Santa Monica City Council
March 25, 2025

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas) Building Loan Agreement, the Performance Bond, or other form of Assurance of Completion, all of which documents will be entered into pursuant to the Secretary's endorsement of the mortgage note under the terms of the Commitment of Insurance of Advances. Nothing in the Agreement shall be deemed in any way to impair the rights of the Secretary, or the holder of any mortgage, under the terms of said documents.

4. Any right of reentry shall be subject and subordinate to the Supplemental Agreement entered into between the California Housing Finance Agency and Developer that is in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.

5. No agreement entered into between the City and the Developer subsequent to the date of this Amendment shall in any way be deemed to supersede or modify this Amendment without the prior written approval of the Secretary.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have signed this Amendment as of the dates set opposite their signatures.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
, 1982
SE.pf. 11 , 1982
City of Santa Monica
Deve 1 oper:

Ocean Park Villas, a limited partnership
,,~-<'L

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

EXHIBIT A
- :......__ - i

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
'T'hi.s Agreement is made by and between • •
____ -.-,-.-------"------ 1 ( "Deve 1 ope r" ) and the -C-a---c-1-i_f_orni a Housing Finance Agency ("Agency") as of this 7th clay of September, 1982.

Recitals
A. Agency has conditionally committed to provide
construction loan and permanent mortgage financing through the issuance of its Rental Housing Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Loans) 1982 Series A (the "Bonds") for a housing development (the "Development") to be built and managed by Developer.

The Development is generally described_ as
(name) consisting of approxirna~e:ly ______ dwelling units located in the .. , :·
( City/County) ' further de s_c_r_,i,-::b--'e'--d~---=-i-n---=F,=-x..,,.h-i~"b-1.--:-. t-...,,,,---,-A..., 11 ......... h_e_r_e_t_o __ --- B. Construction loan advances by the Agency to
finance the Development will be insured by the Federal
Housing Administration ("FHA") pursuant to Section 220, 22l(d)(3) or 22l(d)(4) of the National Housing Act, as
amended.

C. This Agreement is part of that certain
Development Loan Commitment between Developer and Agency dated___ _ __ , 1982, incorporated by reference herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in order to provide further
as~urances to Agency as a lender of the financial integrity of the Development, and to insure the timely payment by Developer of principal and interest on th_e Agency's loan ("Loan") to finance the Development,. and for the Agency to be in a position to comply with FHA's requirements imposed on FHA mortgagees, the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing·and Home Finance Act, as amended, ("Acttl) and the Mortgage Subsidy Bond Tax Act of 1980, as·amended, the parties hereto agree as follows:

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas) ------llililliiiilo;ioililliiiWliiliiiai,,"-itilliiii...,..iia.-oii111>1;iia.iiioi>i.illii""'.aiiii"~lill· lilrnlilli--iroioi,o· •··iilii•'--'-"------iliil"...i· a-lilllli-iililtllitrliil" tililail -lrlll-E71111Di11MlilFIIIISW:tlMiil·ttlliilMttliil~ bW£t:illlffli8-ffllllll!ft ___________ _ ;1,.11 rnsrtnlf•w·ffftife'r1 >N;;p .. ·re hi·--~-➔ ··1t6' • a:-01O· ·rs t •• ' ., I
(

1. Developer agrees to execute in ·a timely
manner any extensions of the "Housing Assistance
_fayments Contract'1 referred to in paragraph l(c) of the Vevelopment Loan Commitment. •

2. Any impounds for taxes, hazard insurance,
mortgage insurance, reserves for replacement, or any
other accounts established under the FHA loan documents for the Development shall be held and maintained by the Agency and disbursed upon the request or with the
approval of FHA by the Agency for the purposes for which such accounts were established.

3. Agency shall be maintained as a loss
payee or coinsured on any policy of fire, casualty,
construction or liability insurance obtained or
maintained by the Developer in connection with the
construction and management of the Development.

4. Agency shall have the right to inspect
the buildings (including the interior units thereof)
grounds, books and records, and any financial records
maintained for the Development, upon request of the
Agency, during normal business hours.

5. Developer shall provide Agency with
copies of the following documen-ts at such time as they are furnished to or received from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and/or FHA:
a. Annual audited financial statements in a
format approved by HUD.
b. HUD annual management reviews of the
project.
c. HUD's approval of all rent increases.

6. During the first three years of the
Development's operations, Developer agrees to maintain
with the Agency, in cash or cash equivalent, an
operating deficit escrow meeting the terms set forth in the Agency's Development Loan Commitment.

7. The Developer covenants and agrees with
the Agency that not less than 20 percent of the total
number of units in the Development shall be for
occupancy on a pri_ori ty basis by lower-income
households, as defined in Section S0079.S of the Act at affordable rents, as defined by the Act, for a period of 2 O40024-0002-068-0393j 08/24/82

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas) ( (
not less than 20 years f1·om the date the Loan is made.

The provisions of this paragraph 7 shall be binding upon all successors in interest of the Developer. - ·.:::.::

8. The-Developer covenants with respect to . the Development that:
a. At all times during a twenty-year period,
commencing with the date the Development is first
available for occupancy, the Developer will take
all necessary actions to ensure that 100 percent of
the dwelling units in the Development are rented
and occupied, or available for rental by, persons
and families other than the owner of the
Development or an individual related to such owner
who are members of the general public, and at least
20 percent of the dwelling units in the Development
are occupied by persons and families of low or
moderate income within the meaning of Section
l67(k)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
as amended (referred to herein as "persons and
families of low or moderate income" or "persons or
families of low or moderate income"). The status
of a tenant as "the owner of the Development or en
individual related to such owner" shall be
determined in accordance with Section 103(b)(4)(A)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and any
proposed, temporary or final regulations
promulgated thereunder applicable to the
Development. For the purpose of compliance with
this paragraph, tenants who qualify as persons or
families of low or moderate income at the
commencement of their tenancy shall be deemed to be
persons or families of low or moderate income for
the duration of their tenancy, and vacant units as
to which the immediately preceding tenants were
persons or families of low or moderate income shall
be deemed to be occupied by persons or families of
low or moderate income so long as they remain
available for rent by persons and families of low
or moderate income. In the event such a vacant
unit remains vacant for _more than thirty (30) days,
and the number of dwelling units occupied·by
persons and families of low or moderate income
(excluding vacant units) constitutes less than 20%
of the units in the Development, the Developer
shall make such vacant unit available to persons
and families of low or moderate income at annual
rentals not -exceeding 30% of the low or moderate
income level, as determined pursuant to Section
167(k)(3)(B) of the- Internal Revenue -Code of 1954,
as amended.
3 040024-0002-068-0393j 08/24/82

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas) (
b. The Developer and the Agency shall at all
times do and perform all acts and things permitted
by law and necessary or desirable in order to
assure that interest paid by the Agency on the
Bonds of the Agency the proceeds of which are being
used to make the Loan shall, for the purposes of
·• Federal income taxes and State of California
personal income taxes, be exempt from all in=ome
taxation under any valid provision of law, except
that the Developer and the Agency shall r.ot be in
violation of this covenant as a result of any Bond
being held by a person who, within the meaning of
Section 103(b)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended, is a "substantial user" of the
facilities with respect to which the proceeds of
the lbnds were used or is a "related person" within
the meaning of Section 103(b)(6)(C) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.

9. In the event that the Developer transfers
title or the rights of possession and control of the
Development to·a third party, the Developer hereby
covenants and agrees to include provisions, in a form
substantially similar to Exhibit B hereto, in all
documents involved with such transfer which require the acquiring party, as well as any successors in interest
to such party, to assume the obligations of the
Developer imposed by paragraph 8 ·of this Agreement. In the event that such provisions are not included in any
such document, such provisions shall be deemed to be
included in such document. The Agency is a third party
beneficiary of any transfer document provisions required pursuant to this Section with the right to enforce such provisions against any third party transferee of the
Development. The Developer hereby assigns to the Agency any and all rights that it may have to enforce against
third party transferees those transfer document
provisions required pursuant to this Section.

10. Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Agreement, if an involuntary loss or the
substantial destruction of the Development as a result
of unforeseen events such as fire, seizure, requisition, foreclosure or condemnation occurs which would render
compliance with the provisions of Sections 7 through 9
of this Agreement unnecessary to preserve the exemption from federal income taxes of interest on the Bonds and
to comply with the provisions of the Act, and the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or his
successor has been assigned the loan relating to the
Development or holds title to the Development, said
4 040024-0002-068-0393j 08/24/82

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas) (
Secretary shall not be bound by the covenants,
co-bdi tions and restrictions of Sections 7 througr .. 9 of this Agreement.

DEVELOPER
b~
CALIFORNIA Housrl\11,j -yr~AWcc-~
AGENCY ~
byH~
Development Officer
5 040024-0002-06B-0393j OB/24/82
. ·, ..

4.D.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Land Sale Agreement - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Grant Deed - Ocean Park Villas (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas)

4.D.c
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Third Amendment to Grant Deed (6949 : Ocean Park Villas) 1 March 2025
Updated Summary of Options for Preservation
Ocean Park Villas

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean

UPDATED OPTIONS
Following the City Council closed session discussion on August 27, 2024, G&K provided two updated options. HR&A modeled these options along with an updated version of the option selected by the City Council.

1. New Option 1: Extension with G&K. City receives 60% of net cash flow each year.

2. New Option 2: Extension with G&K. City receives an upfront payment of $250K and 58% of net cash flow each year.

3. Revised Option 3 (City Council selection): City purchases the two properties, transfers the HAP contract, and negotiates a cash flow split with a to-beselected non-profit operator. (The amended version of Option 3 is discussed on slide #4).
2 4.D.d
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean 3| HR&A Advisors Ocean Park Villas
G&K’s updated cash flow includes in-unit repairs, a decrease in the property tax escalation to 2% from 3%. Below the line, G&K also removed its preferred return of $430K per year and a $27K asset management fee.

UPDATED G&K CASH FLOW SUMMARY
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Net Revenue $1,105,330 $1,139,478 $1,168,002 $1,197,241 $1,227,211 $1,257,932 $1,289,422 Operating
Expenses ($320,094) ($329,824) ($339,624) ($349,718) ($360,114) ($370,822) ($381,850) NOI $785,236 $809,655 $828,378 $847,522 $867,097 $887,110 $907,571 Expected Capital
Expenditures/
Repairs*
($445,794) ($232,908) ($102,648) ($114,425) ($90,241) ($101,096) ($185,937) Net Cash Flow $339,442 $576,747 $725,730 $733,097 $776,856 $786,014 $721,634 Haven Fees ($6,800) ($6,936) ($7,075) ($7,216) ($7,361) ($7,508) ($7,658) Net Cash Flow for
Distribution $332,642 $569,811 $718,655 $725,881 $769,495 $778,506 $713,977 *Estimated from G&K’s and City’s independent Property Conditions Assessments. Includes roofing upgrades, window replacement, landscaping, an upgraded laundry room, and in-unit repairs (electrical, HVAC, plumbing, flooring, appliances, and paint).

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean

UPDATES TO COUNCIL-SELECTED OPTION
Since the City Council closed session meeting on August 27, 2024, HR&A made the following changes to the Council-Selected Option:

1. Added a 10% cost increase to capital expenses to account for prevailing wages.

2. Added 9 months without cash flow to the NPV calculation to account for a more time-consuming transaction than would be required for an extension with G&K.

3. Added an estimate of $175,000 for City staff/consulting costs to implement the non-profit selection and HAP contract transfer processes.

4. Estimated the “Breakeven” cash flow split that a non-profit ground lessee would need to offer the City to match the NPV of the updated G&K offers. 4 4.D.d
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean *Estimated City cost allowances in Revised Option 3 includes 9 months without cash flow to account for all implementation steps.

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS BY OPTION
5 Description Annual Cash Flow
Percentage to City
Additional Payments to
City City Expenses
Revised Option 3
[Council selection] New Non-Profit Operator 60% - 90% (Requires Negotiation) $0
• $1.6M purchase
• $175K cost* to complete the
purchase, manage the HAP
transfer, and competitively
select a new non-profit operator
ground lessee
• 10% increase in CapEx
(prevailing wages)
New G&K Option
1 G&K Extension 60% $0 • $75K cost* to negotiate
extension of the G&K contract
New G&K Option
2 G&K Extension with
Upfront Payment 58% $250K upfront payment • $75K cost* to negotiate the extension of the G&K contract

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean 6| HR&A Advisors Ocean Park Villas

SUMMARY OF OPTION MODEING RESULTS
Description
Estimated 20-
Year Cash
Flow to City*
Net Present
Value of 20-
Year Cash Flow
Notes
Revised Option
3 [Council
selection]
City purchases both properties for $1.56M and selects a non-profit affordable housing operator to enter into a
ground lease. Compensation to be negotiated with new
operator, with City receiving about 60%-90% of the annual net cash flow.
$8.1M-$13.0M $3.6M-$6.2M
City becomes property owner; conducts
competitive selection process for a new
non-profit operator; transfers the HAP
contract; and enters into a ground lease
to manage legal and operational
responsibilities.

New G&K
Option 1
City and G&K extend the existing option by up to 20**years with a 60% City/40% G&K split of annual net cash flow $10.1M $5.4M Extends status quo, except that City
would now participate in annual cash
flow. No City legal or operational
responsibility.

New G&K
Option 2
City and G&K extend option by up to 20** years with a
58/42 split of annual net cash flow. G&K pays City $250K upfront $10.0M $5.4M
Extends status quo, except that City
would now participate in annual cash
flow and receive a one-time payment. No
City legal or operational responsibilities.
*Any future cash flow to the City must specify that funds go to the Housing Trust Fund rather than the General Fund. **All cash flow figures are estimated for a 20-year period for consistency.

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean

KEY CONCLUSIONS
• Both revised G&K options provide a higher NPV and total net cash flow benefit to the City compared to its original proposal.
• As with the previous G&K proposal, both revised G&K options provide a higher NPV and total cash flow to the City than the minimums under the Council-selected non-profit option. • The revised G&K options compare more favorably to the non-profit option than in the previous analysis because the updated analysis of the non-profit option now reflects City costs and time to manage the property purchase, HAP contract transfer, and non-profit ground lessee selection. • To earn the same NPV as the revised G&K options (including all City transaction costs), the City would need to receive at least 81% of the net cash flow from the non-profit ground lessee (i.e., 19% of the cash flow to the non-profit ground lessee).
• However, a non-profit ground lessee is unlikely to accept such terms based on initial feedback received by City staff and HR&A during interviews with a selection of non-profit developers. • Recent actions by the new Trump Administration raise uncertainties about continued funding of the HAP contract subsidy.
7 4.D.d
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean Cash Flow Distributions and NPV Calculations
8 First 7 years of 20-year cash flow shown.

Cash Flow for Distribution is lower in Option 3 due to time required to close and prevailing wage requirements.

Cash Flow to Non-Profit set to make City NPV equal the average of the City NPV under the two G&K options.

4.D.d
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Updated Summary of Options for Preservation – February 2025 (6949 : Ocean City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Healthcare Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution protecting access to gender-affirming healthcare and preventing city resources from assisting investigations into transgender, gender diverse, and intersex persons (“TGI”) and their healthcare.

Executive Summary
As a result of community concerns surrounding the President Trump’s recent TGIrelated Executive Orders, on February 25, 2025, Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution for its consideration affirming the City’s commitment to the protection of TGI persons and their right to choose to receive gender-affirming medical care. The proposed resolution reaffirms the City’s values of embracing diversity and rejecting hate and discrimination against TGI persons in our community. The proposed resolution would specifically prohibit the use of City resources and personnel to aid the federal government, or other states, in doing any of the following: blocking gender affirming health care; requiring the unlawful registration or detention of individuals; creating a database of gender-affirming activity; obligating the City through contract to perform any law enforcement activity, such as registering or detaining any individual simply because the person engaged in a gender-affirming care-related activity; or sharing any data that may contain any of this information.

Background

4.E
Packet Pg. 219
2 of 7
The first few weeks of the current federal administration have been marked by several Executive Orders that attack TGI dignity and full participation in society, and which threaten access to healthcare and gender-affirming care for TGI adults and minors, including the following:
• Executive Order 14168, signed on inauguration day January 20, 2025, declares it to be the policy of the United States to recognize only two sexes, purports to cease funding for “gender ideology,” and directs federal departments to implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents reflect the user’s sex and not gender, among other things. • Executive Order 14187, signed January 28, 2025, seeks to prevent individuals under the age of 19 years old from obtaining gender affirming care by withholding federal funding and directing agencies to take a variety of steps to end surgeries, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and other components of gender-affirming care.
• Executive Order 14190, signed January 29, 2025, threatens federal funding for educational institutions that support social transitioning for transgender youth.

Many states have also instituted policies hostile to gender-affirming healthcare.

Currently, 26 states have laws or policies banning gender affirming care. The US Supreme Court is considering Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors and is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

On the other side, California and Santa Monica have sought to expand and protect rights of TGI individuals and their access to care through legislative actions including the following:
• In 2016, the State of California passed AB 1732, enacting the most progressive restroom access policy to date, requiring all single-occupancy restrooms in businesses, government buildings and places of public accommodation to be labeled as “All Gender,” “Unisex,” “Gender Neutral,” or something similar, and available to everyone.

4.E
Packet Pg. 220
3 of 7
• In 2022, the State of California passed SB 107, which protects individuals seeking sanctuary from out of state prosecution and explicitly prohibits law enforcement agencies from knowingly making or participating in the arrest or extradition of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state's law against receiving gender affirming healthcare in California. • In 2023, California began implementing SB 923, the “Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Intersex (TGI) Inclusive Care Act,” which protects the right of Californians to access gender-affirming healthcare services, including a health insurance coverage mandate.
• On April 25, 2023, the City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance, and associated design standards, to require multi-stall gender neutral public restrooms for all newly constructed buildings for which a complete building permit application is submitted to the City on or after July 1, 2023.

The City is committed to transgender equity and has enacted policies to promote this commitment, including providing health plans that offer gender affirming care health benefits to all covered employees; adoption of an all gender restroom building ordinance that requires all new multi-stall restrooms be designed to be gender neutral; supporting LGBTQ+ youth, including protections in the City’s anti-bullying policy that cover sexual orientation and gender identity; and, striving to ensure access to restrooms and recreational programs based on gender identity, not perceived or birth gender. The City’s Out in Santa Monica affinity group supports the Trans Equity Scholarship, in partnership with the LA LGBT Center’s Trans Economic Empowerment Project, to help support those seeking to make their gender and name change official in government records.

Santa Monica also has a history of affirming its commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion and adopting policies to protect those targeted by federal policies hostile to these values. On February 28, 2017, in response to the first Trump administration’s executive orders attempting to require state and local governments to enforce federal immigration laws and policies, the City Council reasserted its commitment to protecting undocumented residents in Santa Monica by adopting Resolution 11028 titled “A

4.E
Packet Pg. 221
4 of 7
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Embracing Diversity, Rejecting Hate and Discrimination, Clarifying the City’s Role in Enforcing Federal Immigration Law, and Promoting an Environment in Which Fear and Intimidation Do Not Chill Cooperation with Law Enforcement and Other First Responders” (“Resolution 11028”). With Resolution 11028, Council resolved that the City would not use any monies, resources, or personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws or to support any federal program requiring unlawful or unconstitutional registration or detention of individuals based on religious affiliation, race, national or ethnic origin, immigration status, gender, sexual identity or orientation. Council further resolved that the City staff shall not, in their official capacity, aid in the creation of a registry or database based on these characteristics, and shall not share data that may be collected that contains such information.

At the Council meeting on February 25, 2025, in recognition of the federal government’s and other states’ attacks on TGI persons, their healthcare, and gender-affirming care, Council directed staff to draft a resolution to reaffirm the City’s commitment to safety and protections for TGI persons, their loved ones, and healthcare providers who seek or provide gender-affirming care at Santa Monica hospitals and clinics.

Discussion
The City Council could further extend its commitment to transgender equity by adopting the proposed resolution supporting and protecting TGI persons’ access to genderaffirming healthcare. Gender-affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. The interventions help TGI people align various aspects of their lives—emotional, interpersonal, and biological—with their gender identity. As noted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), that identity can run anywhere along a continuum that includes man, woman, a combination of those, neither of those, and fluid. Interventions fall along a continuum as well, from counseling to changes in social expression to medications (such as hormone therapy).

4.E
Packet Pg. 222
5 of 7
Gender-affirming care is also essential to the health and wellness of many transgender and non-binary people. Major medical organizations that collectively represent over 1.3 million doctors in the United States, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recognize the medical necessity of age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people.

Studies from numerous institutions including Stanford and Yale Universities have shown that gender transition, including access to gender-affirming healthcare, improves the overall well-being of transgender people and access to gender affirming healthcare for youth is associated with better mental health outcomes and lower risks of suicide.

For children, in particular, the timing of the interventions is based on several factors, including cognitive and physical development as well as parental consent; surgery, including to reduce a person’s Adam’s Apple, or to align their chest or genitalia with their gender identity, is rarely provided to people under 18.

As noted above, since his inauguration to a second term, on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has issued several Executive Orders that explicitly attack TGI healthcare and gender-affirming care for both adults and minors.

California laws do protect TGI persons’ rights in many respects: They require access to gender-affirming healthcare; access to multi-stall gender neutral public restrooms; protect individuals seeking sanctuary from out of state prosecution for seeking or providing gender-affirming care; and explicitly prohibit law enforcement agencies from engaging in activities related to arresting, detaining or extraditing individuals targeted by out-of-state arrest warrants enforcing non-California laws prohibiting receipt of gender-affirming healthcare in California.

Despite these protections, there are increasing concerns among the LGBTQ+ community that, as seen with immigration and reproductive health care, federal or otherthan-California state investigations will be launched against individuals seeking genderaffirming care, those aiding individuals seeking such care, medical providers providing such care, and organizations that fund such care, particularly those that cross statelines to do so.

4.E
Packet Pg. 223
6 of 7
Accordingly, as directed by Council, staff has prepared a proposed resolution to reaffirm Council’s commitment to safety and access to gender-affirming care for all TGI persons.

The proposed resolution mirrors Resolution 11028 and would do the following:
• Prohibit the use of City resources to investigate, question, detect, apprehend detain or register person whose only violation is or may be a violation of civil provisions of federal executive orders or laws related to gender-affirming care; • Prohibit the use of City resources in support of any federal program requiring unlawful or unconstitutional registration or detention of individuals in relation to accessing gender affirming care;
• Prohibit the City and its staff from aiding in the creation of any registry or database based on the acts of seeking gender-affirming care; and • Prohibit the City and its staff from entering into any agreement that obligates the City to perform any law enforcement functions to enforce violations of civil provisions of federal executive orders, federal laws, or other states’ laws related to gender-affirming care.

This Resolution will ensure that the City does not allow law enforcement or City resources to aid federal investigations and law enforcement actions targeting individuals who seek or provide gender-affirming care.

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

4.E
Packet Pg. 224
7 of 7
Prepared By: Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso
B. Item 16 Re Gender Affirming Care
C. Written Comments

4.E
Packet Pg. 225
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER ___________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

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

PROTECTING ACCESS TO GENDER-AFFIRMING HEALTHCARE AND

PREVENTING CITY RESOURCES FROM ASSISTING FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS

INTO TRANSGENDER, GENDER DIVERSE, AND INTERSEX PERSONS AND THEIR

HEALTHCARE
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica is committed to the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and has a long and proud history of promoting equitable policies that protect our residents, whether over immigration status or for persons seeking reproductive healthcare such that the City does not allow law enforcement or City resources to aid federal investigations on these matters. This is a conscious choice to build trust between law enforcement and our immigrant community and medical professionals; and
WHEREAS, at its December 17, 2024 meeting, the Santa Monica City Council reasserted, by adopting a resolution, that the City would not enforce federal immigration laws, nor share information with federal immigration authorities absent a judicial warrant.

Additionally, Council designated all City facilities and property as safe spaces that the City will not permit to be used to assist or facilitate federal immigration enforcement; and WHEREAS, a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that 1.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender or nonbinary; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to transgender equity and has enacted policies to promote this commitment, including providing health plans that offer gender affirming

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) care health benefits to all covered employees; adoption of an all gender restroom building ordinance that requires all new multi-stall restrooms be designed to be gender neutral; supporting LGBTQ+ youth, the City includes protections in its anti-bullying policy that cover sexual orientation and gender identity and strives to ensure access to restrooms and recreational programs based on gender identity, not perceived or birth gender; and WHEREAS, the City’s Out in Santa Monica affinity group supports the Trans Equity Scholarship, in partnership with the LA LGBT Center’s Trans Economic Empowerment Project, to help support those seeking to make their gender and name change official in government records; and
WHEREAS, at its February 25, 2025 meeting, the City Council affirmed its commitment to the protection of Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Intersex (“TGI”) persons, and their right to obtain gender-affirming care as they so choose; and WHEREAS, gender affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth; and
WHEREAS, the interventions help TGI people align various aspects of their lives— emotional, interpersonal, and biological—with their gender identity. As noted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), that identity can run anywhere along a continuum that includes man, woman, a combination of those, neither of those, and fluid; and
WHEREAS, interventions fall along a continuum as well, from counseling to changes in social expression to medications (such as hormone therapy). For children in

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) particular, the timing of the interventions is based on several factors, including cognitive and physical development as well as parental consent; surgery, including to reduce a person’s Adam’s Apple, or to align their chest or genitalia with their gender identity, is rarely provided to people under 18; and
WHEREAS, “[t]he goal is not treatment, but to listen to the child and build understanding — to create an environment of safety in which emotions, questions, and concerns can be explored,” says a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on gender-affirming care; and
WHEREAS, gender-affirming care is essential to the health and wellness of many transgender and non-binary people, and major medical organizations that collectively represent over 1.3 million doctors in the United States, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recognize the medical necessity of age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people; and
WHEREAS, Studies from numerous institutions including Stanford and Yale Universities have shown that gender transition, including access to gender-affirming healthcare, improves the overall well-being of transgender people and access to gender affirming healthcare for youth is associated with better mental health outcomes and lower risks of suicide; and
WHEREAS, health care should not be denied to anyone because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; and WHEREAS, in 2022, the State of California passed Senate Bill No. 107, which protects individuals seeking sanctuary from out of state prosecution and explicitly

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) prohibits law enforcement agencies from knowingly making or participating in the arrest or extradition of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state's law against receiving gender affirming healthcare in California; and WHEREAS, in 2023, California implemented the “Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Intersex (TGI) Inclusive Care Act” which protects the right of Californians to access gender affirming healthcare services; and
WHEREAS, while California law requires access to such healthcare, there are increasing concerns among the LGBTQ+ community that, as seen with immigration and reproductive health care, federal or other-than-California state investigations will be launched against individuals seeking gender-affirming care, those aiding individuals seeking such care, medical providers providing such care, and organizations that fund such care, particularly those that cross state-lines to do so; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to ensuring that no one who is seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating gender-affirming care is subjected to criminal penalties, legal liability, or professional sanctions solely for engaging in those actions; and WHEREAS, since the inauguration of President Donald Trump to his second term, he has issued several Executive Orders, including Orders 14168 and 14187, that attack transgender, gender diverse, and intersex (TGI) healthcare and gender-affirming care for both adults and minors; and
WHEREAS, in 2024 alone, 533 pieces of legislation that target the LGBTQ+ community have been introduced across more than 40 states, with nearly half of these bills specifically targeting transgender youth and their families. These bills aim to limit the rights of TGI people by criminalizing gender affirming healthcare, restricting use of public

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) bathrooms, forcing teachers to out their students, and preventing youth from participating in school activities, resulting in reports of attorneys general from Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, and Texas demanding access to medical records to conduct investigations and threaten patients; and
WHEREAS, anti-TGI legislation contributes to violence against the transgender community, contributing to the murders of 35 people in 2023 and 29 people in 2024 in the United States alone; and
WHEREAS, as a result of anti-TGI legislation, many individuals and families are relocating to states that are more accepting and offer inclusive services; and WHEREAS, with the actions taken by this federal administration and other states, it is clear we must establish more protections for TGI persons, their loved ones, and healthcare providers who seek or provide gender-affirming care at our hospitals and clinics in Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, in order to reaffirm our commitment to safety and access to genderaffirming care for all TGI persons.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Police Department shall not use City monies, resources, and personnel to investigate, question, detect, apprehend, detain, or register persons whose only violation is or may be a violation of civil provisions of federal executive orders or law related to seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or any other relation to gender-affirming care in Santa Monica or elsewhere.

