 16B – Roberts Rules training asap!

EXTERNAL
----------------------------------------------
Support 16B – Roberts Rules training asap!
----------------------------------------------
I support a crash course by a professional parliamentarian for all Santa Monica Council Members within 30 days. The City Attorney should assist the Council regarding Roberts Rules until then.

The meetings need to improve and become more efficient. Sometimes it is hard to tell what the Council is voting on. Some Councilmembers dominate the discussion, others hardly say anything. It does not seem democratic.

Sincerely,
Elaine Golden-Gealer
Item 16.B
10/11/22
1 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1966 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: David Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 10:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Douglas Sloan
Subject: YES to 16:B, Parliamentary Procedure training within 30 days

EXTERNAL
Hello City Manager White and City Council Members,
It is imperative that the Council Members undergo professional training in the Parliamentary Procedure so that our Council meetings begin to be run as they are supposed to.

I have seen a lot of abuse of power by the Mayor in the past two years, but the Council Members have done nothing to stop her.

All Council Members need to receive training so that they know what the proper procedure is and how to stand up for their rights when on the dais.

Hire a professional Roberts Rules instructor to conduct the training, including tips on how to keep the meetings short.

Do not delay this training, it is long overdue.

Thank you for considering my input.

David Morris
Santa Monica resident
Item 16.B
10/11/22
2 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1967 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Item 16-B SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
Request by Councilmember De la Torre that: 1) The City Attorney commit to actively monitor City Council meetings for City Council adherence to Robert's Rules of Order as required by Res 11360 and intervene as often as necessary to ensure that adherence, in order to facilitate effective, efficient, and fair City Council meetings; 2) The City Manager or City Attorney arrange for all Councilmembers to receive a crash course of training in Robert's Rules of Order by a professional parliamentarian within 30 days, in a public forum that is broadcast live by video and remains available for future viewing, so everyone—including the public and current and future city officials—can learn from it.

The public deserves a well run City Government.

Every effort should be made, without delay, to ensure that our public meetings run effectively, efficiently and fairly.

Who would argue with that?
Vote to support this item.

Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."  ‐ Albert Einstein Item 16.B
10/11/22
3 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1968 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected] Subject: Support for CC item 11B

EXTERNAL
Hello City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for item 11B, providing immediate oversight and a professionally led crash course in parliamentary procedure for the City Council within thirty days.

Regular violations of Robert’s Rules by the presiding officer and ignorance of the rules by City Councilmembers are a dangerous combination that have resulted in regularly unclear, inefficient, and undemocratic City Council meetings. This means city business is also regularly being handled unclearly, inefficiently, and undemocratically.

Please demonstrate your commitment to good governance tonight by voting to support both elements of item 16B. The City Council requires immediate, professional parliamentary procedural training and ongoing oversight to ensure adherence as required by city law.

Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.

Best wishes,
Michelle Gray
Item 16.B
10/11/22
4 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1969 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan; David White
Cc: Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Denise Anderson-Warren; Susan Cola; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: SUPPORT --> 16-B --> Roberts Rules training by a parliamentarian within 30 days

EXTERNAL
This is to urge the Council to approve the Roberts Rules training by a professional parliamentarian within 30 days as requested by Councilmember de la Torre.

Considering the ongoing grave violations of parliamentary procedure (most of them related to the abuse of power by the presiding officer), and the resulting biased, undemocratic and less than transparent Council meetings, there is an urgent need for such training.

To ensure the highest level of the training, it should be performed by a professional, certified parliamentarian rather than the City Attorney or his staff.

My suggestion is that the training should have two added elements on top of the basic crash course:
- an emphasis on how to preserve the rights of each individual assembly member, and - rules that help keep the meetings short.

The City Attorney should monitor the Council meetings for substantial adherence to Roberts Rules, in accordance with Council Resolution 11360, which reads:
"RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RULE 1. RULES OF ORDER.

Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the City Charter, the Municipal Code, or applicable provisions of state law, the procedures of the City Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Roberts Rules of Order [emphasis added]." Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 16.B
10/11/22
5 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1970 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: 10/11/2022 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mayor Himmelrich and City Council:

I am the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission but I am submitting this public comment on my own behalf and not on the behalf of the Housing Commission.

I am 1000% in support of agenda Item 16B! The City Council has had a longtime problem with Council members not being able to make proper motions, are interrupted while they have the floor, and it has been deliberate actions by Mayor Himmelrich who deliberately violates Robert's Rules of Order and acts in contradiction to the training that the City provides for all persons in leadership roles on Boards and Commissions. I assume the Mayor has the same training she attends or at least the same rules she must follow as the rest of the leadership in the City does. To not allow the other Council members to make their motions is not only silencing their voices, it is eliminating the democratic process especially after there has been a second on the motion. These acts have happened repeatedly over the years and it must stop! It appears that there is a lack of order and also solid acumen of parliamentary procedures and it must be remedied immediately. The City Council, all Boards and Commissions, and the public could greatly benefit from a certified parliamentarian providing a complete overview of Robert's Rules of Order. There should be no reason that anyone sitting on the diasis should not vote in favor to the following:

The City Manager or City Attorney arrange for all Councilmembers to receive a crash course of training in Robert's Rules of Order by a professional parliamentarian within 30 days, in a public forum that is broadcast live by video and remains available for future viewing, so everyone—including the public and current and future city officials—can learn from it.

To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 16.B
10/11/22
6 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1971 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Louis <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock
Subject: 16-B: support Robert's Rules of Order training for City Council and for general public education Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of Robert’s Rules of Order training for City Council members.

The Co-Intelligence Institute describes its notable strengths as follows:
“Robert's Rules is efficient at getting through an agenda. It offers order and predictability. People can understand how to operate the system by studying the rules, and a group can revise its procedures by discussing them. Its many checks and balances can provide an enormous degree of protection against demagoguery, impulsivity and laziness. Robert's Rules gives people shared language, and shared points of reference with which to communicate thoughtfully and systematically about their process. Historically, it demystified democratic decision-making for the general public, permitting — for the first time — democratic control of the process itself, expanding the possibilities for selfgovernance.” (https://www.co-intelligence.org/I-comparisonRR-CC-DF.html) Thank you for considering my public input.

Michael Louis
Item 16.B
10/11/22
7 of 7 Item 16.B
10/11/22

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1972 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5415 : de la Torre Item: Training & Adherence in Roberts Rules of Order) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 11, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember De la Torre that the City Council authorize use of his travel funds to attend the Sister Cities International US-Mexico Mayors’ Community Summit from October 11-13 2022 in San Diego, CA and Tijuana, Mexico
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.C
Packet Pg. 1973