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) SECTION 2. The City of Santa Monica shall not use City resources in support of any federal program requiring the unlawful or unconstitutional registration or detention of individuals for seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or any other relation to gender-affirming care in Santa Monica or elsewhere, and shall not share any data that may have been collected or will be collected which contains any of this information.

SECTION 3. The City of Santa Monica and its staff, including law enforcement officials, within their official capacity, shall not aid in the creation of a registry or database that is based on the acts of seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or any other relation to gender-affirming care.

SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica and its staff shall not enter into any agreement that obligates the City, including the Santa Monica Police Department, to perform any law enforcement functions to investigate, question, detect, apprehend, detain, or register persons whose only violation is or may be a violation of the civil provisions of federal executive orders, federal law, or other states’ (not California) laws or to require the registration or detention of individuals on the basis of seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or any other relation to gender-affirming care, or share any data that may have been collected or will be collected which contains any of this information.

SECTION 5. 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

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: CAO-Gender Affirming Care-Reso (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) Meeting: February 25, 2025
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL AND NATALYA ZERNITSKAYA 2 Request of Councilmembers Hall and Zernitskaya that in order to reaffirm our 3 commitment to the protection of Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Intersex 4 persons, the Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution banning the use 5 of City resources and personnel to aid the federal government or other states in 6 blocking gender-affirming healthcare.
7 On December 17, 2024, Council directed City Staff to re-examine City Resolution 8 11028 of February 28, 2017 which implemented significant protections for undocumented 9 residents in Santa Monica. That same meeting, Council reaffirmed our community’s 10 commitment to the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and reasserted that the 11 City would not enforce federal immigration laws, nor share information with federal 12 immigration authorities absent a judicial warrant. Additionally, Council designated all City 13 facilities and property as safe spaces that the City will not permit to be used to assist or 14 facilitate federal immigration enforcement.
15 Since the inauguration, the federal administration has issued several Executive 16 Orders, including Orders 14168 and 14187, that attack transgender, gender diverse, and 17 intersex (TGI) healthcare and gender-affirming care for both adults and minors. Gender18 affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, encompasses a range of 19 social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and 20 affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth.1 21 The interventions help transgender people align various aspects of their lives — 22 emotional, interpersonal, and biological — with their gender identity. As noted by the 23 American Psychiatric Association (APA), that identity can run anywhere along a continuum that includes man, woman, a combination of those, neither of those, and fluid.2 24 25 Interventions fall along a continuum as well, from counseling to changes in social 26 expression to medications (such as hormone therapy). For children in particular, the 27 timing of the interventions is based on several factors, including cognitive and physical 28 development as well as parental consent. Surgery, including to reduce a person’s Adam’s 29 Apple, or to align their chest or genitalia with their gender identity, is rarely provided to people under 18.3 30 “The goal is not treatment, but to listen to the child and build 31 understanding — to create an environment of safety in which emotions, questions, and 1https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-andtransgender-health-in-the-icd 2https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconformingpatients/terminology 3 https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Item 16 Re Gender Affirming Care (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL AND ZERNITSKAYA
Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Healthcare and Preventing City Resources from Assisting Federal Investigations into TGI Persons and Healthcare

32 concerns can be explored,” says a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on gender-affirming care.4 33
34 In 2023, California implemented the “Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Intersex 35 (TGI) Inclusive Care Act” which protects the right of Californians to access genderaffirming healthcare services. 36 5 While state law requires access to such healthcare, there 37 are increasing concerns among the LGBTQ+ community that, as seen with immigration 38 and reproductive health care, federal or other-than-California state investigations will be 39 launched against individuals seeking gender-affirming care, those aiding individuals 40 seeking such care, medical providers providing such care, and organizations that fund 41 such care, particularly those that cross state-lines to do so. 42 The City of Santa Monica has a long and proud history of promoting equitable 43 policies that protect our residents, whether over immigration status or for persons seeking 44 reproductive healthcare. The City does not allow law enforcement or City resources to 45 aid federal investigations on these matters. This is a conscious choice to build trust 46 between law enforcement and our immigrant community and medical professionals. With 47 the actions taken by this administration, it is clear we must establish similar protections 48 for transgender, gender diverse, and intersex persons, their loved ones, and healthcare 49 providers who seek or provide gender-affirming care at our hospitals and clinics in Santa 50 Monica.
51 In order to reaffirm our commitment to safety and access to gender-affirming care for all 52 transgender, gender diverse, and intersex persons,
53 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
54 1. Direct the City Attorney to return to Council no later than March 25, 2025 with a 55 resolution that:
56 1.1. Prohibits the use of City monies, resources, and personnel to investigate, 57 question, detect, apprehend, detain, or register persons whose only 58 violation is or may be a violation of civil provisions of federal executive 59 orders or law related to seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or any 60 other relation to gender-affirming care in Santa Monica or elsewhere. 61 1.2. Prohibits the use of City resources in support of any federal program 62 requiring the unlawful or unconstitutional registration or detention of 63 individuals for seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or any other 64 relation to gender-affirming care in Santa Monica or elsewhere, or share 4https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Careand-Support-for 5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB923

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Item 16 Re Gender Affirming Care (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL AND ZERNITSKAYA
Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Healthcare and Preventing City Resources from Assisting Federal Investigations into TGI Persons and Healthcare

65 any data that may have been collected or will be collected which contains 66 any of this information.
67 1.3. Prohibits the City and its staff, including law enforcement officials, within 68 their official capacity, from aiding in the creation of a registry or database 69 that is based on the acts of seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, or 70 any other relation to gender-affirming care.
71 1.4. Prohibits the City and its staff from entering into any agreement that 72 obligates the City, including the Santa Monica Police Department, to 73 perform any law enforcement functions to investigate, question, detect, 74 apprehend, detain, or register persons whose only violation is or may be a 75 violation of the civil provisions of federal executive orders, federal law, or 76 other states’ (not California) laws or to require the registration or detention 77 of individuals on the basis of seeking, receiving, aiding, providing, funding, 78 or any other relation to gender-affirming care, or share any data that may 79 have been collected or will be collected which contains any of this 80 information.
81 2. Direct the City Manager to make any appropriate and necessary changes to 82 comply with the above direction and resulting resolution. 83 # # #

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Item 16 Re Gender Affirming Care (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 7:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Subject: In Support: Item 4.E

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Thank you for standing up for our LGBT residents and stakeholders. I support your efforts in Item

4.E.

Jacob Wasserman
11th and Washington
90403
Item 4-E
March 25, 2025
Item 4-E
March 25, 2025

4.E.c
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Written Comments (6959 : Gender Affirming Care Resolution) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.F
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 11.04.050 Concerning Limitations on Campaign Contributions Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading the Ordinance amending Section 11.04.050 concerning Limitations on Campaign Contributions.

Executive Summary
At the Council’s request, the City Attorney’s Office surveyed peer cities regarding the individual candidate contribution limit per election, and prepared an amended ordinance for the Council to consider raising the individual contribution limit.

Background
At its February 25, 2025, meeting, Council directed the City Attorney to return with recommendations and options to raise the individual contribution limit of varying amounts up to $1,500, with information including an environmental scan of peer cities regarding their contribution limits, and at least one option including automatic adjustments each election cycle, to be implemented at the beginning of odd numbered years following an election year, that reflect increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year (January – December) for the Los Angles-RiversideOrange County CPI-U as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics rounded to the nearest $10.00.

The Survey performed by the City Attorney determined that nearly all peer cities surveyed have higher individual contribution limits. In addition, many City Council races

4.F
Packet Pg. 236
2 of 4
are District races, meaning Councilmembers are campaigning to a smaller pool of voters than Councilmembers campaigning at-large. All cities, with the exception of those defaulting to state limits, adjust for CPI every two years. Santa Monica currently adjusts for CPI every five years.

Some cities choose not to adopt expenditure limits, in which case they default to the State limit of $5,900 per source.

Some cities establish a voluntary expenditure cap, and candidates accepting the cap are then entitled to a higher per-source contribution limit than those candidates who do not accept the cap. Those who accept the cap are also entitled to other benefits, such as having a statement published on the City’s website, having the cost of publication of their candidate statement in the voter guide waived or reduced, and being designated as a voluntary participant in the expenditure cap program.

City Population
Contribution
Limit per
source
(accept/reject
expenditure
cap)
Voluntary
Expenditure
Cap
Manner of Election
Santa Monica 93,080 $410 At-large
Redondo Beach 67,749 $1,200 District (5)
West Hollywood 34,349 $1,000 At-large
Culver City 39,401 $1,120 At-large
Newport Beach 85,998 $1,400 District (7)
Thousand Oaks 123,463 $1,400 District (7)
Glendale 203,054 $1,340 At-large
Carlsbad 113,495 $1,100 District (4)
Pomona 151,710 $2,750 District (6)
Santa Barbara 88,670 Accept: $5,900
Reject: $3,000 $50,000 District (6)
Santa Clara 128,058 Accept: $630
Reject: $310 $25,000 District (6)
Ventura 109,058 Accept: $400
Reject: $200 $50,000 District (7)
Beverly Hills 30,974 Accept: $500
Reject: $125 $100,000 At-large
Cities with no enacted limits (default to State limits):

Clovis 127,058 $5,900 At-large
Pasadena 133,560 $5,900 District (7)
Fullerton 142,280 $5,900 District (5)

4.F
Packet Pg. 237
3 of 4
Huntington Beach 198,710 $5,900 At-large
*All cities who adjust for CPI every two years will increase this year.

Options

1. Raise the contribution limit amount to any amount selected by Council, adjusted for CPI every two years.

2. Eliminate the ordinance enacting local limits, and default to State limit of $5,900.

3. Institute a voluntary expenditure cap program, with contribution limits that vary based on whether a candidate voluntarily accepts the cap.

4. Do nothing and maintain $410 limit, adjusted every five years.

Draft ordinance
The Amended Ordinance has been prepared with a limit of $1,500 as a placeholder, and Council may insert the individual candidate contribution limit of Council’s choosing.

It has also been prepared so the amount will be adjusted for CPI per the Los AngelesRiverside-Orange County CPI-U every February (or as soon thereafter as practicable), and the City Clerk shall issue a public notice establishing the amounts as adjusted.

This is consistent with the Culver City model.

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

4.F
Packet Pg. 238
4 of 4
Prepared By: Katie Doerr, Deputy City Attorney III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CC-Campaign Contributions-Ord

4.F
Packet Pg. 239
1 City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTION 11.04.050 OF THE SANTA MONICA

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS, the 2024 City Council election was the most expensive Council race in Santa Monica’s history, with individual candidate fundraising dwarfed by independent expenditures at a rate of three to one; and
WHEREAS, per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission, independent expenditures, which are a type of political action committee, have no limit on raising for political campaigns in support of or against candidates, while candidates are limited by how much they can raise; and
WHEREAS, during the 2024 election cycle, Council candidates raised $430,098, where independent expenditures raised over $1.3 million; and WHEREAS, in 2022 the Council raised the individual contribution limit from $370 to $410 to address rising inflation; meanwhile, the State has lifted the Levine Act reporting and recusal requirements from $250 to $500 through the passage of SB 1243; and WHEREAS, a survey of peer cities shows that Santa Monica has one of the lowest campaign contribution limit among its peers, and peer cities raise their limits to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index every other year; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is necessary to promote free and fair elections, limit the influence of independent expenditures, and encourage greater participation and access to municipal elections.

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: CC-Campaign Contributions-Ord (6998 : Campaign Contributions Ordinance) 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 11.04.050 is hereby amended to read as follows:

11.040.050. LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS
(a) No person shall make to any candidate for office or to the controlled committee of such a candidate, a contribution or contributions totaling more than four hundred ten dollars $1,500 for each election in which the candidate was on, is on, or is likely to be on the ballot or in which the candidate sought or seeks write-in votes. (b) No candidate for office or the controlled committee of such a candidate shall accept from any person a contribution or contributions totaling more than four hundred ten dollars $1,500 for each election.
(c) The limitations imposed by this Section shall be adjusted every five years, commencing on July 1, 2026, by an amount equal to the percentage change in the CPIW Index for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics rounded to the nearest five ten dollars.
(c) The amounts in this section shall be adjusted every February (or as soon thereafter as practicable) of each odd numbered year commencing in 2027 for any increase in the consumer price index for the preceding calendar year (January – December) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County CPI-U (LA-R-OC CPI-U) as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics rounded to the nearest $10.00. In the event the Bureau of Labor Statistics discontinues the

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: CC-Campaign Contributions-Ord (6998 : Campaign Contributions Ordinance) 3 publication of the LA-R-OC CPI-U, then a comparable statistic shall be used as determined by the City’s Chief Financial Officer. The City Clerk, no later than 30 days after the LA-R-OC CPI-U (or comparable statistic) is published, shall issue a public notice establishing the amounts as adjusted in accordance with this subsection. (d) This section shall not be interpreted or applied to violate the right of association or the right to express views through expenditures. Rather, it is intended to be and shall be applied solely as a limit on campaign contributions to individuals and committees.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: CC-Campaign Contributions-Ord (6998 : Campaign Contributions Ordinance) 4 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: CC-Campaign Contributions-Ord (6998 : Campaign Contributions Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.G
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Resolution Amending the Policy Regarding Acceptance of Gifts by Councilmembers, and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 2.32.290 Prohibiting Acceptance of Gratuities
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council consider the following to allow Councilmembers to accept tickets to events where they are attending in their official capacity in support of the City’s economic development efforts:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Adopting a Resolution amending the policy regarding Councilmember’s acceptance of gifts.

3. Introduce for First Reading an Amendment to SMMC 2.32.290 prohibiting acceptance of gratuities.

Summary
Council previously adopted a Resolution placing limits on acceptance of gifts over $100, as well as an ordinance banning acceptance of gratuities from persons from whom Council has approved a public benefit within the last twelve months. Council requested the City Attorney prepare amendments to the policy that would allow Council to accept tickets to events that support the City’s economic development efforts.

Discussion
In October 2024, the Council adopted an ordinance banning the acceptance of gratuities (anything of economic value intended as a gift or favor intended as a reward

4.G
Packet Pg. 244
2 of 3
or token of appreciation for an official act) from anyone from whom the Council had conferred a public benefit within the last twelve months. In February 2025, the Council adopted a prohibition on acceptance of gifts over $100 in a single instance, with some exceptions.

Frequently the Council is requested to attend events in their official capacity. While some City-sponsored and City co-produced events are free to the public, some are not.

Event producers, working in partnership with the City, request Councilmembers attend these events to provide formal welcomes, meet and greets, photo ops, and ribbon cuttings. Many events have ticket prices that exceed $100, and event producers frequently provide free tickets to City officials as an incentive to attend the event.

A key part of the City’s economic development strategy is to continue to bring highprofile events to the City, to support economic recovery and visitor attraction. Given the effort to closely align these events with the City of Santa Monica brand and to maintain the value of the personal touch and welcome the City of Santa Monica provides, it is important for our elected officials to be able to attend these events.

Rules on acceptance of gifts and gratuities are intended to ensure public officials act in the public’s best interest, not in their personal interest, and that decisions are made transparently and free of undue influence. Adding these exceptions to the gratuities ordinance and gift policy do not detract from that goal, and will ensure the Council is able to support the economic recovery efforts of the City by attending events in their official capacity, while continuing to uphold the ethical integrity the policies are intended to capture.

A survey of gift policies in other cities revealed the following:
• Los Angeles – Prohibits gifts from lobbyists, limits gifts from restricted sources (those doing business or seeking to do business with the city) to $100 per year. • San Francisco – Prohibits gifts from restricted sources. • Oakland – $50 limit on gifts from restricted sources. $250 general gift limit from a single source per year.

4.G
Packet Pg. 245
3 of 3
Other cities surveyed (San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento) follow FPPC gift guidelines (require reporting of gifts over $50, may not accept gifts over $630 from a single source in a year).

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

Prepared By: Katie Doerr, Deputy City Attorney III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CC-Council Gifts-Reso
B. CC-Council Gratuities-Ord

4.G
Packet Pg. 246
1 City Council Meeting March 25, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE POLICY REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS BY COUNCILMEMBERS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 11644 (CCS) WHEREAS, in furtherance of its commitment to ethical government, the Council has adopted a policy to reflect the modern legal landscape and maintain accountability in councilmember conduct, by establishing ethical standards and setting clear gift acceptance limits; and
WHEREAS, Councilmembers are frequently expected to attend City economic development and cultural events, and given the modest compensation Councilmembers receive for their service to the City, it is unreasonable to expect them to attend these events representing the City and paying for attendance themselves; and WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to clarify and amend the policy as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, by adopting this policy, the Council demonstrates its commitment to effective and ethical governance in service to the City and community.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Gifts.

A. No Councilmember shall accept or solicit, directly or indirectly, any gift with a value exceeding the cumulative gift limit established by the Fair Political Practices Commission (as amended by the FPPC from time to time - currently $630 through December 31, 2026) from a single source in a twelve month period, or a value exceeding

4.G.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: CC-Council Gifts-Reso (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 2 $100 for a single instance (adjusted in the same proportion as the FPPC gift limit). These limits shall increase in accordance with the Fair Political Practices Commission’s CPI adjustment beginning January 1, 2027, and shall be published for public view by the City Clerk. This Section shall be in addition to the provisions of Charter Section XXII, the Taxpayer Protection Act.

B. For purpose of this Resolution, “gift” means any payment, property or service that confers a personal benefit on the recipient, to the extent consideration of equal or greater value is not received. “Gift” includes a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business to members of the public without regard to official status.

C. The term “gift” does not include:
(1) Informational material such as books, reports, pamphlets, calendars or periodicals.
(2) Gifts from an individual’s spouse or former spouse, child or stepchild, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, current or former parent-inlaw, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, grand-nephew or niece, grand-aunt or uncle, or first cousin or first cousin once removed, or the spouse or former spouse of any such person; provided a gift from any such person shall be considered a gift if the donor is acting as the agent or intermediary for any person not covered by this paragraph.
(3) Campaign contributions required to be reported under state or local law.
(4) Any devise or inheritance.
(5) Commemorative items from City departments generally offered to

4.G.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: CC-Council Gifts-Reso (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 3 attendees at City sponsored events.
(6) Meals, transportation, or lodging provided or paid for by the City in connection with attendance at City sponsored events.
(7) Free admission to a ticketed event for the official and one guest where the official performs a ceremonial role at the event (such as throwing out the first pitch), or free admission, food and nominal items (pens, note pad, or similar items) available to all attendees at an event where the official makes a speech, so long as the admission is provided by the person who organizes the event. (8) Free admission to a ticketed event for the Councilmember attending in an official capacity, when all Councilmembers are invited to attend, as follows:
(a) An event produced, co-produced, or sponsored by the City; (b) An economic development event within the City, such as a ribbon cutting, grand opening, or celebration;
(c) A cultural event within the City;
(d) An event as may be included on a list of official events approved by Council, or recognized by the Council via proclamation; (e) An event hosted by Santa Monica Pier Corporation,
Downtown Santa Monica, or a business improvement district. (9) Personalized plaques or trophies valued at less than $250. (10) Payment or waiver of fees for conferences providing professional development to the Councilmember in their official capacity. (11) Anything excluded from the definition of “gift” under the Political Reform Act, as memorialized in 2 C.C.R. Sec. 18942.

D. If a Councilmember receives a gift in violation of this Section, the item may

4.G.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: CC-Council Gifts-Reso (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 4 be returned to the donor, or the donor may be reimbursed for the value of the gift, within 30 days. Alternatively, the gift may be donated to a non-profit, tax-exempt (501(c)(3)) organization in which the Councilmember (or immediate family member) does not hold a position, within 30 days of receipt, without claiming a tax deduction.

E. In addition with complying with the terms of this Resolution, Councilmembers must comply with all gift reporting obligations under Political Reform Act.

SECTION 2. Free Food and Beverage. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in state or local law, no Councilmember may accept any meal, beverage, snacks or refreshments greater than $20 in value, except as would be provided to any member of the public (e.g., a promotion or discount), or as part of a program of events or conference where the Councilmember is representing the City in their official capacity and all participants receive similar treatment regardless of elected status or jurisdiction (e.g., hors d’oeuvres served at a conference networking cocktail hour), or items such as snacks, meals, entertainment, or travel, where provided in a Councilmember’s professional capacity unrelated to their public service. This prohibition shall not apply to anything that would otherwise be excluded from the definition of a “gift” under Section 1.C, above.

SECTION 3. Violations of this Resolution may be reported to the City Attorney and/or the City Manager, who shall comply with the process concerning alleged violation of laws and policies by a Councilmember outlined in Resolution 11631 (CCS).

SECTION 4. Resolution No. 11644 (CCS) is hereby repealed in its entirety.

4.G.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: CC-Council Gifts-Reso (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 5 SECTION 5. 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

4.G.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: CC-Council Gifts-Reso (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 1 City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTION 2.32.290 REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF

GRATUITIES BY CITY OFFICIALS
WHEREAS, the Council believes it is unacceptable for City officials to receive gratuities for acts performed in their official capacity, and has formalized the prohibition on so doing; and
WHEREAS, there are certain instances in which the Council is invited to attend an event in their official capacity, which may be a technical violation of the gratuities ordinance, but which is for the benefit of the City; and WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to amend the gratuities ordinance to allow an exception for these events.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.32.290 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.32.290. PROHIBITION ON GRATUITIES
(a) No City official shall receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly, anything of economic value as a gift, gratuity, or favor, from any person or entity to whom the official has conferred a public benefit within the last 12 months, intended as a reward or token of appreciation for or because of any official act performed by the public

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: CC-Council Gratuities-Ord (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 2 official. This Section shall be in addition to the provisions of Charter Section XXII, the Taxpayer Protection Act.
(b) As used herein, the term “public benefit” does not include public employment in the normal course of business for services rendered, but includes a contract, benefit, permit, or arrangement between the City and any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or other person or entity to:
(1) provide services of a value in excess of $5,000 over any 12 month period; (2) sell or furnish any material, supplies or equipment to the City of a value in excess of $5,000 over any 12 month period;
(3) buy or sell any real property to or from the City with a value in excess of $5,000, or lease any real property to or from the City with a value in excess of $5,000 over any 12 month period;
(4) receive an award of a franchise to conduct any business activity in a territory, and for which gross revenue from the business activity exceeds $5,000 in any 12 month period;
(5) confer a land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to a preexisting master plan or land use ordinance pertaining to real property where such decision has a value in excess of $5,000;
(6) confer a tax abatement, exception, or benefit not generally applicable of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12 month period; or
(7) receive cash or property of a net value to the recipient in excess of $5,000 in any 12 month period.

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: CC-Council Gratuities-Ord (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 3 (c) Those persons or entities receiving public benefits as defined above shall include the individual, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or other person or entity so benefiting, and any individual or person who, during a period where such benefit is received or accrues,
(1) has more than a five percent (5%) equity, participation, or revenue interest in that entity, or
(2) who is a trustee, director, partner, or officer of that entity or of another entity that owns or controls the entity receiving the public benefit, excepting persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception shall not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees as defined by California Government Code Section 82013 or 2 U.S.C.

Section 431(4) or successor provisions.
(d) As used herein, the term “public official” includes any elected or appointed public official acting in an official capacity. This includes, but is not limited to: City Council members, Planning Commission members, and the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Department Heads and their designees who may confer public benefits as defined in this section.
(e) Exception. Acceptance of the following shall not be considered a violation of this Section:
(1) Free admission to a ticketed event for the official and one guest where the official performs a ceremonial role at the event, or free admission, food, nominal items (pens, notepad, or similar items) available to all attendees at the event where the official

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: CC-Council Gratuities-Ord (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 4 makes a speech, so long as the admission is provided by the person who organizes the event.
(2) Free admission to a ticketed event for a Councilmember attending in an official capacity, when all Councilmembers are invited to attend, as follows:
(A) an event produced, co-produced or sponsored by the City. (B) an economic development event within the City, such as a ribbon cutting, grand opening, or celebration.
(C) a cultural event within the City.
(D) an event as may be included on a list of official events approved by the Council or recognized by the Council via proclamation.
(E) an event hosted by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, or a business improvement district.
(e)(f) Each violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor. Alternatively, a civil action may also be brought by the City or any interested party before any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to all other remedies authorized by law, the court may impose a fine of up to five hundred dollars for each violation of this Chapter.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: CC-Council Gratuities-Ord (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 5 court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

4.G.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: CC-Council Gratuities-Ord (6999 : Gifts Resolution - Gratuities Ordinance) 1 February 25, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:31 p.m., on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis (Arrived at 5:46 p.m.)
Councilmember Jesse Zwick
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:31 p.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. Councilmember Hall led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.

We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Zernitskaya.

LEVINE ACT Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a

4.H
Packet Pg. 257 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 February 25, 2025
DISCLOSURE permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

No Councilmembers recused themselves from items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act.

GENERAL PUBLIC
INPUT:
(Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
arrived at 5:46 p.m.)
Members of the public Francisco Juarez, Daniel Alonzo, Tania Fischer, Manuel Lares, Judith Serlin, John C Smith, Eddie Glaeser, Elizabeth Noble, Oscar De La Torre, and Johnathan Foster commented on various local issues.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CLOSED SESSION,

SPECIAL AGENDA

ITEMS AND CONSENT
CALENDAR ONLY:

No members of the public commented on Special Agenda items.

Denise Barton, John C. Smith, and Jonah Breslau commented on Consent Calendar Items.

Members of the public Vincenzo Flores, Tara Barauskas, Denise Barton, Brittany De Guzman (time donated by Tony Ponce), Diana Flores (time donated by Raquel Hernandez), Greg Morena (time donated by Emma Hernandez), Hugo Murillo (time donated by Enrique Jimenez), Teresa Olmedo, David Luis (time donated by Saturino Garcia), Oscar De La Torre, Carlos Jimenez, Maria Loya, Sylvia Luis, Freddy Luis (Council suspended rules to permit extra time), Zakiya, Matt Sawaya, Magali Rivera (time donated by Mireya Rivera), Alexander Jimenez, Tsegaw Debarcho, Kiana Achoy (time donated by Juan Rivera), and Andrew Hoyer commented on Closed Session.

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS/

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS

3.A. Proclamation: Women's History Month, was presented.

3.B. Proclamation: Kidney Disease Awareness Month, was presented.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

At the request of Councilmember Raskin, Item 4.E was removed from the Consent Calendar.

4.H
Packet Pg. 258 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 February 25, 2025
Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 4.E., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

EMERGENCY SOLID

WASTE DISPOSAL

SERVICES

4.A. Receive and File Emergency Procurement and Approval Agreement with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts for Emergency Solid Waste Disposal Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 and 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Receive and file emergency procurement report on emergency procurement with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts – Puente Hills Material Recycling Facility for emergency landfill disposal services for the Public Works Department. The emergency procurement was made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (g) and is for a total amount not to exceed $1,800,000 (including a 20% contingency) through March 31, 2025; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts – Puente Hills Material Recycling Facility for landfill disposal services for the Public Works Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (g) and is for a total amount not to exceed $38,022,585 (including a 20% contingency) for 5 years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

STREET SWEEPER

REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

4.B. Approve Acceptance of Environmental Protection Agency Grant and Purchase of Street Sweepers for the Resource Recovery and Recycling Division, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines;

4.H
Packet Pg. 259 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 February 25, 2025

2. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $945,000 from the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program for the City of Santa Monica Street Sweeper Replacement Project in the Public Works Department, and to accept all grant renewals;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to accept the grant, all grant renewals, and modifications;

4. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Municipal Maintenance Equipment (“MME”), a California-based company, for the purchase of three Ravo Electric R5-eSeries sweepers for the Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Recycling Division. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section

2.24.250 (c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $2,428,833 including a 10% contingency;

5. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Mar-co Equipment Company for the purchase of one Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Tymco Model 600 sweeper for the Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Recycling Division. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $185,987 including a 10% contingency with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

6. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

If the grant is not received, pending the outcome of the Presidential Executive Order:

7. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Mar-co Equipment Company for the purchase of two Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Tymco Model 600 sweepers for the Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Recycling Division.

This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $996,976 including a 10% contingency with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

ZONING ONRDIANCE

CONSISTENCIES

4.C. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Text of Section 9.31.195 of the Zoning Ordinance for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

BUILDING CODE 4.D. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the

4.H
Packet Pg. 260 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 February 25, 2025
CONSISTENCIES Text of Section 8.12.040 of the Building Code for Consistency with the Amended Safety Element, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

PROHIBITION AGAINST

CAMPING IN PUBLIC
PLACES

4.F. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095, Prohibition Against Camping in Public Places, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095, Prohibition Against Camping in Public Places, to omit from the definition of “camp facility” certain items.

FIRES EMERGENCY

PROCLAMATION AND

SUPPLEMENTS

4.E. Adoption of Resolution Ratifying Regional Fires Emergency Proclamation and Supplements, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the proposed resolution ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.

Questions asked and answered of staff included how are the suspension of tenant protection laws being monitored and how are we ensuring that the suspension is benefiting those displaced by the fires; have the number of listings gone down; who is monitoring price gouging; how long is the suspension in place under the emergency order; would there be a possibility of implementing a self attestation to ensure the benefit is only being used by someone displaced by the fires; and are we actively monitoring or does someone have to report the issue.

Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to adopt the staff recommendation, with direction to staff. The motion was approved by the following vote:

4.H
Packet Pg. 261 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 February 25, 2025
AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Direction to staff to amend the emergency order to phase out suspension of the tenant protection laws for short term rentals and that short term renters are given the same protections as long-term renters in addition to providing support to local restaurants impacted by the fires.

CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 7:44 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 10:17 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

5.A. Public Employee Appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Manager/Interim City Manager; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator: Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Manager/Interim City Manager
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.B. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8:
properties: 2019 - 2219 5th Street; owner of record: Ocean Park Villas, L.P.; City negotiators: Heather Averick, Director of Housing and Human Services, and Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager; owner negotiators: Angel Herrera and Mark Wagner; under negotiation: price and terms of payment for sale or option
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.C. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8:
properties: 2033-2101 Virginia Avenue; owner of record: Community Corporation of Santa Monica; City negotiators: Heather Averick, Director of Housing and Human Services, and Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager; owner negotiator: Tara Barauskas; under negotiation: price and terms of payment
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

CITY MANAGER
REPORT
The City Manager Report was presented by Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek

4.H
Packet Pg. 262 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 February 25, 2025

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
Mayor Negrete reported that she traveled to Santa Barbara for the ICA Winter Seminar.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Members of the public Speaker: Denise Barton, John C Smith, Michael Masucci, Marc Verville (time donated by Tricia Crane), Jeff Gordon, Paul Slye (time donated by Rev. Nathan Rugh), Om Bleicher, Michelle Edgar, Robert Berman, Lois Lambert, Denny Zane, Francisca Vergara, Andrew Hoyer, Michael Soloff, and Harvey Eder commented on Item 11.A.

Members of the public Kelly Delich, Denise Barton, and Harvey Eder commented on Item 11.B.

Member of the public Denise Barton commented on Item 16.C.

Member of the public Andrew Hoyer commented on Item 16.D.

Member of the public Conner Webb commented on Item 16.E.

Member of the public Harvey Eder commented on Item 16.F.

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT

11.A. Adoption of Resolution and Approval of Release of Request for Proposals for City-Owned Sites Designated for Affordable Housing Development in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and Declaration of Sites as "Exempt Surplus Land" in Accordance with the Surplus Land Act, was presented and adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Declare City-owned properties located at Bergamot Station Arts Center located at 2500 Olympic (APNs 4268-013-919 and 4268-014- 900) as “surplus land” within the meaning of the Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220 et. seq.)(“SLA”), adopt a resolution declaring the Bergamot Station Arts Center as surplus land, authorize the City Manager or his or her designee to advance the Notice/Request for Proposal (RFP) by June 30, 2025 and take implementing actions necessary to comply with the SLA and the City’s Housing Element.

2. Declare two City-owned properties located at 1333 4th Street (APNs 4291-011- 909 and 4291-011-910) and 1324 5th Street (APNs 4291- 011-900, 4291-011-901, 4291-011-902, 4291-011-903, 4291-011- 904, 4291-011-905 and 4291-011-908) as “surplus land” within the meaning of the SLA, adopt a resolution declaring the 4th/5th and Arizona as surplus land, authorize the City Manager or his or her designee to advance the Notice/Request for Proposal (RFP) by June 30, 2027 and take implementing actions necessary to comply with the SLA and the City’s Housing Element.

4.H
Packet Pg. 263 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 February 25, 2025

3. Declare City-owned property at 1234 4th Street (currently operated as a public parking structure, Parking Structure 1,(PS1) as “exempt surplus land” within the meaning of the SLA; authorize staff to begin the process of obtaining necessary permits, including a Coastal Development Permit, for demolition of PS1 if demolition is approved by the California Coastal Commission, authorize staff to proceed with developing bidding documents for the demolition to prepare the site for a future 100% affordable housing development.

4. Adopt the findings stated in the Environmental Review section of this staff report, including, without limitation, a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15312 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a finding of no possibility of significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and a finding that the development of affordable housing on City-owned property was previously analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Environmental Impact Report.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: is there any reason why both loans can’t expire in 2028; would the City retain ownership of the land; why is it not an option to sell PS1 at any use; would it be wise to list PS1 as surplus instead of exempt surplus; is there an option to deviate from the previous Council’s decision in regard to 4th/5
th and Arizona and Bergamot Station; is
the City obliged to transfer units to other sites if they can't build an exact number of units; why is the staff recommendation to look at Bergamot Station before the 4th/5th and Arizona site; what are the limitations on what can be included in the RFP as preferences at Bergamot; could the City make preferences for a project that would allow existing gallery and other arts and cultural use tenants to return when it's redeveloped; could it be included in the RFP to permit flexibility to include market rate units to help subsidize some of the other things that we would want in that type of project; is Bergamot fully leased and what are the current revenues from the site; if the recommended process and timing is approved to issue the initial RFP for Bergamot by June 2026, what would happen then; how long would the RFP be open and when would anything happen on the site; under the RFP process, would the city retain ownership of the land, or would that be transferred to whoever would develop it; if both tenants at 4th/5th and Arizona were to extend their leases through 2030, how could that affect our commitment to meeting RHNA goals and staying compliant with our housing element; if we allowed the tenants to extend their leases through 2030, would we possibly have a shovel ready project or something by the time the leases end; what is the City’s history with permitting parking by parishioners of St. Augustine by the Sea and what is the City’s obligation; how would city staff be able to allocate additional resources to handle both RFPs for Bergamot and 4 th/5th
and Arizona at the same time; what are the tradeoffs that would have to be made if we wanted to advance both of these RFPs and on a similar time

4.H
Packet Pg. 264 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 February 25, 2025
frame; what potential risks would the city face if it waited until 2027 to release the 4
th/5th
and Arizona RFP, especially considering market
conditions and funding uncertainties; given our need for revenue, could 4 th/5th and Arizona be structured as mixed-use development to allow for revenue generating uses at that site; have we measured the staffing needs and the need to delay 4
th/5th for two years with the need for future downtown
economic development and activation of our downtown area; what impact would a delayed RFP have on future activation of our downtown area; can a phased approach be used with these two RFPs to ensure that both projects move forward simultaneously, but on somewhat of a staggered timeline, so that we're not competing for the same tax credits; instead of selling PS1, could we put PS1 out to an RFP, as is, without investing any additional money; could we put out PS1 to RFP, see what comes back and maintain ownership of the land, but give site control, or some sort of long term ground lease to a third party who would either maintain and generate some revenue, redevelop, or tear down the site, so the city would not have to pay to seismically retrofit or demolish the site; does staff think that a creative developer would come forward with a revenue generating option for the site that would absolve the city of any financial obligation on this site; in order to dispose of PS1 would we have to list it as surplus first; what is the current height limit on 4th/5th and Arizona; and is PS1 only seismically safe until 2027.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to viewing any of the current uses as surplus; the prioritization of projects; engagement with the stakeholders in downtown Santa Monica; the need to be cognizant of tradeoffs between immediate financial return from these lease holds and the bang for the buck we get from revitalizing downtown; merit in moving forward with the 4
th/5th and Arizona site first; trying to use
a staggered approach; having more revenue from the sites while we find a good potential project in light of the city's current budgetary issues; desires for items to be included in the RFP for Bergamot, such as, a preference for right of return, or at least right of first refusal for current tenants, looking at how we could potentially temporarily relocate current tenants so we don't lose those arts and cultural resources within the city, allowing for some flexibility so that we could have some market rate units to help subsidize some of the things that we would like to see, allowing for creative uses that make it a really great community gathering spot; combining PS1 and the 4 th/5th and Arizona project as surplus land and putting it out for RFP together to allow some flexibility, but to give preference to the Bergamot Station RFP; the importance of being realistic with these very important complex projects; the lack of availability for state grants or local sources of funding to assist with completing these projects; needing to have to involve interesting commercial revenue generating uses on the sites; listing all of these projects as surplus and putting them out as soon as possible this year, as opposed to waiting; and getting revenue for the next three years by

4.H
Packet Pg. 265 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 February 25, 2025
extending both bank leases through 2028.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to designate 4
th/5th and Arizona, Bergamot Station, and PS1 as surplus sites and to issue notices of availability for all three aforementioned properties and development teams can but are not required to link, PS1 and 4th/5th and Arizona, with direction to staff that priority be given to artist housing at Bergamot Station and right to return and relocation assistance for existing tenants.

Substitute motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to declare 4th/5
th and Arizona, PS1, and Bergamot Station as surplus
land; to prioritize the downtown sites if it is necessary to stagger the processes; to offer the possibility of linking 4
th/5th and Arizona and PS1,
but do not require; to maximize affordable housing and revenue generating commercial on all of the sites; and a preference at Bergamot Station for a right of return and commercial arts serving purposes at Bergamot. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Councilmember Zernitskaya
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Zernitskaya changed vote to yes to make the vote unanimous.

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

STRATEGY
(Councilmember Hall left at
12:52 a.m.)
(Councilmember Hall
returned at 12:54 a.m.)

11.B. Approval of First Modification to Contracts with Social Emotional Wellness Initiative, St. Joseph Center and Family Service of Santa Monica for Behavioral Health Strategy – Adult Crisis and StepDown Services and Youth Behavioral Health Programming Recommendations, was presented and approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive reports: Adult Crisis & Children and Youth Behavioral Health Care Study and the Strengthening the System of Intensive Behavioral Healthcare Services for Adults in Santa Monica and Service Planning Area 5.

2. Adopt and approve Transitional Approach 3 – Decentralized Expansion from the Strengthening the System of Intensive Behavioral Healthcare Services for Adults in Santa Monica and Service Planning Area 5 report to build out behavioral health services locally.

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11439 in the amount of $400,000 with

4.H
Packet Pg. 266 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 February 25, 2025
Social Emotional Wellness Initiative to provide behavioral health support for children and youth in the City’s after school programs (Police Activities League (PAL), CREST, and Virginia Avenue Park (VAP)).This will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $995,194, with future funding contingent upon Council budget approval.

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11440 in the amount of $388,254 with St. Joseph Center to expand the capacity of behavioral health services for youth ages 10-24 enrolled in the Youth Resource Team (YRT) program. This will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $6,907,777, with future funding contingent upon Council budget approval.

5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11431 in the amount of $900,000 with Family Service of Santa Monica to increase the capacity of behavioral health services available to children birth – 5th grade and to expand substance use treatment services for middle and high school-aged youth. This will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $3,617,970, with future funding contingent upon Council budget approval.

6. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: what are the specific next steps and what funding is needed for adult services; when are the beds expecting to come online; why is the decentralized model being recommended for adult services; are we working with regional representatives; will there also be access for housed residents; are conversations being had about locating sites in Santa Monica; is the City working with ClareMatrix; what are the rules concerning how someone can be delivered to services outside of the City; and how many detox beds will be available and the price per bed.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including but not limited to implementing metrics that can be placed on a public facing dashboard; finding a location; providing a space for youth offsite from schools; that wouldn’t require parental consent; concerns regarding uniformed officers; and getting more advocacy at the County and State level.

Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya

4.H
Packet Pg. 267 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 February 25, 2025
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(x), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Mayor Negrete, to remove Item 16.D. to be considered separately.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to remove Items 16.C., 16.D., and 16.F. to be considered separately.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

Items 16.C., 16.D., and 16.F. were removed and considered separately in accordance with Council Rule 6(x)

CLEAN BEACHES &

OCEAN PARCEL TAX

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE

16.A. Recommendation to accept James Kennedy's resignation from the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was heard.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to accept resignation with regret.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

16.B. Recommendation to rescind the January 28, 2025, appointment of Dennis Puri to the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee; and, continue the appointment to a future meeting, was heard.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to rescind the appointment.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

GENDER-AFFIRMING

HEALTHCARE

16.C. Request of Councilmembers Hall and Zernitskaya that in order to reaffirm our commitment to the protection of Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Intersex persons, the Council direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution banning the use of City resources and personnel to aid the federal government or other states in blocking gender-affirming

4.H
Packet Pg. 268 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 February 25, 2025
healthcare, was heard.

Motion by Councilmember Zernitskaya, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to approve the item; including not expending any other city resources that could be used for tracking gender diverse or transgender individuals.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

16.D. Request of Councilmembers Hall, Raskin, and Zernitskaya that in order to promote free and fair elections, the Council direct Staff to return with options to raise the individual contribution limit during political campaigns, was heard.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Negrete
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
ABSENT: None
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis explained that her no vote is because she intends to run for re-election in 2026.

TRANSIT

INFRASTRUCTURE

16.E. Request of Councilmember Zwick, Hall, and Zernitskaya that, to align with the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) initiative to evaluate and design bus rapid transit (BRT) and related bus infrastructure on priority corridors in the subregion including Santa Monica Boulevard west of Beverly Hills and Caltrans’ efforts to implement bus lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard between Centinela Avenue and the 405, the City Council direct the City Manager to present transit priority measures and tradeoffs, including bus lanes, as part of the planned study session about the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study in summer 2025, was heard.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to approve the item.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

4.H
Packet Pg. 269 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 February 25, 2025

GIFT RESOLUTION AND

GRATUITY ORDINANCE

16.F. Request of Mayor Negrete and Councilmember Snell that the City Manager and City Attorney survey other cities and bring amendments to the Gift Resolution and Gratuity Ordinance to create exceptions for attending City of Santa Monica economic development and cultural events in which Councilmembers are expected to attend to represent the City, was heard.

Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to approve the item, with direction to staff to look into the gift policies of other cities.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Snell, Zernitskaya
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Councilmembers Hall, Raskin
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:40 a.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.H
Packet Pg. 270 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 25, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 March 18, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2025
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:00 p.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis (Arrived at 5:09 PM)
Councilmember Jesse Zwick (Arrived remotely at 5:10 PM) Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya (Arrived at 5:03 PM)
Also Present: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:00 p.m., with all members present except Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis. Councilmember Raskin led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.

We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Raskin.

LEVINE ACT Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a

4.I
Packet Pg. 271 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 March 18, 2025

DISCLOSURE
Councilmember Zernitskaya
arrived at 5:03 P.M.
permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

No Councilmembers recused themselves from any items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act.

CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis
arrived at 5:09 P.M.

Councilmember Zwick
arrived remotely at 5:10 P.M.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:06 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions.

5.A. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Manager; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator:

Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Manager This matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.B. Conference with labor negotiator – Gov. Code § 54957.6:
agency designated representatives: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek, Human Resources Director Dana Brown, and Human Resources Manager Sarah Rebensdorf; bargaining units:

Administrative Team Associates (ATA), AFSCME Local 4819- Management Team Association (MTA), California Teamsters Local 911 (IBT), Municipal Employees Association (MEA), Public Attorney’s Legal Support Staff Union (PALSSU), Public Attorney’s Union (PAU), Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association (FEMA), Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 (LOCAL 1109), Police Officers Association (POA), Supervisory Team Association (STA) and SMART TD - International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division, Local 1785 (SMART TD)
This matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

4.I
Packet Pg. 272 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 March 18, 2025
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.I
Packet Pg. 273 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025
Agenda Item: 5.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8: property: 1855 Main Street, Santa Monica, California (Civic Auditorium) (APN 4290-013-901); City negotiators: Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Manager, and Nia Tang, Economic Development Administrator; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; persons to be negotiated with: Tim Sexton, Revitalization Partner Group, LLC; under negotiation: price and terms of payment for lease
Prepared By: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

5.B
Packet Pg. 274
1 David Yakobson
From: Save the Civic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council 3/25/25 item 5-B - Civic Auditorium - It's Time! Can't see this message? View in a browser
Save the Civic
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

March 25, 2025
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members,
Two weeks ago Council received an outpouring of constituent emails urging you to partner with RPG to restore and re-open our iconic, historic Civic Auditorium as an artistic and cultural center.

Save the Civic speaks for hundreds of Santa Monica residents who support the revitalization of the Civic and its continued public ownership. They want a resident-owned 21st century artistic and cultural center in our City.

It is time to ink the ENA. The sooner the Civic is up and running, the sooner its economic and reputational rewards will come to Santa Monica.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 2 Save the Civic Steering Committee

If you haven’t already, please visit our website: savethecivic.org and register your contact information so we can notify you with updates or when action is needed.
.
[email protected]
Share on social
To help
protect
your
privacy,
Microso
ft Office
prevent
ed
automa
tic
downlo
Check out our site
T
o
h
e
l
p
This email was sent from this site.

If you no longer wish to receive this email, change your email preferences here.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 1 David Yakobson
From: Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:35 PM
To: Arthur Jeon
Cc: John E. Alle; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal

EXTERNAL
Agree with everything you wisely say, but the issue of the City entitled to receive a Civic Center deal ground rent based on the respective interests of landlord and tenant should not be shunted aside. Sure, the City will have important indirect benefits, but the deal is not possible, with almost certain but now unknown cash flow for the operator, without our land. Only experts, not now in the picture, can establish and negotiate with Irving Azoff and his super talented team that rental amount or formula.

The Olympics issue is also highly complicated, and one hopes staff and outside legal counsel are finally following the public demands of Council, for a deal in the overall City interest. Perhaps the new IOC President can persuade the LA committee to act equitably so a fair deal can be reached.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 25, 2025, at 12:14 PM, Arthur Jeon <[email protected]> wrote:

Hey all,
I’ve written about the branding and marketing opportunities hosting the Olympics will provide. Every commercial break will be a drone rising from the sand and spinning around the pier and showing our sparkling beaches and skyline. I know the IOC is a pain, and they have all sorts of brand restrictions, and it might be a short-term money loser, etc. But again, like the Civic Center, these are two extremely positive opportunities for the city to restore its brand. The Olympics will pay dividends for years in terms of perceptions of Santa Monica as an international destination. Trust me, you can’t buy that kind of exposure for a hundred million, and we just won’t get the same organic (free) marketing if it’s not on our beaches (the place beach volleyball originated!). The idea that we can’t be bold enough to take this obvious opportunity is depressing.

And I can’t stress enough, that if people come for concerts, or come for the Olympics, and they encounter the dirty, dangerous, and disorderly downtown we now have, it will be a final nail in the coffin for our brand. We have to get our shit together and be thriving before the Olympics, because whether we host or not, people will be visiting here and they will leave with either a good or bad impression. And that impression will go out on millions of Social Media feeds.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 2 I spent Sunday in Redondo Beach (Strongly Liberal rather than Very Liberal), and we walked everywhere. Miles through the village and on the boardwalk. Ate lunch outside in a cafe.

We did not encounter one drugged or mentally ill deranged person. Seriously, not one. It was like an out of body experience.

What we have come to accept in our city, what we have normalized under the misguided idea of “compassion” while letting people die on our streets, is not normal. Building more facilities that rotate people out, or are actually just drug markets (looking at you, SM shelter), is a self-inflicted wound we need to stop inflicting.

This is not rocket science. The restaurants that open for 6 months and then close, will continue to do so until residents and tourists feel safe enough to return. And keep in mind, perception lags reality by a year, which is why the Olympics can reset it for us if we are prepared.

I know you know this is true, and I’m sure some of you are working hard on this issue. But SMRR owns this now and forever, despite the short interregnum of a divided council. You are the “professional” council entrusted to make good decisions for the residents of Santa Monica. I encourage you to be bold.

Arthur
On Mar 25, 2025, at 11:22 AM, John Alle <[email protected]> wrote:

The lack of transparency is shocking. We all want the Civic Center restored and to become a centerpiece of culture, history and special events for Santa Monica.

But it's like Santa Monica paying millions to host the 2028 Olympic Beach Volleyball. When does one say no or set terms that put Santa Monica first? There must be even more transparency with the public involved, because neither City Council or staff or their real estate negotiators have much experience.

And with regard to the Civic, who might feel safe if the City Staff gets City Council to vote in favor of the 72 hour hold and diversion center scheduled to be less than 50 yards away on the south side. That's like using the barren lot that housed Parking Garage 3 directly behind the 3rd Street Promenade as a homeless shelter. The two uses do not mix.

There will be more agony from bad incidents and assaults. Irving Azoff from Live Nation is well aware of this.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 3 On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 6:00 PM Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Residents, and maybe staff and the Council, have been given zero info as to projected financial pro formas of the development over any part of the ground lease period. Those estimates, so common in commercial practice, when reviewed or prepared by a City consultant , will tell everyone whether the City should fairly advocate for some portion, perhaps a percentage of any net profits calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2025, at 5:41 PM, Arthur Jeon
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi All,
I haven’t read the deal details on this, and it would be great to get ground rent if possible, but the big picture is all the ancillary windfalls that Mario highlights in this piece—with one more: brand damage repair and some positive news
coming out of Santa Monica. It’s sad and infuriating when I tell people I live in Santa Monica and they literally look at me with pity, and immediately commence with their own story about visiting us and having a negative brush with disorder and/or danger. Ten years ago when I told people where I lived, they used to exclaim: “You’re so lucky!”
We need some good news for our PR and tourism industry, and a boost of civic pride, both intangibles that will pay dividends for years to come. Making it happen, council, will also restore confidence in our city leadership that they can get things done that are imaginative, take the long view, and are a positive vision of an artistic city brimming with fun.

Someday, we won’t be broke, but if we sell off our cultural jewels, no amount of money can get them back.

Best,
Arthur
On Mar 24, 2025, at 4:34 PM, Stanley H Epstein
<[email protected]> wrote:

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 4 Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent
compilation of thoughts and relevant facts
favoring the Civic deal. But where in your
argument is the economic or real estate
appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack
of a monetary ground rent portion of the
transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or
anyone seen it? Why was that report not
demanded and then analyzed to possibly
improve the sorely huge long and intermediate
financial problems of our City?
Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror
<newsletter@mirrormediagroupl
a.com>
Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39
PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations
to Support Post-Fire Recovery
Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror
<newsletter@mirrormediagroupl
a.com>

View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 5 SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Mu
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to co for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abando Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Amo
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and List
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 6 Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Con
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Ta Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 7 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansio
Market Again Amid Renovation Dram
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 8 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How Califo
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofit Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Reg
to Support Post-Fire Economic Reco
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishm Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 9 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 9006 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY
www.johnallecompany.com
www.thesantamonicacoalition.org
Cell: (310) 990-7124
Office: (626) 795-1511 (310) 319-1511
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation to the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly delete.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 10 David Yakobson
From: deborah berek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Santa Monica Civic Auditorium - agenda item 5-B - 3/25/2025

EXTERNAL
Dear members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please agree to lease the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium to RPG. This property is so important to our community as a world class performing arts center, that any other action would be a tragic loss of a historically significant structure and legacy as well as a missed opportunity for future generations to share and build upon our rich performing arts culture.

While that misjudgment would be bad in and of itself, the missed economic opportunity would compound the foolishness.

Please lease the Civic Center to RPG and preserve our invaluable Santa Monica performing arts legacy.

Respectfully,
Jonathan and Deborah Berek
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 11 David Yakobson
From: Arthur Jeon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:15 PM
To: John E. Alle
Cc: Stan Epstein; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal

EXTERNAL
Hey all,
I’ve written about the branding and marketing opportunities hosting the Olympics will provide. Every commercial break will be a drone rising from the sand and spinning around the pier and showing our sparkling beaches and skyline. I know the IOC is a pain, and they have all sorts of brand restrictions, and it might be a short-term money loser, etc. But again, like the Civic Center, these are two extremely positive opportunities for the city to restore its brand. The Olympics will pay dividends for years in terms of perceptions of Santa Monica as an international destination. Trust me, you can’t buy that kind of exposure for a hundred million, and we just won’t get the same organic (free) marketing if it’s not on our beaches (the place beach volleyball originated!). The idea that we can’t be bold enough to take this obvious opportunity is depressing.

And I can’t stress enough, that if people come for concerts, or come for the Olympics, and they encounter the dirty, dangerous, and disorderly downtown we now have, it will be a final nail in the coffin for our brand. We have to get our shit together and be thriving before the Olympics, because whether we host or not, people will be visiting here and they will leave with either a good or bad impression. And that impression will go out on millions of Social Media feeds.

I spent Sunday in Redondo Beach (Strongly Liberal rather than Very Liberal), and we walked everywhere.

Miles through the village and on the boardwalk. Ate lunch outside in a cafe. We did not encounter one drugged or mentally ill deranged person. Seriously, not one. It was like an out of body experience.

What we have come to accept in our city, what we have normalized under the misguided idea of “compassion” while letting people die on our streets, is not normal. Building more facilities that rotate people out, or are actually just drug markets (looking at you, SM shelter), is a self-inflicted wound we need to stop inflicting.

This is not rocket science. The restaurants that open for 6 months and then close, will continue to do so until residents and tourists feel safe enough to return. And keep in mind, perception lags reality by a year, which is why the Olympics can reset it for us if we are prepared.

I know you know this is true, and I’m sure some of you are working hard on this issue. But SMRR owns this now and forever, despite the short interregnum of a divided council. You are the “professional” council entrusted to make good decisions for the residents of Santa Monica. I encourage you to be bold.

Arthur
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 12 On Mar 25, 2025, at 11:22 AM, John Alle <[email protected]> wrote:

The lack of transparency is shocking. We all want the Civic Center restored and to become a centerpiece of culture, history and special events for Santa Monica.

But it's like Santa Monica paying millions to host the 2028 Olympic Beach Volleyball. When does one say no or set terms that put Santa Monica first? There must be even more transparency with the public involved, because neither City Council or staff or their real estate negotiators have much experience.

And with regard to the Civic, who might feel safe if the City Staff gets City Council to vote in favor of the 72 hour hold and diversion center scheduled to be less than 50 yards away on the south side. That's like using the barren lot that housed Parking Garage 3 directly behind the 3rd Street Promenade as a homeless shelter. The two uses do not mix.

There will be more agony from bad incidents and assaults. Irving Azoff from Live Nation is well aware of this.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 6:00 PM Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Residents, and maybe staff and the Council, have been given zero info as to projected financial pro formas of the development over any part of the ground lease period. Those estimates, so common in commercial practice, when reviewed or prepared by a City consultant , will tell everyone whether the City should fairly advocate for some portion, perhaps a percentage of any net profits calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2025, at 5:41 PM, Arthur Jeon
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi All,
I haven’t read the deal details on this, and it would be great to get ground rent if possible, but the big picture is all the ancillary windfalls that Mario highlights in this piece—with one more: brand damage repair and some positive news coming out of Santa Monica. It’s sad and infuriating when I tell people I live in Santa Monica and they literally look at me with pity, and immediately commence with their own story about visiting us and having a negative brush with disorder and/or danger. Ten years ago when I told people where I lived, they used to exclaim: “You’re so lucky!” Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 13 We need some good news for our PR and tourism industry, and a boost of civic pride, both intangibles that will pay dividends for years to come.

Making it happen, council, will also restore confidence in our city leadership that they can get things done that are imaginative, take the long view, and are a positive vision of an artistic city brimming with fun.

Someday, we won’t be broke, but if we sell off our cultural jewels, no amount of money can get them back.

Best,
Arthur
On Mar 24, 2025, at 4:34 PM, Stanley H Epstein
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent compilation of thoughts and relevant facts favoring the Civic deal. But where in your argument is the economic or real estate appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack of a monetary ground rent portion of the transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or anyone seen it? Why was that report not demanded and then analyzed to possibly improve the sorely huge long and intermediate
financial problems of our City?
Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations to Support
Post-Fire Recovery
Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 14 View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Music 2
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to continue t for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abandoned C Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 15 Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Among
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and Listings
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn More H Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Controv
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Tax. Learn Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 16 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansion Hi
Market Again Amid Renovation Drama
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More Here To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 17 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How California
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofits. Learn Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Regulat
to Support Post-Fire Economic Recover
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college basket tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishments. Le Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 18 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 90064 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY
www.johnallecompany.com
www.thesantamonicacoalition.org
Cell: (310) 990-7124
Office: (626) 795-1511 (310) 319-1511
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation to the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly delete.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 1 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Civic Auditorium Item #5.B.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please support the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to work with RGP to bring a rejuvenated Civic Auditorium to our city!
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
resident
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 1 David Yakobson
From: Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:41 AM
To: John Alle
Cc: Arthur Jeon; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal

EXTERNAL
The diversion center reduces the negotiated amount of ground rent, but does not justify a dollar a year, without regard to pro forma net income of the developer-operator. with no professionally competent analysis or public discussion of a highly complicated ground lease.

Why does Live Nation want the deal despite the diversion center? Must be a mountain of cash flow to it , with the City give away.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 25, 2025, at 11:22 AM, John Alle <[email protected]> wrote:

The lack of transparency is shocking. We all want the Civic Center restored and to become a centerpiece of culture, history and special events for Santa Monica.

But it's like Santa Monica paying millions to host the 2028 Olympic Beach Volleyball. When does one say no or set terms that put Santa Monica first? There must be even more transparency with the public involved, because neither City Council or staff or their real estate negotiators have much experience.

And with regard to the Civic, who might feel safe if the City Staff gets City Council to vote in favor of the 72 hour hold and diversion center scheduled to be less than 50 yards away on the south side. That's like using the barren lot that housed Parking Garage 3 directly behind the 3rd Street Promenade as a homeless shelter. The two uses do not mix.

There will be more agony from bad incidents and assaults. Irving Azoff from Live Nation is well aware of this.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 6:00 PM Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Residents, and maybe staff and the Council, have been given zero info as to projected financial pro formas of the development over any part of the ground lease period. Those Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 2 estimates, so common in commercial practice, when reviewed or prepared by a City consultant , will tell everyone whether the City should fairly advocate for some portion, perhaps a percentage of any net profits calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2025, at 5:41 PM, Arthur Jeon
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi All,
I haven’t read the deal details on this, and it would be great to get ground rent if possible, but the big picture is all the ancillary windfalls that Mario highlights in this piece—with one more: brand damage repair and some positive news coming out of Santa Monica. It’s sad and infuriating when I tell people I live in Santa Monica and they literally look at me with pity, and immediately commence with their own story about visiting us and having a negative brush with disorder and/or danger. Ten years ago when I told people where I lived, they used to exclaim: “You’re so lucky!” We need some good news for our PR and tourism industry, and a boost of civic pride, both intangibles that will pay dividends for years to come.

Making it happen, council, will also restore confidence in our city leadership that they can get things done that are imaginative, take the long view, and are a positive vision of an artistic city brimming with fun.

Someday, we won’t be broke, but if we sell off our cultural jewels, no amount of money can get them back.

Best,
Arthur
On Mar 24, 2025, at 4:34 PM, Stanley H Epstein
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent compilation of thoughts and relevant facts favoring the Civic deal. But where in your argument is the economic or real estate appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack of a monetary ground rent portion Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 3 of the transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or anyone seen it? Why was that report not demanded and then analyzed to possibly improve the sorely huge long and intermediate
financial problems of our City?
Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations to Support
Post-Fire Recovery
Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>

View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Music 2
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 4 On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to continue t for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abandoned C Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Among
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and Listings
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn More H Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 5 Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Controv
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Tax. Learn Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 6 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansion Hi
Market Again Amid Renovation Drama
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More Here To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 7 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How California
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofits. Learn Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Regulat
to Support Post-Fire Economic Recover
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college basket tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishments. Le Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 8 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 90064 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY
www.johnallecompany.com
www.thesantamonicacoalition.org
Cell: (310) 990-7124
Office: (626) 795-1511 (310) 319-1511
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation to the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly delete.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 9 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:22 AM
To: Stanley H Epstein
Cc: Arthur Jeon; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal

EXTERNAL
The lack of transparency is shocking. We all want the Civic Center restored and to become a centerpiece of culture, history and special events for Santa Monica.

But it's like Santa Monica paying millions to host the 2028 Olympic Beach Volleyball. When does one say no or set terms that put Santa Monica first?
There must be even more transparency with the public involved, because neither City Council or staff or their real estate negotiators have much experience.

And with regard to the Civic, who might feel safe if the City Staff gets City Council to vote in favor of the 72 hour hold and diversion center scheduled to be less than 50 yards away on the south side. That's like using the barren lot that housed Parking Garage 3 directly behind the 3rd Street Promenade as a homeless shelter. The two uses do not mix.

There will be more agony from bad incidents and assaults. Irving Azoff from Live Nation is well aware of this.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 6:00 PM Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Residents, and maybe staff and the Council, have been given zero info as to projected financial pro formas of the development over any part of the ground lease period. Those estimates, so common in commercial practice, when reviewed or prepared by a City consultant , will tell everyone whether the City should fairly advocate for some portion, perhaps a percentage of any net profits calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2025, at 5:41 PM, Arthur Jeon <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi All,
I haven’t read the deal details on this, and it would be great to get ground rent if possible, but the big picture is all the ancillary windfalls that Mario highlights in this piece—with one more: brand damage repair and some positive news coming out of Santa Monica. It’s sad Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 10 and infuriating when I tell people I live in Santa Monica and they literally look at me with pity, and immediately commence with their own story about visiting us and having a negative brush with disorder and/or danger. Ten years ago when I told people where I lived, they used to exclaim: “You’re so lucky!”
We need some good news for our PR and tourism industry, and a boost of civic pride, both intangibles that will pay dividends for years to come. Making it happen, council, will also restore confidence in our city leadership that they can get things done that are imaginative, take the long view, and are a positive vision of an artistic city brimming with fun.

Someday, we won’t be broke, but if we sell off our cultural jewels, no amount of money can get them back.

Best,
Arthur
On Mar 24, 2025, at 4:34 PM, Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent compilation of thoughts and relevant facts favoring the Civic deal. But where in your argument is the economic or real estate appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack of a monetary ground rent portion of the transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or anyone seen it? Why was that report not demanded and then analyzed to possibly improve the sorely huge long and intermediate financial problems of our City?
Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire
Recovery
Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 11 View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Music 2.0
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to continue the proce for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abandoned Civic Ce Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 12 Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Among Mos
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and Listings
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn More Here Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Controversi
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Tax. Learn More H Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 13 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansion Hits
Market Again Amid Renovation Drama
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More Here To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 14 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How California’s
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofits. Learn More H Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Regulations
to Support Post-Fire Economic Recovery
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college basketball tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishments. Learn Mor Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 15 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 90064 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY
www.johnallecompany.com
www.thesantamonicacoalition.org
Cell: (310) 990-7124
Office: (626) 795-1511 (310) 319-1511
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation to the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly delete.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 16 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 11:18 AM
To: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Cc: Nancy Coleman; Bruce Leddy
Subject: ITEM 5B/3-25-25 - SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

TO: SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
RE: Agenda Item 5B, March 25, 2025
Dear Mayor and Council Members -
The Board of NOMA once again urges you to accept the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with RPG to move the process of restoring the Civic Auditorium forward. RPG is the perfect consortium for this project, with both venue restoration experience and live venue management ability. Their proposal will return the Civic to its glory days as an entertainment and cultural hub for our city, and result in longterm economic benefit, all at no cost to taxpayers.

This city is fortunate to have such a legendary facility that could add to our reputation as a center for the arts. Please move forward with the ENA.

Bruce Leddy
Chair, on behalf of
The NOMA Board
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. APRIL 3RD
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jaleh MIRHASHEMI <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 10:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Christopher J. Smith; Ramon Batista; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; Jenna Grigsby; Erika Aklufi; Sofia Klatzker; Jenny Rogers; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Steven Johnson; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Smith; Lori Brown; Barry Rosenbaum; [email protected]; Susan Cline
Subject: City Council Meeting - 3/March 25, 2025 Council Meeting - Closed Session Item 5.B. -

RPG & CIVIC AUDITORIUM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Esteemed Councilmembers:

We have been waiting very long to renovate and reopen our Santa Monica's landmark Civic Auditorium. Reviving the Civic Auditorium as a destination for performing arts and a cultural center like it was in the past, is a dream for the Santa Monica residents and many others.

The Revitalization Partners Group (RPG), LLC has submitted their Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with you. Considering that they offer to save our public land with no need for any public funds, it would be a great opportunity for our city. The reopening of the Civic Auditorium would have a great impact on our city's economy as well.

The fate of our historic Civic Auditorium is in your hands. Please VOTE TO SIGN THE ENA with the RPG to revitalize and reopen the Civic Auditorium without any delay.

Please move forward this once-in- a- lifetime opportunity/deal. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Sincerely,
Jaleh Mirhashemi
Co-Chair, Civic Center Task Force
Resident, 24 years
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 2 David Yakobson
From: Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 10:18 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: 3/25/25 Item 5B, Civic Auditorium

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members,
Three time’s a charm.

Twice before Santa Monica has stumbled and lost the chance to work with reputable, qualified entertainment companies to restore, reopen, and operate the Civic.

We now have a third chance. Seize it, partner with RPG, and let’s go. The City and community benefits are enormous.

Bea Nemlaha
Ocean Park
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: FOSP: City Council 3/25/25 item 5-B -- Civic Auditorium -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
March 24, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 3/25/25 agenda item 5-B -- Santa Monica Civic Auditorium

Just a gentle reminder that the fate of our historic Civic Auditorium is in your hands.

The FOSP Board once again urges you to sign the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and lease the Civic to RPG so Santa Monica can once again have a world-class performing arts center, at no cost to taxpayers.

Thank you for your consideration.

***************************************************************** March 8, 2025

To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park'
RE: 3/11/25 agenda item 5-C -- Santa Monica Civic Auditorium The fate of our historic Civic Auditorium is in your hands.

The FOSP Board urges you to sign the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and lease the Civic to RPG so Santa Monica can have a world-class performing arts center, at no cost to taxpayers.

Background:
- A revitalized world-class concert and performing arts center would provide the City with a revenue stream for decades. The economic ripple effect for Santa Monica would be huge as a restored concert and performing arts venue in the heart of our city would attract people from all over the region and beyond, generating economic activity (and tax dollars!) for hotels, restaurants, etc., enhancing our City’s destination status.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 2 - A partnership with RPG would mean the Civic would remain owned by the residents of Santa Monica. Keeping public spaces public encourages residents to participate in their communities, which is vital at a time when people feel increasingly isolated. - Publicly owned venues for music and the arts are rare and important and should not be sold off or used for other purposes.
- A restored Civic would make our City a cultural and arts destination for Santa Monicans, Southern Californians, and beyond -- a source of pride for the people of our great City. - Traffic makes it difficult for Santa Monicans to visit venues like the Hollywood Bowl or Greek Theater. Why not have a vibrant home for music and the arts right here in our city? If City Council members vote to end negotiations, this will be a tragic missed opportunity and a huge loss for all of us.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 3 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:09 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: March 25, 2025 Council Meeting - Closed Session Item 5.B. - RPG & CIVIC AUDITORIUM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I understand the Civic Auditorium is back on your agenda again for tomorrow, though I’m not sure why.

Regardless, I write to reiterate my comments below from earlier in the month in hearty support that you sign the RNA with RPG Group. We’re extremely fortunate to have their partnership with the project! Please do not burden the process with any new conditions, which is unfortunately something our beautiful city is known to do with projects large and small. A revitalized Santa Monica Civic Auditorium will be a cultural and economic driver for the city and we need it to happen ASAP. Let’s move forward with gusto.

Thank you,
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
1039 Harvard Street
Santa Monica CA 90403
[email protected]
310/736-5300
On Mar 8, 2025, at 3:40 PM, Stacey Abarbanel <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Council:

The fate of our historic Civic Auditorium is in your hands. Please vote to sign the ENA so Santa Monica can have a world-class performing arts center, at no cost to taxpayers. RPG Group is highly experienced with strong ties to the entertainment industry and a proven track record. They are prepared to secure the funding needed to revitalize the Civic Auditorium as a world-class performance venue if given time and consideration in developing a feasibility assessment and design proposal that fits this project's complex requirements and our community's needs. Please endorse their request for an ENA as considerable economic and cultural benefits to the city will accompany their success.

We cannot wait to again have a vibrant home for music and the arts right here in our city! Thank you,
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 4 Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
1039 Harvard Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 5 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 9:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Susan Cline; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; Heather Averick; Armine Chaparyan; Jing Yeo; Jenny Rogers; Sofia Klatzker; Steven Johnson; Maryanne LaGuardia; Jenna Grigsby
Subject: March 25, 2025 Council Meeting - Closed Session Item 5.B. - RPG & CIVIC AUDITORIUM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Esteemed Councilmembers - I do not know why the Civic Auditorium is again on a Council agenda tomorrow, but hope it is not so that you will decide to burden the project with any new conditions. The community sent you 178 pages of pro-Civic Auditorium written public comment in connection with Closed Session Item 5.C. of your March 11, 2025 council meeting.

This already is a complex project given the high-level 4-partner consortium, the double-landmarking of the building, etc. And yet RPG remains enthusiastic and ready to get going to bring this vibrant civic asset back to life for our City. This opportunity will not come again. Please, please don't do anything now to undermine this last chance to get the Auditorium back to re-energize our Civic Center along with the many hotels, restaurants, and businesses nearby.

As you determined at your Council Budget Study Session on March 8th, "Economic Opportunity and Growth" is one of your top 3 priorities, and you elevated this priority even further by establishing a Council Economic Development Ad Hoc Subcommittee.

So I urge all of you to lean into this unique and timely set of circumstances.

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Our City should be laying down a gold-plated welcome mat for RPG not putting up any roadblocks.

The community already stands to lose other treasured public spaces due to the failure of prior Councils to protect these communal assets: Bergamot Station Arts Center and the 4th/5th & Arizona lots (home to the seasonal ICE and roller skating rinks). Please don't be that kind of a Council. Reopening the Civic Auditorium as a civic space and major entertainment venue (the only one anywhere on the Westside) will at last fulfill the cornerstone of the Civic Center Specific Plan (see page 15).

Please, please move this project forward unencumbered tomorrow night and with your hands outstretched in warm welcome to RPG.

THANK YOU!
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 6 Best,
Ann Bowman
Recreation and Park Commissioner
Lead Commissioner for Civic Auditorium RPC Ad Hoc Subcommittee Resident, 28+ years
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 7 David Yakobson
From: Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 6:00 PM
To: Arthur Jeon
Cc: Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; John E. Alle; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal

EXTERNAL
Residents, and maybe staff and the Council, have been given zero info as to projected financial pro formas of the development over any part of the ground lease period. Those estimates, so common in commercial practice, when reviewed or prepared by a City consultant , will tell everyone whether the City should fairly advocate for some portion, perhaps a percentage of any net profits calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2025, at 5:41 PM, Arthur Jeon <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi All,
I haven’t read the deal details on this, and it would be great to get ground rent if possible, but the big picture is all the ancillary windfalls that Mario highlights in this piece—with one more: brand damage repair and some positive news coming out of Santa Monica. It’s sad and infuriating when I tell people I live in Santa Monica and they literally look at me with pity, and immediately commence with their own story about visiting us and having a negative brush with disorder and/or danger. Ten years ago when I told people where I lived, they used to exclaim: “You’re so lucky!”
We need some good news for our PR and tourism industry, and a boost of civic pride, both intangibles that will pay dividends for years to come. Making it happen, council, will also restore confidence in our city leadership that they can get things done that are imaginative, take the long view, and are a positive vision of an artistic city brimming with fun.

Someday, we won’t be broke, but if we sell off our cultural jewels, no amount of money can get them back.

Best,
Arthur
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 8 On Mar 24, 2025, at 4:34 PM, Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent compilation of thoughts and relevant facts favoring the Civic deal. But where in your argument is the economic or real estate appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack of a monetary ground rent portion of the transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or anyone seen it? Why was that report not demanded and then analyzed to possibly improve the sorely huge long and intermediate financial problems of our City?
Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire
Recovery
Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror
<[email protected]>

View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 9 SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Music 2.0
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to continue the proce for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abandoned Civic Cen Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Among Most
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and Listings
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn More Here Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 10 Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Controversia
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Tax. Learn More He Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 11 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansion Hits
Market Again Amid Renovation Drama
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More Here To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 12 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How California’s
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofits. Learn More He Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Regulations
to Support Post-Fire Economic Recovery
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college basketball tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishments. Learn More Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 13 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 90064 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 14 David Yakobson
From: Arthur Jeon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:42 PM
To: Stan Epstein
Cc: Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; John E. Alle; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Re: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal

EXTERNAL
Hi All,
I haven’t read the deal details on this, and it would be great to get ground rent if possible, but the big picture is all the ancillary windfalls that Mario highlights in this piece—with one more: brand damage repair and some positive news coming out of Santa Monica. It’s sad and infuriating when I tell people I live in Santa Monica and they literally look at me with pity, and immediately commence with their own story about visiting us and having a negative brush with disorder and/or danger. Ten years ago when I told people where I lived, they used to exclaim: “You’re so lucky!” We need some good news for our PR and tourism industry, and a boost of civic pride, both intangibles that will pay dividends for years to come. Making it happen, council, will also restore confidence in our city leadership that they can get things done that are imaginative, take the long view, and are a positive vision of an artistic city brimming with fun.

Someday, we won’t be broke, but if we sell off our cultural jewels, no amount of money can get them back.

Best,
Arthur
On Mar 24, 2025, at 4:34 PM, Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent compilation of thoughts and relevant facts favoring the Civic deal. But where in your argument is the economic or real estate appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack of a monetary ground rent portion of the transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or anyone seen it? Why was that report not demanded and then analyzed to possibly improve the sorely huge long and intermediate financial problems of our City?
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 15 Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror <[email protected]> Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror <[email protected]>

View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Music 2.0
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to continue the process, for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abandoned Civic Center Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 16 Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Among Most
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and Listings
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn More Here Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Controversial
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Tax. Learn More Here Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 17 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansion Hits
Market Again Amid Renovation Drama
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More Here To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 18 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How California’s
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofits. Learn More Here Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Regulations
to Support Post-Fire Economic Recovery
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college basketball tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishments. Learn More Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 19 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 90064 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 20 David Yakobson
From: Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 4:35 PM
To: Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; John Alle; Arthur Jeon; Elaine Golden-Gealer; councilmtgitems Subject: Fwd: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery. Civic Center proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Dear Mario. Kudos for a magnificent compilation of thoughts and relevant facts favoring the Civic deal.

But where in your argument is the economic or real estate appraiser’s analysis that supports the total lack of a monetary ground rent portion of the transaction? Have you, Council, staff, or anyone seen it? Why was that report not demanded and then analyzed to possibly improve the sorely huge long and intermediate financial problems of our City?
Sincerely, Stan Epstein
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Santa Monica Mirror <[email protected]> Date: March 24, 2025 at 4:00:39 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: City Eases Regulations to Support Post-Fire Recovery Reply-To: Santa Monica Mirror <[email protected]>

View this email in your browser
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 21 SM.a.r.t Column: Bring Back The Music 2.0
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On January 28th, 2025, the City Council did a wise thing and agreed to continue the process, for 30 days, of negotiating an agreement to revitalize the abandoned Civic Center Auditorium. Learn More Here
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Beverly Hills, Bel Air Properties Among Most
Expensive U.S. Home Sales and Listings
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Bel Air, Beverly Hills Estates Top List of Nation’s Priciest Homes. Learn More Here Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 22 Mayor Bass Considers Pausing Controversial
‘Mansion Tax’ to Aid Wildfire Victims
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Measure ULA’s Future Uncertain as LA Reviews Options to Suspend Tax. Learn More Here Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 23 Kanye West’s Gutted Malibu Mansion Hits
Market Again Amid Renovation Drama
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kanye West’s Demolished Malibu Mansion Back on Market. Learn More Here To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 24 Brace, Bolt, and Protect: How California’s
Earthquake Retrofit Grants Work
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Protect Your Home: California Offers Thousands for Earthquake Retrofits. Learn More Here Santa Monica Eases Restaurant Regulations
to Support Post-Fire Economic Recovery
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help restaurants attract customers during the March Madness college basketball tournament, the emergency order lifts several restrictions on establishments. Learn More Here
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) 25 Santa Monica Mirror:
10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 325, Los Angeles, CA 90064 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Item 5-B
March 25, 2025
Item 5-B
March 25, 2025

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 3] (7010 : 5.B. Closed Session: Real Estate Negotiation - Civic Auditorium) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 25, 2025
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 22
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Five-Year Water and Wastewater Rate Study Session Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines for the five-year water and wastewater rate study session; and

2. Provide direction and recommendations to staff regarding potential rate adjustments and rate structures for the ongoing five-year water and wastewater rate study.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica continues to be a recognized leader in the world for its innovative water infrastructure projects and environmental policies aimed to provide a resilient, reliable and sustainable water supply. The City’s Public Works Department – Water Resources Division provides drinking water, wastewater collection, and recycled water services to residents, commercial, and institutional customers throughout the City.

These services are funded through self-sustaining Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds that are separate from the City’s General Fund. The Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds are evaluated every five years to ensure that sufficient funding is available to: 1) supply high-quality drinking water for potable use, 2) maintain routine operation and maintenance of the water distribution and wastewater collection infrastructure, 3) implement capital improvement program (CIP) projects for system resiliency and reliability, 4) advance sustainable water management efforts (e.g., water conservation and sustainable groundwater management) and 5) comply with Proposition 218 requirements to ensure cost of services are properly allocated amongst

7.A
Packet Pg. 339
2 of 22
user classifications and rate tiers. The City Council has consistently taken a strategic approach to setting future water and wastewater rates that balance a concern for keeping costs affordable to the community while adequately investing in long-term water quality, reliability, resiliency, and sustainability.

Staff in the Water Resources Division have retained a rate study consultant, NBS, to conduct the rate studies and recommend rate adjustments (Attachment C). Rate adjustments are needed to invest in system reliability and resiliency as well as keeping pace with escalating costs in serving over 93,000 residents and 2,700 businesses and institutions that make up the City’s 18,000+ accounts for water and wastewater services.

Staff are seeking City Council input and direction on the two rate options presented below. Based on comments received from City Council and outreach efforts with the community, staff will present the final water and wastewater rate study for City Council adoption in June 2025.

Background
The Water and Wastewater Rate Study will establish the basis to set the water and wastewater rates for fiscal years (FY) 2025-26 through 2029-30 in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements. Proposition 218 stipulates, among other things, that charges for water and wastewater services must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to each parcel or customer. Staff are currently working with the consultant, NBS, to establish the cost of service that is in compliance with Prop 218 requirements. The rate study will include a review of the following to set the water and wastewater rate structure:
• Operating and capital revenue requirements for the City’s Water and Wastewater enterprise funds over a five-year period, FY 2025-26 through 2029-30; • Fund reserves, maintain AAA bond rating/capacity, and cover current and future debt obligations;

7.A
Packet Pg. 340
3 of 22
• Water and sewer rates / structure – adjusting the fixed-service charge component, tiered rates, number of tiers, usage allocations by tier, and customer class designations (e.g., residential, commercial);
• Affordability of rates including low-income discounts / rates for purposes of determining the level of subsidy from non-rate payer funds (e.g., City’s general fund);
• Cost of service for each rate/fee/charge by customer class, meter size and tier; • Impact of proposed changes versus existing rates;
• Funding for capital improvement program projects (e.g., system resiliency projects including rehabilitating the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs); and
• Other related factors as identified by the public, City Council, advisory groups and staff as part of the rate study outreach process.

The consultant’s financial analysis has considered the cost of service to operate the system, produce and distribute high-quality drinking water, replace and upgrade existing facilities, implement routine capital improvement projects, and fund one-time CIP projects that will maintain infrastructure reliability and resiliency. The financial analysis for the water and wastewater enterprise funds are broken down into three key components:

1. Expenditures, broken down into three categories:
a. Operating & Maintenance (O&M) - Salaries and benefits of Water Resources staff (current and future to support expanded operations from water self-sufficiency projects added during the 2020-2024 rate study) as well as all the supplies, contracted services, and water sustainability programs to produce local water and maintain a reliable and resilient water supply for customers. The O&M expenditure also includes debt service (e.g., $78 million water revenue bond in the water fund and $55 million State Revolving Fund loan in the wastewater fund). O&M expenditures typically account for approximately 70-75% of the total water fund expenditures.

7.A
Packet Pg. 341
4 of 22
b. Routine Capital Projects - Replace aging water mains on a 100-year cycle, upgrade software infrastructure and facilities to function efficiently, reliably, and meet industry standards. Routine capital projects typically account for approximately 20-25% of the total water fund expenditures. c. One-time Capital Projects - Non-routine capital improvement projects to replace or maintain aging assets, including rehabilitating the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs that total 40 million gallons in storage, replacing aging operation facilities (e.g., water quality laboratory) and redrilling and refurbishing aging groundwater production wells.

2. Revenues - the primary source of revenue generated by the established water and wastewater rates.

3. Reserves - to ensure continuity of water and wastewater service due to unforeseen events. The water and wastewater enterprise fund’s current reserve policy include:
a. Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve = 3% of capital assets. b. Operating Reserve = maintain minimum of 60 days of operating budget and target a 90-day operating reserve.
c. Rate Stabilization Reserve = intended for unexpected decrease in revenues or increase in expenditures (e.g., higher than forecasted increase for charges from regional wastewater collection/treatment provider). A rate stabilization reserve of $1 million has been set by City Council previously.

Discussion
Water Enterprise Fund
The City’s Water Fund supports production, treatment, and distribution of high-quality drinking water to meet the City’s water demands. Over the past five years since the last five-year water rates were adopted in January 2020, revenues have been lower than originally projected in each year as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic (e.g., decline in water use in commercial and multi-family residential customers) and climate change impacts on water usage (severe drought conditions followed by extreme wet winter periods). Between Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 and FY 2023-24, the Water Fund had

7.A
Packet Pg. 342
5 of 22
experienced a total revenue shortfall of approximately $18.5 million as indicated in Figure 1 below. In addition, revenues for FY 2024-25 are forecasted to have a shortfall of nearly $5 million and will need to dip into the Water Fund reserves to mitigate the shortfall. Expenditures for both operation and construction during and post pandemic have also exceeded original projections due to higher than anticipated market inflation rates (e.g., 3-4% prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and 4-9% general inflation after; ~4% in the water sector prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and 6-16% after) caused by supply chain shortages and increases in material costs.

Figure 1: Summary of Water Fund Revenue Forecast versus Actuals from FY 2019-20 through FY 2023-24
Despite the revenue shortfalls and high market escalation rates experienced over the past five years, the Water Resources Division was still able to successfully deliver the local water supply and water efficiency projects outlined in the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (Attachment D). These projects included the Olympic Well Field

7.A
Packet Pg. 343
6 of 22
Restoration, Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Production Efficiency Enhancement and Expansion Project, Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project, and Groundwater Resiliency Projects (two new groundwater production wells and two new groundwater recharge wells). Staff was able to bridge the funding gap for these water self-sufficiency projects by securing a $10 million grant from the California Department of Water Resources and a $78 million water revenue bond as well as deferring selected routine CIP projects (e.g., annual water main replacement).

For the current five-year rate cycle (2025-30), expenditures (O&M, routine capital, and one-time capital projects) are forecasted to outpace revenues by nearly $6-7 million in FY 2025-26 alone and the gap will continue to grow without a rate adjustment to replenish reserves and keep pace with market escalation rates. In addition, several critical projects are planned for this five-year rate cycle to address resiliency and aging infrastructure, including:
• Rehabilitation of the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs (total capacity of 40 million gallons or roughly 4 days of the City’s total water supply) that range from 60 to over 100 years old. These four storage reservoirs are critical in providing water to meet peak daily/seasonal and emergency fire demands. • Replacing the City’s drinking water operations center and water quality laboratory that are both over 60 years old. The two aging facilities are the brain of the City’s water system which monitor and control the entire drinking water treatment and distribution network throughout the City.
• Capital projects to further enhance water supply resiliency and emergency response.

A list of planned CIP projects and projects pending outside funding/financing is provided in Attachment E. The CIP projects pending outside funding/financing are large capital projects that are outside of typical replacement and upgrade frequencies where funding it solely through water rate revenues would place an extensive burden on the rate payers and require a significant increase in revenues to support it. Outside funding and financing typically require a local funding match and are provided through a

7.A
Packet Pg. 344
7 of 22
reimbursement model. A portion of the total program cost is included in the planned CIP Project budget for use as either matching funds and/or to maintain cash flow for reimbursement of funds from outside funding agencies. The rate consultant has developed two rate options to fund the capital projects necessary to maintain reliability, resiliency, and emergency preparedness of the City’s water system. A brief summary of the two rate options is provided in Table 1 and briefly discussed below. The two rate options will be presented to City Council during the Study Session.

Table 1: Summary of Water Rate Options
Water Rate
Option
Fund
Routine
Operations
Capacity
Fee %
Rehabilitate
Reservoirs
and Replace
Water Ops
Center
Capital Improvement
Program
All CIP
Projects
Funded
With
Efficiencies
(75%
Funded)
1 ✓ 20% ✓ ✓
2 ✓ 15% ✓
Water Rate Option 1, recommended by the consultant, aims to balance rate adjustments with outside funding/financing support to minimize financial impacts on the rate payers. Under this option, staff will work on securing grants and low interest loans to pay for at least 49% of the total program that includes rehabilitating the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs and replace the water operations center and water quality laboratory. The recommended rate adjustment for this option is 20% (year 1), 16% (year 2), 9% (year 3), 9% (year 4), and 6% (year 5). • The higher % rate adjustment in year 1 and 2 is partially due to replenishing the water fund reserves from the revenue shortfall of nearly $5 million expected for FY 2024-25.
• This option would rehabilitate all four potable water storage reservoirs over an 8- 10 year period as only one reservoir can be taken offline at once for rehabilitation and repairs. The estimated capital cost to rehabilitate the four reservoirs is approximately $80 million in 2025 dollars.
• Staff has already begun discussing and identifying financial assistance opportunities with state and federal agencies (e.g., Hazard Mitigation Grant

7.A
Packet Pg. 345
8 of 22
Program, low interest loans from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, and United States Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART or Reclamation Grants).
• Should staff be unsuccessful in securing outside financing, there would still be sufficient funding to rehabilitate one out of the four potable water reservoirs and replace the aging water operations center and water quality laboratory during this rate study cycle. The three other potable water storage reservoirs would be replaced during each of the subsequent five-year rate cycles and all four would be rehabilitated within the next 20 years. Delaying replacement of the reservoirs increases the risk of failure, reduces water supply resiliency to respond to emergency events, and may interrupt water deliveries to the community. • Staff would also consider increasing the fixed charge (e.g., capacity fee) component from 15% to 20% of the revenue requirements in an effort to improve cost recovery of the fixed operating cost that accounts for over 70% of the total water fund expenditures.

The projected water fund forecast and reserves for the recommended Water Rate Option 1 is summarized in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. As noted in Figure 2 by the black line, without a rate adjustment, the water fund could only fund less than 50% of the routine capital projects to maintain system reliability in FY 2025-26 and would be unable to fund any capital projects after FY 2027-28. With the recommended rate adjustments under Water Rate Option 1, sufficient revenue is forecasted to maintain water system reliability and enhance resiliency by rehabilitating and replacing aging infrastructure. The expenditure forecast in Figure 2 also includes additional debt service that will be taken on by the water fund starting in FY 2028-29 as staff seeks to secure outside financing to support key reliability and resiliency projects for the City’s water infrastructure. The recommended Water Rate Option 1 also maintains minimum reserve levels through the five-year rate study period, first by replenishing the reserves to meet the minimum reserve target by the end of FY 2025-26 and achieve the recommended reserve target by the end of the rate study period in FY 2029-30.

7.A
Packet Pg. 346
9 of 22
Figure 2: Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Forecast for the Recommended Water Rate Option 1

7.A
Packet Pg. 347
10 of 22
Figure 3: Summary of Water Fund Reserve Balance for the Recommended Water Rate Option 1
Water Rate Option 2 aims to minimize rate adjustments by deferring the reservoir rehabilitation, new water operations center, and new water quality laboratory to future rate study cycles (e.g., FY 2030-31 through FY 2034-35). In addition, only 75% of the routine CIP projects listed in Attachment E would be funded. Under Water Rate Option 2, the following capital projects from Attachment E would be placed on hold or deferred to a future five-year rate study cycle:
• Defer CIP Project: Reservoir Improvements – Riviera ($8.6 million) • Defer CIP Project Arcadia WTP Operations Center and Water Quality Lab Replacement ($18.8 million)
• Defer all Water fund CIP Projects Pending Outside Funding/Financing ($96.6 million)

7.A
Packet Pg. 348
11 of 22
• Reduce CIP Project funding by 25%, approximately $5 to $5.5 million each fiscal year, through deferring annual water main replacement and/or groundwater production well replacement.

The proposed rate adjustment for Option 2 is 11% (year 1), 9% (year 2), 7% (year 3), 6% (year 4), and 6% (year 5). The projected water fund forecast and reserves for the recommended Water Rate Option 1 is summarized in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Water Rate Option 2 is not recommended by staff as the City’s potable water reservoirs, water operations center, and water quality laboratory are all over 60-70 years old. Further delay of rehabilitation and/or replacement of these critical infrastructure that serve the entire community may result in insufficient water supplies to respond to regional emergencies (e.g., wildfires), interrupt delivery of potable water to customers for extended periods (e.g., months to a year) until repairs could be made, necessitate the purchase of more costly imported water, prevent the City from meeting max day water demands and peak summer water demands, and risk non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

7.A
Packet Pg. 349
12 of 22
Figure 4: Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Forecast for the Water Rate Option 2

7.A
Packet Pg. 350
13 of 22
Figure 5: Summary of Water Fund Reserve Balance for the Water Rate Option 2 Low Income Provision
The current and proposed rate structure includes a low-income provision where the first tier water rate for qualified single-family, low-income customers is discounted. Under a tiered water rate system, each tier is allocated a certain total volume of water at a set rate for the tier and increases when usage exceeds the tier allocation (e.g. exceeds first tier) and moves to the next tier (second tier). Tiered water rates reward customers who use water efficiently and discourage water waste. On February 24, 2015, Council approved a discount rate of $1 per hundred cubic feet (HCF) for the first tier when it switched to a 100% volumetric-based rate structure.

For single-family, low-income customers, the maximum bimonthly discount through the low-income provision is currently around $14. Second, third, and fourth tier rates are not

7.A
Packet Pg. 351
14 of 22
discounted since these apply to more discretionary uses of water and are meant to discourage water waste. Low-income customers qualify for the water discount by providing evidence of enrollment in the low-income program offered by Southern 21 of 36 California Edison or the Southern California Gas Company.

Cost of service requirements under Proposition 218 require that the discount provided to qualified low-income customers be covered by the City’s General Fund to prevent it from being subsidized by other ratepayers. The average annual General Fund transfer to the Water Fund is currently around $115,000, which benefits approximately 360+ customer accounts. Staff recommends funding low-income customers at the same levels. Pending Council’s feedback on rate structure alternatives, staff and the consultant would recommend maintaining the low-income subsidy structure but adjusting it to be in line with the rate structure ultimately selected.

Wastewater Enterprise Fund
The City provides wastewater service through operation and maintenance of an extensive wastewater collection system as well as advanced treated recycled water through the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). The City is one of 28 agencies that contracts with the City of Los Angeles for wastewater treatment services provided at the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion Treatment plant. Under the terms of the agreement with the City of Los Angeles, the City pays a proportionate share of the operations and maintenance expenses as well as capital charges for the Hyperion treatment and collection system. Payment to the City of Los Angeles for treatment typically accounts for 30% to 50% of the Wastewater Fund’s annual budget. Similar to the Water Enterprise Fund, the Wastewater Enterprise Fund also experienced a total revenue shortfall of approximately $12 million as indicated in Figure 6. Revenue targets were met in FY 2022-23 due to the $4 million in principal forgiveness from the low interest State Revolving Fund loan provided by the State of California to finance the construction cost for SWIP. In addition, revenues for FY 2024-25 are forecasted to have a shortfall of nearly $3.4 million. Expenditures for both operation and construction during and post pandemic have also exceeded original projections due to higher than

7.A
Packet Pg. 352
15 of 22
anticipated market inflation rates caused by supply chain shortages and increases in raw material costs.

Figure 6: Summary of Wastewater Fund Revenue Forecast versus Actuals from FY 2019-20 through FY 2023-24
Similar to the water fund, the Water Resources Division was still able to deliver on local water supply projects despite the revenue shortfalls and high market escalation rates experienced over the past five years. In particular, the wastewater fund, with support from the City’s stormwater fund, was able to deliver the award winning SWIP that captures stormwater, urban runoff, and municipal wastewater to produce purified water for non-potable (e.g., irrigation) and potable reuse (groundwater recharge). Staff was able to bridge the funding gap by securing a $8.77 million grant from the State Water Resources Control Board Proposition 1 Stormwater grant, $7.5 million grant from the Los Angeles County Measure W Safe Clean Water Program, and a $55 million low

7.A
Packet Pg. 353
16 of 22
interest loan from the State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

For the current five-year rate cycle (FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30), the recommended rate adjustment for the wastewater fund is fairly straight forward in comparison to the water fund. The recommended rate adjustment for the wastewater fund aims to keep pace with market escalation rates over the five-year period at 7%, 7%, 7%, 6%, and 6%. The wastewater fund is not expected to fund any major one-time capital projects during the current rate study period and will fund primarily routine capital projects to maintain existing wastewater infrastructure. There are two one-time projects that are listed under the wastewater fund, Moss Avenue Pump Station Improvements and Santa Monica Uran Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) Upgrades but are reimbursed by the City of Los Angeles. The Moss Avenue Pump Station Improvements is a part of City of Los Angeles’ Amalgamated System for wastewater collection and cost associated with the project is 100% reimbursed by the City of Los Angeles.

Upgrades at the SMURRF is a 50/50 cost share with the City of Los Angeles as the facility reduces pollution from dry weather urban runoff from the watershed and in the ocean. A list of planned CIP projects for the wastewater fund is provided in Attachment E.

The projected wastewater fund forecast and reserves for the recommended wastewater rate adjustment are summarized in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. The wastewater fund has a healthy starting fund balance for the FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30 rate study as a result of deferring annual wastewater main replacement programs to help mitigate against declining revenues. The reserves will be used instead of cash during FY 2026-27, FY 2027-28, and FY 2028-29 to fund routine capital projects as indicated in Figure 7 below where a green bar is not present for the three fiscal years. Over the five-year period, the wastewater fund reserves will be drawn down until it reaches the target reserve levels at the end of the rate study period as indicated in Figure 8.

7.A
Packet Pg. 354
17 of 22
Figure 7: Summary of Wastewater Fund Revenue and Expenditures Forecast for the Recommended Rate Adjustment

7.A
Packet Pg. 355
18 of 22
Figure 8: Summary of Wastewater Fund Reserve Balance for the Recommended Rate Adjustment
Low Income Provision
The current and proposed rate structure includes a low-income provision where the wastewater rate for qualified single-family, low-income customers is discounted. On February 24, 2015, Council approved a discount rate of $1 per hundred cubic feet (HCF) for the first wastewater tier. Low-income customers qualify for the water discount by providing evidence of enrollment in the low-income program offered by Southern California Edison or the Southern California Gas Company.

Cost of service requirements under Proposition 218 require that the discount provided to qualified low-income customers be covered by the City’s General Fund in order to avoid it being subsidized by other ratepayers. The average annual General Fund

7.A
Packet Pg. 356
19 of 22
transfer to the Wastewater Fund has historically been around $40,000 per year, which benefits approximately 360+ customer accounts. Staff recommends funding low-income customers at the same levels. Pending Council’s feedback on rate structure alternatives, staff and the consultant would recommend maintaining the low-income subsidy structure but adjusting it to be in line with the rate structure ultimately selected.

Recycled Water and Drought Rate
Staff recommends maintaining the same drought rate structure framework as adopted in the 2020-2024 Five Year Water Rate Study. The drought rate structure would only be implemented and take effect as directed by City Council when water conservation is mandated in the region or across the state. The level of conservation mandated (e.g., 10% or 20% mandated reduction in water use) would determine the adjusted tiered water commodity rate structure.

At the time this staff report was prepared, the recycled water rates were still under development. However, staff will present information to Council as part of the study session for this staff report.

Community Outreach
To support the rate study development, increase community awareness, provide transparent information to the community, and solicit community feedback, Water Resources staff will also be conducting outreach activities aimed to:
• Develop community understanding of the importance of the goals the City is trying to achieve with the rate study (e.g., maintaining high quality service provided to the community and implementing capital improvement projects to achieve water self-sufficiency).
• Provide transparent information about the current state of rates and findings of the rate study.
• Clearly communicate and develop an understanding of the reasonable need to make financial investments focused on maintaining reliability and resiliency.

7.A
Packet Pg. 357
20 of 22
• Provide all community leaders and stakeholders easy-to-understand information in a variety of platforms and easy access to updated information. • Provide the community with a transparent Proposition 218 process that informs ratepayers about the cost of service for identified operational and capital needs Planned public outreach efforts include attending neighborhood and civic/business group meetings, holding general outreach forums, developing fact sheets, and distributing notifications and soliciting public comments through the Proposition 218 process.

Environmental Review
The City’s water and wastewater rate study is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, purchasing for leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas.” The intent of the rate study is to adjust water and wastewater rates to maintain system reliability and resiliency while ensuring the rates are proportional to the cost of service provided to each parcel or customer. Therefore, adjustment of rates is exempt from CEQA.

Next Steps and Schedule
Staff seeks comments from Council regarding rate adjustment scenarios, outside financing strategy, and cost recovery structure alternatives. Following this meeting, staff will work with the rate consultant to complete the rate study and public notifications will be sent out in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements. After the 45-day public notice period, a noticed public hearing will be scheduled in accordance with Proposition 218 for Council to consider the completed rate study and proposed rate structures for

7.A
Packet Pg. 358
21 of 22
water and wastewater rates in FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30. Staff anticipates the public hearing to be held in June 2025.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
January 28, 2020
(Attachment A)
Public Hearing and Adoption a Resolution Establishing
Scheduled Wastewater Service Rate Adjustments
January 28, 2020
(Attachment B)
Public Hearing and Adoption a Resolution Establishing
Scheduled Water Service Rate Adjustments
May 14, 2024
(Attachment C)
Award Professional Services Contract to NBS Government
Finance Group, dba NBS to Analyze the Existing
Water/Wastewater Rate Structure and Establish a New FiveYear Rate Structure for Potable Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Commodity Charges; Fire Line Rates; and
Capital Facility Fee for Calendar Years 2025 to 2029
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as this is a study session for Council to provide input. Staff will return to Council at a later date to seek specific budget actions.

The estimated financial impacts to rate payers for FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30 of the five-year rate study are estimated as a five-year average of potential increases per year. This would mean that the combined bimonthly water and wastewater bills are estimated to increase each year for five years (essentially five times). The estimated range of increase for each major customer class per year for the two water rate options and proposed wastewater rate adjustment is listed below. • Single Family Homes - an estimated $25-37 increase for an average singlefamily home bimonthly bill, or roughly $13-19 per month, each year over five years.
• Multi-Family Units - an estimated $48-80 increase for an average 8-unit multifamily residential building, which represents an approximate monthly increase of $6-10 per unit, each year over five years.
• Commercial - an estimated $99-146 increase for an average commercial building’s bimonthly bill each year over five years.

7.A
Packet Pg. 359
22 of 22
The higher range of potential impacts to each major customer class reflects Water Rate Option 1 while the lower range reflects Water Rate Option 2. As an example, the difference between the two water rate options for a single-family home is approximately $12 per bi-monthly bill or $6 per month.

Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. January 28, 2020 Public Hearing & Adoption Wastewater Rates (Web Link) B. January 28, 2020 Public Hearing & Adoption Water Rates (Web Link) C. May 14, 2024 Staff Report (Web Link)
D. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan
E. Water and Wastewater Fund Planned CIP List
F. Written Comments
G. PowerPoint Presentation

7.A
Packet Pg. 360

SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
DECEMBER 2018
City of Santa Monica

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Introduction ES-1
Introduction
The City of Santa Monica (City) has historically served residential and business customers by implementing bold efforts to secure community resiliency and self-sufficiency.

Traditionally, the City’s water portfolio has been a combination of local groundwater and imported Northern California (State Water Project) and Colorado River water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In recent years, the City also has implemented an innovative water conservation program to stretch local supplies and reduce the use of imported water.

Given the growing statewide challenges associated with maintaining a safe and reliable water supply, the City Council in 2011 directed staff to develop a water self-sufficiency plan with the goal of meeting 100 percent of Santa Monica’s water demand using local water sources. Since that time, several actions have occurred: the City stepped up its aggressive conservation plan in 2015 in response to statewide drought conditions, the State of California adopted stringent new drinking water regulations relating to groundwater contamination in December 2017, and staff prepared and the Council adopted a Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP) in November 2018.

The primary objective of this SWMP Update is to bridge the gap between the August 2018 SWMP (prepared by a consultant, Black & Veatch) and subsequent feasibility analysis conducted by staff to issue the final SMWP recommendations to Council in November 2018.

The subsequent feasibility analysis conducted by Water Resources Division staff refined Chapter 5 – Future Water Supply Options of the August 2018 SWMP prepared by Black & Veatch in order to update recommended projects to achieve water self-sufficiency.

Therefore, the recommended pathway to achieve water self-sufficiency, as presented in the November 2018 Staff Report, and summarized in this report supersedes the recommendations of the August 2018 SWMP. In November 2018, Water Resources staff presented Council with an Updated SWMP, which outlines measures to achieve Water SelfSufficiency by 2023. This SWMP Update highlights the updated SWMP (November 2018) that refined the pathway to achieve water self-sufficiency by 2023, references the previous SWMP efforts, and provides links to the reports and investigations discussed herein.

BENEFITS TO SELF SUFFICIENCY
Becoming water self-sufficient offers the City three major benefits:

1. Long- term cost protection for water ratepayers.

2. A diverse, sustainable, and drought-resilient local water supply.

3. A reduced water supply energy footprint.

Water self- sufficiency equates to approximately 99 percent locally-sourced water. One percent of the City’s water supply will still be purchased from MWD to maintain the imported water connections for emergency purposes.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Background ES-2
Background
The City is a recognized leader in California for its progressive environmental and water conservation policies. The City implements an aggressive water conservation program and operates a water system comprised of groundwater basins, treatment facilities, and imported water connections. In January 2011, City Council directed staff to develop a water self-sufficiency plan with the goal of meeting all of the City’s water demand using local water sources by 2020. In October 2014, Council adopted the SWMP, which outlines a comprehensive plan to achieve water self-sufficiency. The SWMP is an innovative plan with a combination of water demand reduction strategies and increased development of local water supplies. Water reduction is achieved through implementation of various water conservation and efficiency programs designed to permanently reduce residential and commercial water use. Development of new sustainable local water supplies comes from (i) alternative water sources such as captured rainwater and municipal wastewater for non-potable uses, (ii) increased efficiency of the City’s water treatment systems, and (iii) additional pumping from existing wells and new wells in the local groundwater basin.

Between 2014 and 2018, several elements of the SWMP moved forward, including completion of a preliminary Sustainable Yield Analysis (SYA) of the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin and finalization of plans for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) to recharge local groundwater supplies with purified water. Staff initiated a comprehensive update of the SWMP in 2017 to incorporate new information regarding local groundwater resources, new regulatory requirements, and new water conservation programs and alternate water supply opportunities.

Table 1 presents a summary of the City’s water supply portfolio and recommended actions necessary to attain water self-sufficiency. The first column of the table lists the percentage of the City’s demand met by each source received in 2017. In addition to the facilities described in the table, a substantial portion of the City’s water demand is met through water conservation, which accounted for approximately 18 percent of the City’s water supply portfolio in 2017.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Background ES-3
Table 1. Overview of City of Santa Monica’s Water Supply Portfolio

SYSTEM/

PERCENTAGE FACILITIES

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

REQUIREMENTS
Local
Groundwater
Basins
52 percent
Charnock, Arcadia, and Olympic Sub-basins
Major sources of local groundwater with nine active wells and a tenth well undergoing permitting. The local groundwater treatment facilities currently consists of:
• Charnock Treatment Unit - Provides biological granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment for contaminated wells, followed by additional treatment at Arcadia.
• Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP) - Provides reverse osmosis (RO) treatment to soften the City’s groundwater supply.

Other Sub-basins
The Coastal sub-basin will be maintained as a water supply reliability reserve. Initial exploration and investigation efforts to quantify water quality and yield for the Coastal sub-basin is being conducted.

Issues
From 1997 – 2010, the City’s largest groundwater wellfield, Charnock wellfield, was shut down due to third party contamination. An agreement with the responsible parties provided settlement funds, which to date have funded an upgrade to the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and new treatment facility at Charnock.

Production from the Olympic Sub-basin is currently limited due to contamination by a third party. The Olympic Wellfield will be restored with a new treatment facility as proposed in the SWMP.

To achieve water selfsufficiency, the City will
be looking to: 1) restore
the Olympic sub-basin
with a new advanced
water treatment facility to
meet the new regulatory
requirements and
maximize groundwater
production, 2) produce
more water from the
existing WTP, and 3)
reduce the amount of RO
brine concentrate
currently discharged to
the sanitary sewer
through production
efficiency upgrades at the
Arcadia WTP.

Imported
Water
29 percent
MWD Connections
The City receives imported water at two connections with MWD, turnouts capable of delivering up to 100 percent of the local water needs.

Issues
The cost of imported water is predicted to increase at a rate of four to seven percent every year.

Once water selfsufficiency is achieved,
the City will maintain
these imported water
connections, for water
security, in case of a
natural disaster or other
emergency.

Conservation
18 percent
Local Conservation Efforts
In response to state wide drought conditions in 2015, the City implemented various water conservation measures that resulted in a permanent water demand reduction of approximately 18 percent or approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year (AFY). The average annual water consumption was reduced from 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 110 gpcd.

Issues
A diversified, drought resilient water supply portfolio is necessary for the City to achieve water self-sufficiency as conservation alone will not be sufficient.

Existing conservation
efforts will be enhanced
through the Optimal
Conservation Plan to
reduce water demand by
an additional 600 AFY of
water demand reduction
by 2023 and 1,000 AFY by
2030.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Background ES-4

SYSTEM/

PERCENTAGE FACILITIES

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

REQUIREMENTS
Recycled
Water
1 percent
Recycled Water (Alternative Water supply)
The City currently captures and treats dry weather urban runoff at the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) to produce recycled water that is used for irrigation and toilet flushing to offset potable water demand.

Upgrade and expand
alternative water supplies
to increase recycled water
use and recharge local
groundwater aquifers to
offset imported water
purchase.

In January 2018, staff reported to Council that further analysis was needed to assess whether the City could meet its water self-sufficiency goal by 2020. A Draft SWMP was prepared for the City by Black & Veatch Corporation and issued in August 2018 (See Attachment A). Key report findings from the August 2018 SWMP are described in Table 2.

Subsequent to completion of the August 2018 SWMP, Water Resources Division staff incorporated additional information (treatment feasibility study findings for the Olympic Wellfield and production efficiency enhancements for the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant) to refine the pathway to achieve water self-sufficiency and final recommendations were released through a staff report to the Council in November 2018 (See Attachment B).

Table 2. Key Findings of August 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update (Attachment A)

TOPIC DESCRIPTION

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

IMPLICATIONS
Historical
and Current
Water Use
Chapter 2 of August 2018 SWMP
Review of Historic Water Use and Water Demand
Analysis of historic water use (monthly water production and billing records for 2012-2017).

Review of Historic and Current Water Demand by Customer Type
Assessment of residential, commercial/institutional, landscape/ irrigation, recycled water, and fire service usage.

Review of Factors Affecting Water Use
Analysis of population, economic activity, weather and climate change, climate change vulnerability, saltwater intrusion/water quality, and flooding/storm surges.

Review of Impact of Historical Water Conservation
Analysis of drought and policy mandates, creation of Water Conservation Unit (CSU), and 2014-2017 water conservation programs and policies.

Identified trends and captured
changes in water use and
customers within the City and
assessed measures to support
self-sufficiency such as new
enhancements to existing
programs and ordinances for
new development and water
waste.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Background ES-5

TOPIC DESCRIPTION

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

IMPLICATIONS
Current
Water
Sources and
Supplies
Chapter 3 of August 2018 SWMP
Hydraulic Analysis of System
Review of City’s hydraulic model for the water distribution system capacity.

Review of Imported Water Characteristics and Challenges Review of imported water deliveries from MWD including water connections (turnouts) and assessment of Tier 1 rate allocations and drought impacts.

Review of Santa Monica Groundwater Basin
Analysis of current sub-basin activities, groundwater production (1988 – 2017), characteristics, and challenges including contamination and treatment.

Review of Non-Potable Water and Historical SMURRF
Production
Review of SMURRF operations, recycled water operations, and impact of conservation efforts on dry weather runoff.

Determined improvements
needed to wells, treatment
facilities, and distribution
pipelines to meet future supply
and water use requirements.

Future Water
Use
Chapter 4 of August 2018 SWMP
Potable Water Use Analysis
Review of water use trends, including conservation and
comparison of future water demand based on water conservation program projections.

Population Growth Projections
Projection of 2030 population projection reflecting information from the City’s Plan and Downtown Community Plan.

Potable Water Demand Projection
Calculated future potable water demands from the potable water use analysis and population projections.

Develop a clear understanding
of the City’s future water needs
to eliminate reliance on
imported water.

Other work completed in parallel with the August 2018 Update included analysis to validate preliminary SYA estimates of the local groundwater basin, drilling of exploratory water wells in the Coastal sub-basin to evaluate potential new local water production, completion of technical studies to evaluate the cost and viability of increasing the production efficiency of the Arcadia WTP, evaluation of the impact of new State drinking water regulations (e.g., maximum contaminant level [MCL] for 1,2,3 trichloropropane [TCP]) on groundwater extraction from the Olympic Sub-basin or Wellfield, and evaluation of the cost and viability of additional water conservation programs as requested by the Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment.

Based on all of this information, a revised water self-sufficiency achievement goal of 2023 was established (See Figure 1).

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Background ES-6
Figure 1. Self-Sufficiency Timeline
With imported water purchase costs from MWD expected to increase annually from 3 to 7 percent over the next ten years, the primary focus of the updated SWMP is to develop water self-sufficiency scenarios that are both sustainable and economical compared to the continued purchase of imported water from MWD.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-7
Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency
The City’s water supply portfolio has progressively transformed since 2011, with the community making significant strides toward water self-sufficiency and reduced reliance on the purchase of imported water to supplement local water resources. After completion of the Charnock Wellfield Restoration Project in 2010, the City was able to meet approximately 51 percent (~6,700 acre-feet per year [AFY]) of its water supply demand through local groundwater resources and reduce the purchase of water from MWD to approximately 48 percent (~6,400 AFY).

To achieve water self-sufficiency by 2023, the SWMP proposes replacing imported water purchases through three components:

Component 1 - Increasing water conservation efforts to permanently reduce water demand.

Component 2 - Developing sustainable and drought resilient alternative water supplies.

Component 3 - Expanding local groundwater production within sustainable yield limits.

As shown in Figure 2, these three components, when combined with current water conservation efforts and use of local groundwater supplies, will eliminate the City’s reliance on imported water purchases from MWD and provide the City with a diversified, drought resilient water supply portfolio that offers greater cost control over water rates.

Figure 2. Sustainable Water Portfolio
Figure 3 illustrates how the three components of the SWMP would work together to provide local Water Self-Sufficiency by 2023.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency Figure 3. Synergy to Provide Water Self Sufficiency

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 369
Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-9
COMPONENT 1 – INCREASING WATER CONSERVATION (38 PERCENT REDUCTION

IN IMPORTED WATER PURCHASES)
The City initiated its Water Efficiency Strategic Plan in 2002 and in 2004 began implementing various conservation programs including No Water Waste and Green Building Ordinances. Continuation of existing, and implementation of proposed, conservation measures are essential for the City to eliminate reliance on imported water.

Conservation will play a critical role in the City’s march toward water self-sufficiency by continuing to reduce overall use even in the face of demand from new housing and from the commercial and institutional sectors of the local economy.

In 2014, Council authorized the significant
expansion of staffing and funding to augment
the City’s water conservation efforts to
address the state-wide drought and help the
City meet its self-sufficiency goal. This
contributed to a water demand reduction of
approximately 20 percent from 2015 – 2017,
which equates to savings of approximately
2,500 AFY. Implementation of the existing
conservation programs with the addition of
supplemental conservation efforts is expected
to continue this trend of water demand
reduction through 2040.

In developing the water conservation plan to
reach and maintain water self-sufficiency, the
City evaluated the potential for further water
efficiency and conservation in all customer
sectors. This included an assessment of the
current level of water fixtures, as well as
identifying where the greatest opportunities for reducing water consumption existed.

Based on this analysis, a program plan was developed to reach the City’s long-term objectives via existing and new conservation programs. City staff modeled three conservation plans: Optimal, Enhanced, and 90 gpcd. Staff met with industry experts to review and receive input on the modeling effort and the proposed conservation programs.

A panel of outside experts supported both the Optimal and Enhanced conservation plans and the proposed programs that comprise them.

Based on the modeling, the City selected the Optimal conservation plan, which continues the successful ongoing programs and increases water conservation in untapped areas such as funding of retrofits in Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District facilities and landscapes, commercial sector fixture retrofits and enhanced rebates, coin-operated 2015– 2017 CONSERVATION EFFORTS
2015
• Water Use Allowances
• Water Use Allowance Exceedance Citations
• Water School
• Water Use Consultations
• Enhanced Landscape Rebate Program
• Landscape Consultations
• Sustainable Landscape Trainings
• Enhanced Water Waste Patrols
• Enhanced MWD Water Conservation Rebate
Incentive Program
• Free Water Saving Items
• Marketing and Outreach
• Customer Support
2016
Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation
Standards (updated Green Building Ordinance)
2017
Water Neutrality Ordinance

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-10
laundry machine retrofits, increase in Water Neutrality offsets and direct installation of water efficient fixtures, rebates for new technologies, enhanced water conservation education and enforcement, additional sustainable landscape conversions, additional outreach to assist customers, new marketing and outreach programs, and incorporating limited-term employees as part of the water conservation team. Projected water savings from the new conservation programs are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Optimal Conservation Programs and Projected Water Savings for 2018 – 2023

CUSTOMER

CLASS CONSERVATION MEASURES
TOTAL

ACTIVITIES
2018 – 2023

PROJECTED

SAVINGS
(AF)
2018 - 2023
Single Family Rebates, water use consultations, graywater system incentive, direct installs.
5,440 345
Multi-Family Direct installs, rebates, water use consultations 5,975 308 Institutional School Education Program, direct installs, weatherbased irrigation controller incentive, landscape initiative
2,658 52
Commercial and
Institutional
Rebates, direct installs, water use consultations,
performance pays
5,376 831
Various Soil moisture sensor rebates for multi-family,
commercial, and institutional customers
75 7
All Water-saving faucet aerators, water-saving
showerheads, communication and outreach, pilot
projects
13,458 491
TOTAL Average Water Savings (Acre-Feet/Year): 610
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/Acre-Foot):
$708
32,982 2,034
The Optimal Conservation Plan is expected to reduce the City’s total water demand by approximately 20 percent even after factoring in demand increases associated with expected population growth through 2025. The recommended Optimal conservation plan will contribute approximately 3,100 AFY to the City’s water supply portfolio in 2023 and reduce imported water purchases by roughly 38 percent. Water conservation or water demand reductions are estimated based on current conservation savings of 2,500 AFY plus projected increase in water demand savings by an additional 600 AFY by 2023, total of approximately 3,100 AFY in water demand reduction by 2023. Water demand reduction from the Optimal Conservation Plan will continue to increase until the various conservation measures mature in 2040.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-11
COMPONENT 2 – MAXIMIZING ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLIES (35 PERCENT

REDUCTION IN IMPORTED WATER PURCHASES)
To further diversify the City’s water supply portfolio and increase overall resilience, three alternative water supply projects are proposed that will collectively offset imported water purchases from MWD by 35 percent (approximately 2,900 AFY). These projects include:

Increase Recycled Water Production. Upgrade the existing Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) as part of the SWIP project to increase recycled water production for non-potable uses in the City and offset imported water purchases from MWD. Approximately 560 AFY of recycled water will be produced to offset potable water demand or imported water purchase from MWD.
Recharge Local Groundwater Aquifers. Increase recycled water production through the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). The SWIP project will provide a sustainable and drought resilient water supply by providing purified water (approximately 1,100 AFY) through a new Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) to recharge local groundwater aquifers. In return, the aquifer recharge that will be provided by the SWIP will allow the City to maximize groundwater pumping, within sustainable yield limits, from the Olympic Sub-basin.
Production Efficiency Enhancement at Arcadia WTP. Increase overall treated water production through implementation of new treatment technology to increase treatment efficiency to greater than 90 percent, adding an additional 1,200 AFY of treated water. This will also result in a reduction of RO concentrate discharge to the sewer system. The Arcadia WTP is currently capable of treating up to approximately 11,300 AFY or 10 million gallons per day (mgd) and produce 9,900 AFY (8.9 mgd) of treated water (approximately 82 percent recovery or efficiency). The proposed expansion and addition of new technologies to increase production efficiency at the Arcadia WTP will increase its treatment capacity to approximately 14,700 AFY (13 mgd) and production to 13,400 AFY (12 mgd) of treated water (>90 percent recovery or efficiency).

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-12
SWIP will upgrade the existing SMURRF
and construct a new AWPF to produce
purified water that will be used to offset
imported water purchase and recharge
local groundwater aquifers. The upgraded
SMURRF will treat stormwater, brackish
groundwater, and dry weather urban
runoff to increase in recycled water
production and offset imported water
purchased from MWD by approximately
560 AFY.

Aquifer Recharge will occur through the
addition of purified water from the new
AWPF constructed as part of SWIP. The
new AWPF with a proposed treatment train
consisting of membrane bioreactor (MBR),
reverse osmosis (RO), and advanced
oxidation with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
and peroxide will provide purified water
that meets or exceed drinking water quality
requirements. The purified water will be
used to recharge groundwater aquifers in
the Olympic Sub-basin and offset imported
water purchases by approximately 1,100
AFY.

Production Efficiency Upgrade and
Expansion of the Arcadia WTP through
the addition of Closed Circuit Reverse
Osmosis (CCRO) to treat the RO
concentrate stream, which is currently
discharged to the sewer system. This will
increase the overall treatment efficiency of
the plant from the current 82 percent to 90
percent or greater. The addition of the
CCRO would offset imported water by
approximately 1,200 AFY.

Existing SMURRF that will be Upgraded as Part
of SWIP to Increase Recycled Water Production
Recharge Local Groundwater Aquifers with
Purified Water Will Maintain Sustainable Yield
Incorporating the Latest Treatment Technologies
Will Increase Production Efficiency to Greater
than 90 Percent at the Arcadia WTP

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-13
COMPONENT 3 – EXPANDING LOCAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION (25

PERCENT REDUCTION IN IMPORTED WATER PURCHASES)
To offset the remaining imported water, local groundwater production would need to be increased and resiliency measures would need to be implemented to maintain reliable production year round. This would reduce imported water purchases from MWD by approximately 25 percent (approximately 2,100 AFY).

Staff developed and analyzed several scenarios to expand the City’s groundwater production and carefully vetted each scenario internally and with outside industry experts.

The recommended scenario was Expansion of Arcadia WTP with CCRO combined with a Separate Olympic Wellfield Pipeline and a new advanced water treatment facility for the Olympic Wellfield to be collocated at the Arcadia WTP site. This scenario was determined to be the most cost-effective solution to achieve self-sufficiency and maximize local water resources by restoring the Olympic Wellfield. The recommended scenario includes the following elements:

Expansion of the Arcadia WTP to increase treatment capacity and accommodate future 2040 water demands. Plant capacity would be expanded through upgraded pumps, blowers, cartridge filters, etc. to accommodate increased groundwater production and new technologies, such as the CCRO described in Component 2.
Additional groundwater well(s) to enhance resiliency. Measures would include increasing groundwater pumping from existing wells, completing the equipping and permitting of one recently installed well, and constructing a replacement well to increase local production from the Olympic Wellfield, within sustainable yield levels.

An additional well in the Charnock Sub-basin would also enhance resiliency and maintain production during routine maintenance or unforeseen downtimes of groundwater wells, while aggressively pumping within the sustainable yield.
Restoration of the Olympic Wellfield through (1) a new pipeline separating Olympic Wellfield water and conveying it independently to the Arcadia WTP and (2) a separate contamination treatment facility at the Arcadia WTP for the Olympic Wellfield. This approach results in a smaller treatment facility to remove contaminants from the Olympic Wellfield and reduce overall treatment cost.

The Olympic Wellfield plays a key role in achieving the City’s water self-sufficiency goal as it could provide up to 3,200 AFY of groundwater and is also the location where purified water from the SWIP will be recharged to sustain this pumping rate. However, the Olympic Wellfield contains several contaminants that would require additional treatment to meet drinking water standards.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Adopted Pathway to Self-Sufficiency ES-14
Figure 4. Olympic Wellfield – Well Locations
Further analysis of treatment options for the Olympic Wellfield was required due to a newly established drinking water regulation in December 2017 that established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3 TCP at 5 parts per trillion (ppt) and monitoring detecting 1,4 Dioxane levels above California Notification Level requirements.

An analysis performed by an outside consultant developed recommendations for improvements to maximize groundwater production and comply with the new regulations on the key contaminants of concern. The consultant’s report recommended construction of a new contamination treatment facility for only the Olympic Wellfield flows with a proposed treatment train consisting of advanced oxidation with UV and peroxide plus granular activated carbon. The new treatment facility will provide high-quality drinking water that meets current and future regulatory standards.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Investing in Water Self-Sufficiency ES-15
Investing in Water Self-Sufficiency
The proposed SWMP components represent a considerable investment towards the City’s future resiliency and achieving water self-sufficiency by 2023. In consideration of the capital investment and impacts to water rates, staff evaluated potential alternatives to reduce capital expenditures to potentially provide relief to potential water rate increases.

Staff also considered delaying the self-sufficiency goal to beyond 2023 and differing capital expenditures to ease rate increases over the next five years. However, postponing implementation may result in increasing overall project cost, due to inflation, and negate any potential up front capital savings.

A cost summary for the proposed SWMP components to achieve self-sufficiency by 2023 is presented in Table 4. Staff also will aggressively pursue funding programs to help offset the capital expenditures. Outside funding opportunities include: MWD’s Local Water Resources Program, California Department of Water Resources Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) Grants, United States Bureau of Reclamation programs, and County of Los Angeles Measure W funding.

Table 4. Projected Investment Costs to Achieve Water Self-Sufficiency

PROJECTS

ESTIMATED

CAPITAL COST
Arcadia WTP: Expand Capacity and Production Efficiency $30 Million Additional Well and Improvements: Increase Resiliency and Groundwater Production
$8 Million
Olympic Wellfield Restoration: New Advanced Water Treatment Facility and Pipeline1
$20.5 Million
1Funding for the Olympic Wellfield Restoration is from settlement funds received from the responsible party for the contamination. The settlement funds will also be used for annual operation/treatment costs, but is not included in this table.

Development of cost-effective local, sustainable, and drought-resilient water supplies will provide Santa Monica water ratepayers with cost benefits over the long term and give the City greater cost certainty on water rates compared to the continued purchase of imported water. A comparison of the annual average water production cost once water selfsufficiency is achieved versus imported water costs is provided in Table 5. As tabulated in Table 5, the City and its ratepayers will begin to see a return on its investment to achieve water self-sufficiency in just three years after 2023 when the average local water production cost is estimated to be lower than imported water cost. This analysis assumes imported water cost from MWD will increase at an annual rate of 5 percent.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Investing in Water Self-Sufficiency ES-16
Table 5. Comparison of Average City Water Production Cost Versus Imported Water Cost Once Water Self-Sufficiency is achieved in 2023
YEAR

AVERAGE CITY
WATER

PRODUCTION
COST (($/AF)

IMPORTED

WATER COST
($/AF) DIFFERENCE
2023 $1,336 $1,248 $88
2024 $1,357 $1,310 $47
2025 $1,378 $1,376 $2
2026 $1,400 $1,445 ($45)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Schedule to Achieve Self-Sufficiency by 2023 ES-17
Schedule to Achieve Self-Sufficiency by 2023
Implementing the SWMP and reaching water self-sufficiency by 2023 entails numerous interrelated capital projects, as shown in Figure 5. Several well projects have already been approved and are on track to be completed by 2021. A portion of the projects are in the City of Los Angeles and require installation of new pipelines. The design, construction, and permitting of improvements at the Arcadia WTP, including efficiency upgrades, are expected to be completed in 2023. The schedule includes a contingency of approximately six months to account for unforeseen conditions or new regulations.

Figure 5. Proposed Implementation Schedule to Achieve Self-Sufficiency by 2023

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE ATTACHMENT A ES-18

ATTACHMENT A
Draft Sustainable Water Master Plan
(Black & Veatch, August 2018)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins))

SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
B&V PROJECT NO. 196444

PREPARED FOR
City of Santa Monica
21 AUGUST 2018
®
®
©Black & Veatch Holding Company 2015. All rights reserved.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Historical and Current Water Use ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Historical Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Historical and Current Water Demand by Customer Type ................................................. 2-2

2.3 Factors Affecting Water Use ............................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Population ............................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.2 Economic Activity ............................................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.3 Weather and Climate Change ....................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.4 Climate Change Vulnerability ...................................................................................... 2-7

2.4 Impact of Historical Water Conservation .................................................................................. 2-8

2.4.1 The Drought and Policy Mandates ............................................................................. 2-9

2.4.2 City Water Conservation Unit .................................................................................... 2-10

2.4.3 Water Conservation Programs/Policies (2014-2017) .................................... 2-10

2.4.4 Water Conservation Results (2014-2017) ........................................................... 2-14

3.0 Current Water Sources and Supplies ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 System Hydraulic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Imported Water .................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Characteristics and Challenges .................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 Reliability ............................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.3 Local Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3.1 Characteristics and Challenges .................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.2 Reliability ............................................................................................................................. 3-8

3.3.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 ....................................... 3-10

3.4 Non-Potable Water ............................................................................................................................ 3-10

4.0 Future Water Use ................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Potable Water Use Analysis ............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Population Growth Projections ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Potable Water Demand Projection ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Water Conservation Analysis And Effect On Future Demands ......................................... 4-2

5.0 Future Water Supply Options ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Water Self-Sufficiency Supply Requirements ........................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Additional Local Groundwater Opportunities ......................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Charnock Subbasin (Charnock Wellfield) ............................................................... 5-2

5.2.2 Olympic Subbasin (Olympic Wellfield) .................................................................... 5-3

5.2.3 Arcadia Subbasin (Arcadia Wellfield) ...................................................................... 5-3

5.2.4 Coastal Subbasin ................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.2.5 Crestal Subbasin ................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.2.6 Arcadia Treatment Facility ........................................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Non-Potable Reuse opportunities ................................................................................................. 5-4

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents

5.3.1 Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) ............................................... 5-5

5.3.2 Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) Project ...................................................................... 5-6

5.3.3 Future Groundwater Recharge Opportunities ...................................................... 5-7

5.4 Future Demand Reduction Through Conservation Opportunities .................................. 5-7

5.4.1 Market Saturation Assessment.................................................................................... 5-7

5.4.2 Continuing Programs....................................................................................................... 5-9

5.4.3 New Programs .................................................................................................................. 5-11

5.4.4 Summary............................................................................................................................. 5-15

5.5 Pathway to Water Supply Self-Sufficiency............................................................................... 5-15

5.5.1 Projected Water Supply Needs .................................................................................. 5-15

5.5.2 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................ 5-16

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Historical and Current Annual Water Consumption ............................................................. 2-3 Table 2-2 Water Conservation Objectives and Outcomes 2015-2017 ............................................. 2-11 Table 2-3 Water Conservation Results from 2014-2017 ....................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-4 Policy-Level Water Reduction Targets...................................................................................... 2-15 Table 2-5 New and Enhanced Water Conservation Programs ............................................................ 2-15 Table 3-1 Santa Monica’s MWD Connection Capacities ............................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-2 Active Groundwater Well Capacities ........................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3 Groundwater Production Totals (1988-2017) ........................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-4 Estimated Sustainable Yield for the SMGB ................................................................................ 3-8 Table 3-5 Historical SMURRF Production .................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 4-1 Potable Water Projections Based on Residential Population ............................................ 4-1 Table 5-1 Comparison of Projected Demand and Local Supplies ......................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2 Saturation of 1.6 gpf Toilets in the Customer Sectors .......................................................... 5-8 Table 5-3 Projected Activity for Ongoing Water Conservation Programs ...................................... 5-10 Table 5-4 Incentives and Programs ................................................................................................................ 5-11

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Annual Potable Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-2 2017 Service Connections by Customer Type.......................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3 2007-2017 Historical Water Demand ......................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-4 Historical Per Capita Water Use ..................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-5 Historical Population and Water Demand ................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2-6 Monthly Unemployment Rates and Water Demand .............................................................. 2-5 Figure 2-7 Monthly Weather and Water Demand ........................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2-8 Water Conservation Programs/Policies ................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 3-1 Historical Imported Water Supplies ............................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2 Santa Monica Groundwater Basin and Subbasins .................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-3 Historical Santa Monica Groundwater Production ................................................................ 3-7

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
Figure 4-1 Potable Water Demand Projections ............................................................................................. 4-2 Figure 5-1 SWIP Locations ..................................................................................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-2 SWIP Elements ...................................................................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-3 Clean Beaches Initiative .................................................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-4 Future Water Supply Options ....................................................................................................... 5-16

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Acronyms and Abbreviations AA-1
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AF acre-feet
AFY acre feet per year
AWTP advanced water treatment plant
BMP best management practice
CBI Clean Beaches Initiative
City City of Santa Monica
CoSMoS Coastal Storm Modeling System
DCP Downtown Community Plan
EWMP Enhanced Watershed Management Plan
GAC granular activated carbon
gpcd gallons per day per capita
gpm gallon per minute
gpf gallon per flush
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transpiration Efficiency Act
MGD million gallons per day
MG million gallons
LUCE Land Use and Circulation Element
MOU Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California
MSL mean sea level
MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NCEI National Centers for Environmental Information
NRC National Resource Council
OSE Office of Sustainability and the Environment
SBx7-7 California State Legislature 2009 Water Conservation Act SCADA Supervisory Command and Data Acquisition
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SF square-feet
Slade Richard Slade & Associates
SM 1 Santa Monica 1 (well)
SMGB Santa Monica Groundwater Basin
SMURRF Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility
SWIP Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project
SWMP Sustainable Water Master Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TINS Triangular Irregular Network System
UWMP Urban Water Management Plans
USGS United States Geological Survey
VFD variable frequency drive
VOC volatile organic compound
WUA Water Use Allowance
WCU Water Conservation Unit
WSRP Water Shortage Response Plan

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-1

1.0 Introduction
The City of Santa Monica (City) is a recognized leader in California for its environmental and water conservation policies. The City has been actively implementing water efficiency programs since 1988 and is one of the original signatories to the State’s Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU), adopted in 1991 and amended in 2008. In 2014, the City adopted a Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP) with the goal of achieving water supply selfsufficiency in 2020 by eliminating reliance on imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Since the adoption of the SWMP, the City has been actively implementing new water supply and conservation programs and policies. Due to strong community cooperation in response to drought-related State and City-mandated conservation policies and participation in conservation programs, the City has achieved a 12.5% reduction in potable water demand from 13,036 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2014 to 11,498 AFY in 2017 while the population has remained relatively unchanged. The reduction of water use and a renewed reliance on local groundwater supply has allowed the City to lower its use of imported water from 49% in 2012 to an average of 25-30%.

This update to the Sustainable Water Master Plan details progress made over the past four years and provides a pathway to water self-sufficiency by 2023 through examination of four key strategies:
• Evaluation and incorporation of key water supply and demand factors, including an update to the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin sustainable yield (e.g. how much groundwater can be pumped on a sustainable basis); further studies and modeling efforts to understand local groundwater aquifer recharge; and future water use projections including anticipated population growth, development, climate change and other factors; • Potable water demand reduction through enhanced conservation programs and policies; • Expansion of alternative sources of supply via infrastructure upgrades including reuse of treated stormwater, brackish groundwater and municipal wastewater; and • Increasing potable supplies by improving the efficiency and capacity of the City’s water treatment facilities; and improving existing or constructing new water supply wells.

Sections 2 through 5 of the 2017 SWMP Technical Memorandum have been updated in order to expand on the City’s adaptive management strategy for local groundwater. The next update to the SWMP is planned for 2020.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-1

2.0 Historical and Current Water Use
Evaluation of historical water records provides an understanding of water trends and customer behavior. In this update, years 2012 to 2017 were evaluated to daylight recent water trends and capture changes in water use and customer behavior within the City.

2.1 HISTORICAL WATER USE
To understand the City’s recent water trends, monthly water production and billing records for the years 2012 to 2017 were analyzed. The total volume of potable water supply delivered to its treatment system is taken from the City’s monthly potable water production records. The total potable water supply is a combination of treated local groundwater, imported water from MWD, and stored water. As a result of additional local groundwater pumping and State and City droughtrelated conservation mandates reducing water demand, the City, under normal operating conditions, has realized a steady decrease in imported water since 2012 as shown in Figure 2-1, except for 2017, when a production well was shut down for repairs, requiring approximately 650 acre-feet in additional imports.

Figure 2-1 Annual Potable Water Supply
Billing records reflect billed water consumption and is generally referred to as the “water demand.” Water loss is typical in all water distribution systems due to small leaks, firefighting activities, and system testing and maintenance activities. This water loss is termed as “non-revenue water”. The City has actively implemented water efficiency programs for 30 years. The City’s past water conservation efforts discussed in this report include a combination of innovative policy, incentive programs, community outreach and education, and regulatory enforcement programs. In addition, the City responded to the declaration of a drought state of emergency in 2014 by conserving over 2,000 AFY in 2015 and 2016.
13,308
14,050 13,986
11,835 11,467 11,498
49% 42% 37% 28% 25% 36%
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Volume (AF)
Local Potable Water Supply Imported Water (MWD) % Imported Water (MWD)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-2

2.2 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT WATER DEMAND BY CUSTOMER TYPE The City provides water to approximately 18,000 metered service connections. The mix of connections by meter type is shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2 2017 Service Connections by Customer Type
In Table 2-1, the annual average for water demands from billing records are summarized by customer connection type for years 2012 to 2017. Water consumption by customer type is approximately:
• 65.8% Residential
• 29.1% Commercial/Institutional
• 3.7% Landscape/Irrigation
• 0.8% Recycled Water
• 0.06% Fire Service
Single Family Residential, 41.7%
Multi-Family Residential, 35.3%
Commercial/Institutional, 13.1%
Landscape/Irrigation, 3.4%
Fire Service, 6.4% Recycled Water, 0.2%
Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential
Commercial/Institutional Landscape/Irrigation
Fire Service Recycled Water

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-3
Table 2-1 Historical and Current Annual Water Consumption CUSTOMER TYPE 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Single Family Residential 3,116 3,141 3,216 2,546 2,656 2,642 Multi-Family Residential 5,525 5,539 5,445 4,972 4,971 4,990 Commercial/Institutional 3,595 3,780 3,784 3,413 3,388 3,428 Landscape/Irrigation 494 553 590 416 448 433
Recycled Water 93 96 134 81 89 98
Fire Service 28 3 2 2 4 5
Total Potable + Recycled (AF) 12,851 13,112 13,170 11,431 11,557 11,596 Total Potable (AF) 12,758 13,015 13,036 11,349 11,467 11,498 Water demand dropped approximately 14% from 2014 to 2015, with 68% of the reduction attributed to residential savings. From 2015 to 2017, water demand slightly increased from 11,349 to 11,498 but has not returned to the 2014 demand level.

To better understand the historical water demand trends, the City’s total potable water demands from 2007 to 2017 are shown in Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-3 2007-2017 Historical Water Demand
The maximum annual water demand for the City was 13,847 AF in 2007. From 2007 to 2010, the City’s demand decreased and then gradually increased from 2010 to 2014 but has not returned to the 2007 demand level. The largest reduction in water demand was in 2015. The reduction was a result of new water conservation programs and policies implemented since the adoption of the original SWMP in 2014. The City and the community are strongly committed to continuing its water conservation efforts.
13,847 13,249 12,711 12,181 12,401 12,758 13,015 13,036 11,349 11,467 11,498
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Water Demand (AF)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-4
Historical Per Capita Water Use
To calculate approximately how much water is used within the City, the aggregated annual water use (all categories of users) is divided by the corresponding residential population for a given year.

This yields the historical aggregated water use per person (unit water rate), shown in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4 Historical Per Capita Water Use
This graph shows the decrease in aggregated per capita water use from 2007 to 2017. Overall, the City has seen an approximate 25.5% reduction in per capita water use from 141 gallons of water per capita per day (gpcd) in 2007 to 109 gpcd in 2017. Estimates of per capita use are significantly lower (~74 gpcd in 2017) when only the City’s metered residential (single family and multi-family) use is considered.

The California State Legislature drafted the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7) to protect statewide water sources. The legislation called for a 20% reduction in water use in California by the year 2020 and amended the water code to require water agencies to establish 2020 and 2015 per capita water use targets in their 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). These per capita targets included both residential and non-residential accounts. To satisfy the provisions of SBx7-7, the City set water use targets for 2015 and 2020 at 139 and 123 gpcd, respectively. The City dropped below its 2020 target in 2015 and has stayed below target at ~110 gpcd for the past three years.

2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING WATER USE
Various factors can impact water demands from year to year. In the 2014 and 2017 SWMP, the following factors were considered when analyzing water demands: population growth, climate conditions, economic activity, and water conservation. Impacts from these factors are discussed in the following sections.

2.3.1 Population
Typically, population growth increases water demand. As shown in Figure 2-5, however, over the last five years the water savings, as a result of the City’s water conservation program and policies, have more than offset the potential for impact by population growth. The population data was obtained from the State of California Department of Finance. 87,860 88,170
89,295 89,736 90,306 90,745 91,350
92,321 93,181 93,282 93,834
141
134
127 121 123 126 127 126
109 110 109
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
84,000
85,000
86,000
87,000
88,000
89,000
90,000
91,000
92,000
93,000
94,000
95,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcd)
Population
Population Gallons per Capita per Day

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-5
Figure 2-5 Historical Population and Water Demand
It is important to note that as the City’s conservation programs become more established, there will be correspondingly fewer opportunities for further conservation-based savings. In effect, future population growth will likely result in a measurable increase in water demand. To mitigate increases in water demands resulting from new developments, the City recently enacted a Water Neutrality Ordinance, which is detailed below in Section 2.4.3.3.

2.3.2 Economic Activity
It is not unusual, during poor economic conditions and increased unemployment rates, to see a reduction in water demand. When the economy recovers and employment levels increase, there is generally a rebound in water use. Figure 2-6 shows the City’s monthly unemployment rates and corresponding water demands over the last few years.

Figure 2-6 Monthly Unemployment Rates and Water Demand
90,745
91,350
92,321
93,181 93,282
93,834
12,758 13,015 13,036
11,349 11,467 11,498
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
89,000
90,000
91,000
92,000
93,000
94,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Volume (AF)
Population
Population Water Demand
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
May-13
Jul-13
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Jul-14
Sep-14
Nov-14
Jan-15
Mar-15
May-15
Jul-15
Sep-15
Nov-15
Jan-16
Mar-16
May-16
Jul-16
Sep-16
Nov-16
Jan-17
Mar-17
May-17
Jul-17
Sep-17
Nov-17
Voume (AF)
Unemplyment Rate
Demand Unemployment Rate

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-6
This data shows that overall, the community has continued to conserve, even with the improving economy (as based on unemployment rates). This suggests that the sustained reduction in demand could be attributed to enlightened behavioral changes with regard to water conservation. The increase in use that is evident starting in 2016 corresponds with a drop in the unemployment rate.

Water use also tracks with media messaging during this same time period that suggested the drought in California was subsiding in severity, particularly in northern California. Long-term, it is expected that the trends will begin to converge again as the City’s water conservation programs and focused media messaging become fully established.

2.3.3 Weather and Climate Change
It is common for water demand to increase as the days get warmer and decrease as the weather cools down. During summer months, people water their lawns more, use swimming pools, and consume more water. Figure 2-7 shows the average monthly City temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and the corresponding monthly water demand.

Figure 2-7 Monthly Weather and Water Demand
Historical weather information was obtained from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and shows the correlation in demand and weather temperature. The data also shows that the City’s conservation efforts in response to its sustainability objectives and the recent drought have generally acted to dampen the amplitude of seasonal fluctuations in water use via continued reductions in overall demand.

Climate change models for southern California forecast continued increases in ambient temperature, with a possible shift in precipitation events towards later in the regional wet season of October to April. Sea level and storm wave run up are also predicted to increase, with 12 – 61 cm (5-24 inches) of sea level rise expected by 2050 along the southern California coast. Knowing these factors will affect long-term water resource planning and existing coastal water infrastructure vulnerability, the City has implemented a review of climate change factors for new water utility capital projects. To further refine its evaluation of potential climate change impacts to its water supply, the City is exploring robust decision-making methods to model a focused suite of likely climate change scenarios, developed in consultation with the City’s Office of Sustainability and 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 May-13
Jul-13
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Jul-14
Sep-14
Nov-14
Jan-15
Mar-15
May-15
Jul-15
Sep-15
Nov-15
Jan-16
Mar-16
May-16
Jul-16
Sep-16
Nov-16
Jan-17
Mar-17
May-17
Jul-17
Sep-17
Nov-17
Volume (AF)
Temperature (°F)
Demand Weather F°

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-7
Environment and recognized climate change experts with local knowledge. These climate stresstest scenarios will be utilized to assess how to best ensure the reliability and resiliency of the City’s water supply.

2.3.4 Climate Change Vulnerability
Climate change in the coming decades is expected to test the City’s ability to sustainably manage its water resources. However, along with these challenges come the opportunities for the City to apply innovative thinking and solutions to mitigate those components of climate change that most directly affect sustainable water. Chief among these are greenhouse gas emissions/energy, drought, temperature rise, sea level rise, saltwater intrusion/water quality, and flooding/storm surges.

2.3.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy
Water, and especially imported water from distant watersheds, is a carbon intensive resource. In 2010, the Santa Monica City Council adopted the objective of the City achieving water sustainability by eliminating its dependence on environmentally costly imported water for use as a potable supply. Currently, the City produces approximately 70 - 75 percent of its water supply from local groundwater. By using local groundwater, the City is offsetting the energy and emissions typically associated with water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River. To further reduce its water-related carbon footprint, the City has implemented various conservation programs all designed to reduce demand.

The City has audited its water infrastructure to ensure it is energy efficient by upgrading equipment and right-sizing pumps. In addition, the City is applying innovative approaches to infrastructure such as below grade construction of critical facilities to allow for alternative uses for surface areas such as parks, and the inclusion of solar panels to projects in order to reduce energy consumption.

2.3.4.2 Drought and Temperature Rise
As previously discussed, increased seasonal temperatures and cyclical periods of drought of varying duration are expected to have a measurable influence on the City’s water supply strategy and long-term demand. As currently evident in summer months, warmer temperatures typically give rise to increased water demands. Accordingly, further city-wide reductions in water demand will greatly assist the City in maintaining its water use at levels which will support water selfsufficiency. Further assistance in meeting this challenge is the City’s broadening of its water portfolio to include local groundwater and treated non-conventional water resources such as dry and wet weather runoff, municipal wastewater and brackish groundwater as discussed in Section 5.

By not relying on any one source of water, the City will lower its vulnerability to drought and other natural disasters as it moves to meet its sustainability goal.

2.3.4.3 Sea Level Rise
Per the recommendations of the 2015 California Coastal Commission Sea Level Policy Guidance, the City considered the findings of the National Resource Council (NRC) 2012 report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present and Future, in its planning for this SWMP update. According to the 2012 NRC report, for the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, and the separate projections for the Los Angeles region, sea level rise is expected to be on the order of 12 - 61cm (5 - 24 inches) by 2050, and 42-167 cm (1.4 ft. - 5.5 ft.) by 2100. The projection for the Los Angeles coast is 29 ± 9 cm (11 ± 4 inches) by 2050 and 93 ± 25 cm (3 ft. ± 10 inches) by 2100.

Other recent studies propose alternative sea level rise with the average rise for the Pacific Coast

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-8
estimated to be between 0.6 - 1.0 m (2.0 - 3.3 ft.) by 2100. If sea level rises as predicted by the currently available studies, the City would have ample time to adapt to the potential risk to any water-related infrastructure near the beach by implementing mitigation measures such as natural dune barriers, engineered hardening of some infrastructure, or by implementing adaptive retreat from areas of higher risk whereby infrastructure would be relocated landward.

2.3.4.4 Saltwater Intrusion/Water Quality
If current NRC sea level projections are proven to be accurate, saltwater intrusion may be expected to change the quality of the shallow groundwater zones immediately adjacent to the coast and those low-lying areas where wave run-up would likely be higher. A recent 2017 exploratory boring drilled at Santa Monica City Hall, located approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the Santa Monica Pier, determined that highly brackish-saline groundwater conditions do not occur at that location until approximately 540 feet below ground surface. Future changes to water quality from the groundwater zones the City currently pumps from are not expected through 2050. This is primarily because the City’s principal water supply wellfields are located inland and remote from the coast.

Overall, salinity intrusion due to climate change is expected to be gradual, allowing enough time to modify the City’s reverse osmosis treatment facilities in response. Therefore, vulnerability to saltwater intrusion is considered to be low as various adaptive engineering measures are available.

2.3.4.5 Flooding/Storm Surges
With increases in sea level, an increased vulnerability to flooding and storm surges can be expected.

Along the coast, flooding and storm surge can be exacerbated by sea level rise attributed to poor drainage conveyance systems, melting continental and sea ice, and volume expansion of the oceans due to thermal warming, winds, and tides. To assess for such vulnerability, the City consulted the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System 3.0 (CoSMoS 3.0) during its SWMP development process. The CoSMoS 3.0 has generated a series of figures showing potential impact to various coastal areas, including the Santa Monica Beach and Pier, caused by varying increases in sea level rise and a coinciding 100-year storm event. As with the general effects of expected sea level rise, the City can adapt to the potential increase in storm surge or flooding attributable to the predicted gradual rise of sea level by implementing engineering mitigation measures. Based on this intrinsic ability, City topography, and the CoSMoS 3.0 modeling output, the risk of flooding or a storm surge adversely impacting water related infrastructure, including the Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) Project and the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), is considered to be low. However, the City simultaneously recognizes that large rogue storm events are possible.

2.4 IMPACT OF HISTORICAL WATER CONSERVATION
Water conservation includes all the policies, programs, and activities developed to sustainably manage and reduce water use to meet current and future water demand. Active conservation occurs through efforts such as rebate and incentive programs, system audits and repairs, outreach, education and more. Passive conservation occurs as a result of legislation and plumbing code changes when customers are required to replace or upgrade water wasting products and processes.

The factors shaping Santa Monica’s water conservation efforts have historically been and continue to be:
• The City’s goal of water self-sufficiency
• Repeated droughts
• Mandatory water usage reductions and water conservation requirements issued by the State

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-9
• Permanent water conservation regulations in the aftermath of the recent water drought

2.4.1 The Drought and Policy Mandates
The City has been actively implementing water conservation programs since 1988. Detailed information regarding water conservation efforts from 2001 to 2014 can be found in the City’s 2014 SWMP. Information regarding water conservation efforts prior to 2001 can be found in the City’s 2002 Water Efficiency Strategic Plan. Since the adoption of the SWMP in 2014, the City has been enhancing its existing water conservation programs/policies and implementing new ones.

Of all the factors shaping Santa Monica’s water conservation programs since the initial SWMP, the most significant has been the recent five-year (2012-2017) California drought and the resultant mandatory water use reductions and water conservation requirements issued by both the State and the City. These actions include:

State Actions
• January 17, 2014: Facing severe water deficits during one of the driest years in California’s recorded history, Governor Brown proclaimed a Drought Emergency, asking all Californians to voluntary reduce water usage by 20%. • March 1, 2014: The Governor signed Senate Bill 104, state legislation which implemented numerous drought relief measures.
• July 15, 2014: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted an Emergency Regulation for Statewide Urban Water Conservation, which required urban retail water agencies like Santa Monica, to implement all requirements and actions of their water shortage response plans that impose mandatory outdoor irrigation restrictions and prohibit certain water wasting activities. • April 1, 2015: Following the lowest Sierra snowpack measurement ever recorded, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, which, for the first time in state history, directed the SWRCB to implement mandatory water reductions. The SWRCB placed each water supplier in a conservation tier ranging from 4% to 36%, to achieve a statewide aggregate reduction in urban water use of 25% from June 2015 to February 2016.
• April 7, 2017: Following a winter of record abundant rainfall, the Governor issued Executive Order B-40-17 ending the Drought State of Emergency in most of California and rescinding state-mandated water use reductions.
• In addition, state agencies issued a plan to “Make Water Conservation a California Way of Life” as directed by Governor Brown’s previous Executive Order B-37-16 (May 9, 2016). The plan requires state agencies to establish permanent, long-term water conservation measures, water use targets, and improved planning for more frequent and severe droughts. Until the plan’s permanent requirements are in place, portions of the drought emergency regulations that prohibit certain wasteful water practices along with monthly water use reporting by water agencies to the SWRCB continue to be in effect.

Santa Monica Actions
• June 9, 2009: The Santa Monica City Council adopted the Water Shortage Response Plan in response to drought conditions at the time (note: since 2007, with the exception of 2011-12, California has been in a drought).

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-10
• January 29, 2014: Following the Governor’s proclamation of a statewide Drought State of Emergency, Council increased the City’s voluntary reduction from 10% to 20%. • August 12, 2014: The Santa Monica City Council declared a Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage, which shifted the City’s 20% reduction in water use from voluntary to mandatory.
• January 13, 2015: The Santa Monica City Council set a deadline of December 31, 2016 to achieve the mandatory 20% reduction in water use from 2013 levels. • January 2018, the City’s Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage and the mandatory 20% reduction are still in effect with a cumulative savings from June 2014 of 12.5%.

2.4.2 City Water Conservation Unit
To meet both the State and City mandated 20% reductions in water use along with adhering to the State’s emergency drought regulations, the City created the Water Conservation Unit (WCU) within the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE). Comprised of OSE permanent staff and four additional hires (limited term through June 30, 2022), the WCU was launched in the spring of 2015, successfully achieving both the State and City reduction targets while applying the State’s drought emergency regulations locally.

The WCU continues to implement the City’s overall water conservation strategies, policies, incentives and programs to not only execute the City-mandated 20% reduction requirement still in effect, but also to assist in achieving – and sustaining – water self-sufficiency. The WCU is also charged with permanently establishing water conservation as the new normal in the City along with implementing the legislative requirements that are anticipated from the State’s “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” framework (Executive Order B-37-16).

2.4.3 Water Conservation Programs/Policies (2014-2017)
The City’s past and current water conservation efforts include a combination of incentive programs, forward looking policy, community outreach and education, and regulatory enforcement. For the 2014-2017 period, the programs and policies that the WCU has implemented can be categorized as follows:
• 2014 SWMP programs/policies
• New enhancements to existing programs
• Ordinances for new developments and water waste

2.4.3.1 2014 SWMP Water Programs
Although WCU staff resources were devoted primarily to new water conservation efforts in response to the 2012-2017 California water drought period, ten of the programs defined in the initial SWMP were initiated with significant progress. Estimated savings for these programs is 316.5 AFY with a total cost of $3,089,876 for the period between April 2015 to July 2017 as shown in Table 2-2. It is anticipated that several of the remaining programs will be launched in 2018 providing additional significant water reductions to help reach and maintain water self-sufficiency.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-11
Table 2-2 Water Conservation Objectives and Outcomes 2015-2017 1) This program is no longer active. Drip conversion has been incorporated in the main "Cash for Grass" Sustainable Landscape Rebate program that was revamped/relaunched in April 2015.
2) This program is no longer active. Rebates for rotating nozzles are provided through MWD's Water Conservation Rebate Incentive program for which Santa Monica provides supplemental funding. 3) Clothes washer rebates are only available for Single-Family Residential accounts. 4) St. John's declined to participate in this program in 2015. Staff will re-engage customer in 2018 to potentially begin program implementation.
5) The Laundry Machine retrofit program but was placed on hold due to re-directing resources to the City's drought response.

2.4.3.2 2015 – 2017 New and Enhanced Water Conservation Programs In 2015, the WCU staff began implementation of a wide-array of new and enhanced water conservation programs as part of the City’s drought response and drive towards water selfsufficiency. These programs continue to be executed to meet water self-sufficiency and to establish aggressive water conservation as a standard paradigm in the City. Significant new and enhanced programs include:
• Water Use Allowances (WUAs): The WUA is a component of the Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) and is the mechanism to implement the mandatory reduction required by a Water Supply Shortage. WUAs represent the amount of water that can be used by a water customer without risk of receiving an exceedance citation (see below). The WUA for the current Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage is 20% below the amount of water used in 2013.

Every water customer in the City receives a WUA uniquely calculated for each billing period.

C o nservatio n A ctivity C lass
Estimated
N umber o f
A ctivities
Implemented
by 2020
A ctual N umber
o f A ctivities
Implemented
A pr15 - Jul17
Estimated
C o nservatio n
in 2020 (A F Y)
Estimated
C o nservatio n
(A F Y) fo r
A ctivities
Implemented
A pr15 - Jul17
Estimated
A verage
A nnual
C o st
Estimated
T o tal C o st
T hro ugh
2020
A ctual C o st
fo r A ctivities
Implemented
A pr15 - Jul17
Residential HE Clothes Washer Rebate Single Family 880 212 30 7.1 $24,100 $216,600 $39,885 Residential HET Rebate Single Family 3568 339 77 8.3 $14,400 $129,700 $3,377 Residential WBIC Rebate Single Family 1920 155 79 60.8 $29,300 $263,800 $5,328 City's Cash for Grass Rebate Program Single Family 1,100,000 sf 823,399 51 38.2 $209,900 $1,889,100 $2,212,093 City's Drip Irrigation Rebate Program Single Family 1,100,000 sf N/A (see note #1) 24 0 $139,900 $1,259,400 $0 City's HE Nozzle Rebate Program Single Family 550,000 sf N/A (see note #2) 7 0.1 $52,500 $472,300 $30 Water Smart Software - 5% Reduction in Water Use Single Family 3,040 accounts 5,818 8 34 $26,600 $239,300 $68,971

0.8 gpf Toilets (Direct Installation) M ulti Family 5,496 2,108 73 78.6 $174,800 $1,573,100 $670,172 Residential HE Clothes Washer Rebate M ulti Family 544 N/A (see note #3) 19 0 $9,800 $88,600 $0 Residential HET Rebate M ulti Family 4,000 2,055 13 76.7 $16,200 $145,400 $0 Laminar Flow Restrictors for St. John's M edical Center Commercial 664 N/A (see note #4) 6 0 $1,500 $13,600 $0 Commercial Dry Vacuum Pump Rebate Commercial 40 0 3 0 $1,400 $12,600 $0 Commercial Connectionless Food Steamer Rebate Commercial 2 0 1 0 $100 $500 $0 Commercial Zero Water Urinal Rebate Commercial 4 12 0 1.5 $25 $200 $500 Commercial Ultra-Low Volume Urinal Rebate Commercial 544 3 8 0.4 $3,500 $31,100 $0 Commercial Conductivity Controller Rebate Commercial 2 0 4 0 $0 $0 $0 Commercial HET Rebate Commercial 200 442 5 10.9 $2,500 $22,900 $18,520 CII Cooling Tower Treatment - Zero Blowdown Commercial 2 0 1 0 $200 $1,400 $0 Coin-Operated Laundry M achine Retrofit Commercial 45 N/A (see note #5) 360 0 $3,500 $31,800 $0 HETs for St. John's M edical Center Commercial 10 N/A (see note #4) 0 0 $100 $1,100 $0

0.125 gpf Urinals for St. John's M edical Center Commercial 7 N/A (see note #4) 0 0 $40 $400 $0

1.5 gpm Faucet Aerators for St. John's M edical Center Commercial 158 N/A (see note #4) 0 0 $800 $6,900 $0 SM M USD Audits & Retrofits Institutional TBD Audits completed 5 0 $94,400 $849,400 $71,000 T o tal A ctive Water Savings 774 316.5 $ 805,565 $ 7,249,200 $ 3,089,876 Total Passive Savings 418
Reduction in Unaccounted for Water 250
T o tal R eductio n in D emand 1442

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-12
A water customer can apply for an adjustment to their WUA if an Exceedance Citation is received and they cannot consistently meet their allowance. • WUA Exceedance Citations: A water customer can receive an administrative citation for exceeding their WUA for any given billing period. Citation fees are $250 for the first exceedance, $500 for the second exceedance (within 12 months of the first) and $1,000 for the third exceedance (within 12 months of the second).
• Water School: A water customer can have the citation fee waived for the first WUA exceedance by completing either an online or in-person Water School. The online Water School, created and maintained by the WCU staff, is an educational course with quizzes on Santa Monica water along with indoor and outdoor water conservation. The in-person Water School is conducted onsite at the customer’s property by WCU staff, which includes an audit of indoor water fixtures, the outdoor irrigation system and leak detection using the water meter and toilet dye tabs.
• Water Use Consultations: WCU staff make onsite visits to customers to comprehensively audit indoor water use (measuring flush and flow fixtures, appliances, checking for leaks, behaviors), outdoor water use (irrigation system, checking for leaks, behaviors), along with a meter check. Recommendations for saving water are documented and sent to the customer. Consultations have resulted in the discovery and repair of major leaks, adjustment of irrigation system timers, installation of low-flow devices (aerators and showerheads (free), toilets and urinals (rebates)), and water-use behavior changes. This program is free of charge for any Santa Monica water customer. • Enhanced Landscape Rebate Program: The City’s most successful rebate program (converting turf grass to climate appropriate sustainable landscapes and removing sprinklers, or “cash for grass”) was revised to provide more incentives for customer participation, to more effectively conserve water, to provide successful and maintainable projects, and to ensure an aesthetically pleasing landscape. Updates include:
o Yard conversion: $3.50/sf rebate (up to $4,500)
o Parkway conversion: $3.50/sf rebate (up to $1,500)
o Rain Gardens & Rock Gardens: $1,000 rebate each for incorporating these rainwater harvesting features into a sustainable landscape project. o Unlimited Commercial: Commercial converted area above the above Yard and Parkway limits are rebated at $1/sf no maximum.
• Landscape Consultants: The WCU has partnered with professional landscape professionals who meet with potential landscape rebate customers at their property and provide expert advice on sustainable landscaping and completing a rebate. This service is $50 for a two-hour consultation.
• Sustainable Landscape Trainings: WCU staff coordinated with the City’s Public Works, Airport, and Public Landscape on the installation of parkway landscaping and a rain garden

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-13
at the Airport Demonstration Garden where hundreds of residents have participated in oneon-one sustainable landscape trainings since 2015. • Enhanced Water Waste Patrols: WCU staff enforces SMMC 7.16.020, the “No Water Waste” ordinance (adopted in 1993, see below). Responses to inbound water waste complaints are handled immediately, and proactive patrols in the community have been increased. Notices of Violations are followed up to ensure resolution of water waste issues with Citations issued as needed.
• Enhanced MWD Water Conservation Rebate Incentive Program: As a member-agency of the Metropolitan Water District, the City of Santa Monica participates in their program to provide rebates to Santa Monica Water customers for high efficiency toilets, urinals, clothes washers, restaurant appliances, irrigation devices and other devices. Since 2015, the WCU increased the supplemental funding added to MWD’s base rebate amounts to further incentivize installation of these water-conserving devices. • Free Water Saving Items: WCU staff has distributed thousands of water saving items to Santa Monica water customers since 2015. These items include low-flow faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads, automatic shut-off hose nozzles, toilet leak-detection dye tabs, shower buckets, flow-rate bags, and reusable canvas bags. The WCU also provides free tent cards and door hangers for hotels/motels to encourage water conservation by guests through reusing towels and sheets. These free items are available in the OSE office and are also distributed at outreach events.
• Marketing and Outreach: An informative, entertaining, and well-received marketing campaign featuring fun, whimsical ways to conserve water during the drought (e.g. “Doggy Dishwasher”) was launched in 2015. The campaign also promoted the phrase “We Love Santa Monica: Save Water. Show Your Love.” In addition, a water conservation website was created (smgov.net/water) to provide a one-stop online location for water conservation recommendations and all the information for the Sustainable Landscape Rebate program.

WCU staff has attended over 25 events since 2015 to educate and inform the public about water conservation.
• Customer Support: WCU staff provides excellent customer phone support every workday regarding any water conservation issue or program. Approximately 2,500 phone calls from Santa Monica water customers have been received by WCU staff since 2015.

2.4.3.3 2014-2017 New Ordinances for New Developments and Water Waste A new ordinance and a significant update to an existing ordinance provide codified means to ensure the most efficient water use by new developments in Santa Monica and to help achieve and sustain water self-sufficiency. Also, a long-standing “No Water Waste” ordinance continues to be enforced by City staff.
• Water Neutrality Ordinance: On July 1, 2017, the City’s Water Neutrality Ordinance went into effect and capped water use for new developments to the average five-year historical

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-14
use for that individual parcel. If the projected annual water use for the development is greater than existing parcel’s annual average over the past five years, the increased amount must be offset by water-efficient retrofits of existing building somewhere else in the City.

Offset retrofits currently include low-flow indoor fixtures (toilets, showerheads, aerators).

The ordinance applies to pools, ponds, spas and other water features as well. This ordinance was developed and is implemented by WCU staff. (SMMC 7.16.050) • Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards - Green Building Ordinance Update:

Santa Monica has had a Green Building Ordinance with irrigation components since 2008.

In December 2016, the ordinance was significantly updated to reduce the amount of outdoor water use for new developments. In particular, overhead spray irrigation is banned for all new developments and for new landscape on existing developments. In addition, turf grass is banned on new commercial developments and is limited to 20% of landscaped area for new residential developments. (SMMC 8.108).
• “No Water Waste” Ordinance: Initially adopted in 1993, the WCU actively enforces this ordinance by patrolling the city looking for violations such as irrigation overspray and runoff, hosing of hardscapes, watering during prohibited times of the day and leaks (SMMC

7.16.020). Prohibited water wasting activities include:
o Watering of lawns or landscapes between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on any day exception for drip irrigation, maintenance, hand watering o Runoff from irrigation into streets, alleys, driveways, sidewalks or storm drains at any time
o Hosing down of hardscape such as sidewalks, driveways, patios, alleys, and parking areas or other “hardscapes”
o Water used to fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains, ponds, lakes or displays unless a recycling system is used
o Swimming pools filled or emptied unless it is a first filling of a new pool, or necessary leak repair work is being performed
o Water leaks from exterior or interior plumbing; must be repaired immediately o Washing of vehicles of any kind except with a hand-held bucket or a hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle. No runoff permitted
o Water served at restaurants except upon request

2.4.4 Water Conservation Results (2014-2017)
The City’s aggressive water conservation programs along with exceptional community response have resulted in reduced water use even with incremental residential population growth. For 2014- 2017, water use reduction was ~12.5% as shown in Table 2-3:

Table 2-3 Water Conservation Results from 2014-2017
METRIC

YEAR REDUCTION
2014 2017 AMOUNT
Annual Water Demand (AF) 13,036 11,498 1,538
Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcd) 126 109 17

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-15
Viewed in another way, the City’s recent water conservation efforts have resulted in meeting major policy-level reduction targets as shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4 Policy-Level Water Reduction Targets

POLICY TARGET RESULTS NOTES
CA Emergency Drought
Regulation
20%
reduction

20.7% Reduction Cumulative reduction from 2013
for June 2015 to Feb. 2016
Santa Monica WSRP Stage
2 Water Supply Shortage
20%
reduction

20% Reduction Cumulative reduction from 2013
for June 2015 to Dec. 2016
SBx7-71 123 gpcd
110 gpcd Target date 2020. Goal met in 2016.
1 Senate Bill SBx7-7 (Water Conservation Act of 2009), enacted in November 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20% by December 31, 2020. Failure to comply with the final target reduction would make the City ineligible for grants and loans from the State necessary to achieve the City’s goal of water self-sufficiency (the City has received as much as $300,000 in recent years for conservation programs). SBx7-7 presented four options for determining the 2020 water use target. Council adopted the option of a straight 20% reduction from the baseline period (1996-2005 citywide water consumption) which set the target corresponding to this method at 123 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The City met this target in 2016 with a 110 gpcd.

Additional metrics for the new and enhanced programs are shown in Table 2-5:

Table 2-5 New and Enhanced Water Conservation Programs
ITEM
RESULT
APR 2015 – JUL 2017
Customers Meeting their Water Use Allowance 75%
No. of Water Use Allowance Exceedance Citations Issued 908 No. of Water School Sessions Completed 205
No. of Water Waste Notice of Violations/Citations 1,041 No. of Water Waste Complaint Follow-ups 1,254
No. of Water Use Consultations 370
No. of Landscape Consultations 563
No. of Sustainable Landscapes Completed and Rebates Issued 606 No. of High Efficiency Water Device Rebates through MWD 3,241 Water Saving Products Distributed 14,340
No. of page views at smgov.net/water 53,182

2.4.4.1 Summary
Water conservation programs implemented by the Water Conservation Unit have significantly reduced water demand since the 2014 SWMP. The programs and ordinances described above are shown as a timeline in Figure 2-8.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-16
Figure 2-8 Water Conservation Programs/Policies
The water use reductions achieved in the City since the 2014 SWMP are as follows:
• Total annual demand shrank by approximately 1,538 AF from 2014 to 2017. Because the SWMP water conservation programs implemented to date have an estimated 317 AFY savings, the additional 1,221 AFY in savings can be primarily attributed to new water conservation programs along with enhancements to long-standing legacy programs. • Drought response reduction targets of 20% mandated by the State and the City were met. • The City’s Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage and the requirement for 20% reduction in water use remains in effect (via Water Use Allowances and Exceedance Citations) and the City continues to meet this target even with the Drought State of Emergency rescinded and the media spotlight no longer on the drought.
• The SBx7-7 2020 target (123 gpcd) was surpassed in 2015 with when average demand was 109 gpcd.

The potential exists for further reductions in water demand through increased water conservation in untapped areas such as:
• Yet to be implemented programs from the 2014 SWMP (most notably the SMMUSD retrofits, commercial sector fixture retrofits, and coin-operated laundry machine retrofits) Pre-2015

1. City's 2002 Water
Efficiency Strategic
Plan

2. City's 2014 SWMP
Programs (including
No Water Waste and
Green Building
Ordinances)
2015

1. Water Use
Allowances (WUA)

2. WUA Exceedance
Citation

3. Water School

4. Water Use
Consultations

5. Enhanced Landscape
Rebate Program

6. Landscape
Consultants

7. Sustainable
Landscape Trainings

8. Enhanced Water
Waste Patrols

9. Enhanced MWD
Water Conservation
Rebate Incentive
Program

10. Free Water Saving
Items

11. Marketing and
Outreach

12. Customer Support
2016
Water Efficient
Landscape and
Irrigation Standards
(updated Green
Building Ordinance)
2017
Water Neutrality
Ordinance

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Historical and Current Water Use 2-17
• Increased focus on the commercial sector for rebates on water-saving devices (especially flush valve toilets and urinals)
• Continued water conservation education and enforcement • Additional Sustainable Landscape conversions
• Outreach program assisting customers to properly adjust their irrigation timers • New marketing and outreach campaign focusing on instilling permanent conservation objectives within the community consistent with the State’s forthcoming framework for “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life.”
Overall, water conservation programs are critical for the City to achieve and sustain water selfsufficiency and to establish water efficiency as the new norm in Santa Monica.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-1

3.0 Current Water Sources and Supplies
The City’s current water supply consists of local groundwater, purchased imported water, and a small amount of non-potable recycled dry weather urban runoff. Historically, groundwater has made up the majority of the City’s water supply portfolio. In 1997, third party methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) contamination was discovered in the Charnock subbasin, the location of one of the City’s main groundwater supply fields. As a result, the City was forced to shut down five Charnock groundwater wells and purchase the majority of its water supply from MWD. With the commissioning of the upgraded Arcadia Advanced Water Treatment Plant (AWTP) in 2010, groundwater production from the Charnock subbasin was restarted. In addition to local groundwater and purchased imported water, the City treats a small volume of dry weather urban runoff at its Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). The treated SMURRF water is utilized for non-potable applications by other City departments and by various commercial users in the City.

3.1 SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
As part of the December 2014 SWMP, Kennedy/Jenks used GIS data provided by the City to assess and construct a water distribution model for the City’s system. The purpose of this analysis was to identify potential hydraulic and operational deficiencies and recommend capital improvement projects for both current and future demand conditions. This information was discussed in Section 6 of the 2014 SWMP. A working water distribution model was provided to the City and it will be updated and maintained periodically as changes occur throughout the City’s water distribution system.

3.2 IMPORTED WATER
MWD receives a negotiated allotment of water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These allotments are then distributed among its 26 member agencies, of which the City is one.

Between the mid-1990s and 2010, the majority of the City’s water came from imported water purchased from MWD. With the restoration of the City supply wells and the completion of the Charnock and Arcadia Water Treatment facilities in 2010, the City has been able to gradually reduce the need for imported water supplies. With optimization of the treatment facilities and conservation, the City reduced its need for imported water to less than 30% of the City’s total water supply in 2015 and 2016. In 2017, a temporary well closure resulted in slightly higher usage. Figure 3-1shows the City’s imported water purchases since 2005.

Based on the City’s most recent MWD invoice, the City’s Tier 1 rate allocation from MWD is currently 7,406 AFY, which is the amount of water the City is entitled to purchase at the lower cost Tier 1 rate. MWD Tier 2 water is also normally available to the City. However, the unit cost of Tier 2 water is higher, and there is less availability and reliability of Tier 2 water in periods of drought. As indicated in Figure 3-1, the City has not exceeded its current Tier 1 rate over the past 7 years.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-2 Figure 3-1 Historical Imported Water Supplies
The City receives imported water at two turnouts. Both of these connections are 24 inches in diameter and are capable of delivering 100% of the City's water needs. The hydraulic grade of the MWD water is high enough to deliver water to all three pressure zones within the City's service area without additional pumping. For water security, the City will maintain these turnouts going forward in case of a natural disaster or other emergency. The capacities of these connections are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Santa Monica’s MWD Connection Capacities

MWD CONNECTION CAPACITY (AFY)
SM-1 21,720
SM-2 18,100
Total Capacity 39,820

3.2.1 Characteristics and Challenges
Fluctuation of available imported supply and drought conditions have and will likely continue to impact southern California’s water supplies. Imported water is both expensive and variable, and in times of drought, becomes even more scarce and uncertain. To compound the reduced availability of water during times of drought, dry conditions also increase water demand due to increased outdoor water use. The reliability and increasing costs of imported MWD water is a major source of concern and risk for most water agencies. Because of this, and the environmental impacts of importing water from distant watersheds, it is the City’s goal to significantly reduce and eventually eliminate imported water for day-to-day potable use.

3.2.2 Reliability
The reliability and availability of imported water is affected by a myriad of factors that are outside of the City’s control and will, in all likelihood, continue to impact California in the future. Reliance on imported water to help meet its total water demands means the City must continually examine the various risk elements associated with that supply. This assessment of risk is essential in 12,671
13,216 13,017
12,323
11,685
9,812
6,389 6,548
5,833
5,108
3,296 2,876
4,130
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Purchases (AF)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-3 understanding the importance of developing any water resources plan. Although the City’s imported water supplies have been fairly reliable in the past, a number of factors suggest that it will become more difficult to ensure that imported water remains reliable in the future.

Foremost among the risk factors associated with this supply is the magnitude of competing interests for imported water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. This demand, coupled with periods of below-normal rainfall, have resulted in supply shortages over the past 30 years and culminated in a State drought declaration on January 17, 2014. Although the drought impacted surface waters and other agencies that used water for agriculture more significantly, the City was also affected by the drought, primarily due to reduced groundwater replenishment, and the reduced reliability of imported water. While the requirements of SBx7-7 may support a suppression of future demands, overall growth in southern California will continue to strain the reliability of MWD’s water supply to its member agencies, including the City. As a result of these continued challenges to its water supplies, MWD and its member agencies, have developed new projects to increase the diversity and capacity of imported water supplies while encouraging its member agencies, including the City, to develop local supply projects to meet the needs of their customers.

3.3 LOCAL GROUNDWATER
In addition to providing a majority of the City’s existing potable water supply, local groundwater offers the potential for future development of additional supplies. Local groundwater has, until recently, been underutilized due to the shutdown of five Charnock wells contaminated by MTBE in 1997. Since the completion of Charnock and Arcadia treatment facilities in 2010, the City has been able to bring the five Charnock wells back online. The following is a summary of the City’s recently completed Sustainable Yield Analysis report prepared by Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC (Slade), June 2018. A copy of the Sustainable Yield Analysis is provided in Appendix A.

The City obtains its groundwater supply from the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin (SMGB). The SMGB is located in western Los Angeles County and underlies the entire City, as well as Culver City, Beverly Hills, and portions of western Los Angeles. The SMGB has a surface area of 50.2 square miles and consists mostly of flat to mildly hilly terrain. The SMGB is bounded by the impermeable rocks of the Santa Monica Mountains to the north, the Ballona Escarpment (Bluffs) to the south, the Newport-Inglewood fault to the East, and the Pacific Ocean to the West. Extensive faulting within the SMGB separates it into five subbasins as shown in Figure 3-2.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-4 Figure 3-2 Santa Monica Groundwater Basin and Subbasins The five subbasins within the SMGB are the Arcadia subbasin, the Crestal subbasin, the Charnock subbasin, the Olympic subbasin and the Coastal subbasin. Of these, the City currently only extracts groundwater from the Arcadia, Charnock and Olympic subbasins. The City recently completed an exploratory drilling program to assess the presence and quality of groundwater in the Coastal subbasin. This work resulted in the City confirming the existence of groundwater in commercial quantities in the Coastal subbasin, and the completion of a new supply well at the Santa Monica Airport. The City is planning future drilling in the Coastal subbasin to help reduce its dependence on imported water. The City has no plans to explore the Crestal subbasin in the immediate future.

Based on recent drilling data and the completion of two studies related to natural recharge and a satellite-based study of basin topographic elevations, the City has updated the 2017 Preliminary Sustainable Analysis Report.

The Lakewood formation is a significant aquifer formation within some areas of Los Angeles County and is present in the Arcadia and Olympic subbasins in the northern half of the SMGB. However, the San Pedro Formation, which directly underlies the Lakewood formation, is the main potable production aquifer in the SMGB. Groundwater is replenished by percolation of precipitation falling on the land surface and by runoff along the front of the Santa Monica Mountains. The SMGB receives a regional average annual precipitation of about 12-14 inches. A significant amount of natural

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-5 recharge to the SMGB occurs along the interface with the Santa Monica Mountains. Here, strata typically found at deeper depths in the basin tend to ramp up at shallower depths along the mountain front providing a more direct pathway for recharge of these sediments. Since the early1900s, urbanization of the entire region has greatly reduced the amount of rainfall runoff that is able to percolate directly through the surface soils and into the underlying aquifer systems. The built-out environment of the City and fine-grained surface soils preclude recharge through much of the area and prevent the use of engineered recharge structures such as surface spreading basins.

Currently, the City extracts groundwater from ten active groundwater wells. Five of these wells are located in the Charnock subbasin, three are located in the Olympic subbasin, and two are located in the Arcadia subbasin. Table 3-2 presents the current well capacities for the City’s active wells.

Table 3-2 Active Groundwater Well Capacities
SUBBASIN WELL NAME/NO.

WELL CAPACITY1
(gpm)
Charnock Charnock 13 1,300
Charnock 16 1,300
Charnock 18 1,400
Charnock 19 1,400
Charnock 20 1,150
Arcadia Arcadia 4 135
Arcadia 5 95
Santa Monica 1 200
Olympic Santa Monica 3 250
Santa Monica 4 750
Santa Monica 82 600
Coastal Airport 12 300
1 Note that the total capacities of the wells are not the total pumping capacities because not all wells can pump simultaneously due to their close proximity.
2 Not yet Active
As previously mentioned, the Charnock and Arcadia Wellfields had been shut down from approximately 1997 to 2010 due to MTBE contamination. Groundwater production during that period was greatly reduced and occurred primarily in the Olympic subbasin. Table 3-3 presents the historical groundwater production total for each sub-basin as reported in the 2018 Updated Preliminary Study of the Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins within the Santa Monica Basin.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-6 Table 3-3 Groundwater Production Totals (1988-2017)
YEAR

SUBBASIN PRODUCTION (AF)

ARCADIA CHARNOCK OLYMPIC TOTAL
1988 372 8,111 387 8,871
1989 357 6,363 457 7,177
1990 389 4,132 469 4,990
1991 417 4,728 387 5,531
1992 396 6,486 981 7,862
1993 390 6,153 2,867 9,409
1994 419 5,906 3,126 9,450
1995 542 6,322 3,176 10,039
1996 370 2,284 3,044 5,697
1997 2,820 2,820
1998 2,642 2,642
1999 2,937 2,937
2000 2,912 2,912
2001 387 2,809 3,196
2002 467 1,824 2,291
2003 455 593 1,047
2004 137 385 522
2005 395 1,495 1,890
2006 387 1,365 1,752
2007 374 1,619 1,993
2008 360 1,663 2,023
2009 340 1,722 2,062
2010 290 593 2,436 3,320
2011 447 5,168 2,317 7,932
2012 450 5,277 2,636 8,363
2013 434 7,824 1,609 9,867
2014 714 8,377 1,591 10,682
2015 620 8,114 1,961 10,695
2016 698 8,311 1,992 11,001
2017 708 7,588 1,720 10,016
Total Production 11,315 101,737 55,942 168,994
Total Average
Production (AFY)1
435 5,985 1,865 5,633
1 For the Arcadia and Charnock subbasins, the average does not include those years for which no pumping was conducted.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-7

3.3.1 Characteristics and Challenges
There are several challenges within the local subbasins, including, contamination, potential for saltwater intrusion, and recharging of the aquifers.

3.3.1.1 Contamination and Treatment
In 1997, the Charnock and Arcadia Wellfields were shut down for a number of years due to thirdparty MTBE pollution from leaking underground fuel tanks. In 2006, the City reached an agreement with the parties responsible for the MTBE contamination to restore the Charnock and Arcadia Wellfields so that they could once again provide drinking water to the community. This restoration came in the form of the upgraded Arcadia Advanced Water Treatment Plant (AWTP), and the new Charnock Treatment Unit at the Charnock Well Field, which provides granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration. The Charnock treatment system uses filtration with GAC to treat water from the three contaminated wells at the Charnock Wellfield, followed by additional treatment at the Arcadia AWTP, which includes reverse osmosis. In addition, water from one well located in the Arcadia subbasin (Santa Monica 1), is treated with chlorine at the wellhead and blended directly into the distribution system.

During treatment, water is lost as a result of filter backwash and rejected water from reverse osmosis. The amount of water loss can vary depending on the flow, raw water quality, and the condition of the reverse osmosis process units. This reject water, referred to as brine concentrate, is disposed to the sanitary sewer. In the last six years, water treatment losses have ranged from 15 to 25%. The City has adjusted the treatment process to stabilize brine concentrate losses at approximately 18% of total water treated by the Arcadia AWTP.

The City is currently evaluating options to maximize treatment efficiencies at the Arcadia AWTP in order to produce more potable supply. The City is assessing new engineering modifications that will reduce the amount of brine concentrate to approximately 10%, thereby increasing the volume of treated water available for distribution to the City. Figure 3-3 shows the City’s historical groundwater production in terms of raw or pumped water and the actual potable water produced and distributed into the City’s water system, also called demand.

Figure 3-3 Historical Santa Monica Groundwater Production 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Annual Production (AFY)
Groundwater Production (raw water) Potable Water Supply (distributed)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-8 In addition to water quality issues in the Charnock and Arcadia subbasins, groundwater quality in the Olympic subbasin has been historically impacted by several industrial users over the years. The City successfully negotiated a multi-million dollar financial settlement with the responsible parties.

Some of the components of this residual contamination present challenges for treatment.

3.3.1.2 Saltwater Intrusion
The City currently has no active supply wellfields near the Coast, and therefore there has been no widespread intrusion of seawater into the City’s aquifer systems due to pumping. Results from a recent well drilled at the City Hall determined that the base of freshwater at that location was approximately 520 feet below ground surface.

3.3.2 Reliability
A Preliminary Sustainable Yield Study, which assessed the sustainable yield of the various subbasins within the SMGB, was prepared by Richard C. Slade & Associates (Slade) in 2017. The sustainable yield of a basin is defined as the rate at which groundwater can be withdrawn on an annual basis, under specified operating conditions, without producing an undesired result.

A recent exploratory drilling program completed by the City confirmed the presence of groundwater in the Coastal subbasin and provided additional information about subsurface sediments. As a result of this work, the City has updated the 2017 Preliminary Sustainable Yield Study. Table 3-4 is a summary of the updated estimated sustainable yields for the five subbasins. It should be noted that these data are conservative and do not include an estimate of sustainable yield for the Crestal subbasin. In addition, all estimates of sustainable yield are transitory, due to the myriad of the associated climatic and hydrogeologic factors that are constantly in flux. Going forward, the City is planning to update the sustainable yield analysis every two years.

Table 3-4 Estimated Sustainable Yield for the SMGB

SUBBASIN
2018 SUSTAINABLE YIELD STUDY PREVIOUS STUDIES

ESTIMATED LOWER

LIMIT YIELD (AFY)

ESTIMATED UPPER

LIMIT YIELD (AFY)

ESTIMATED YIELD
(AFY)
Charnock 6,410 8,080 4,420 – 8,200
Olympic 2,360 3,145 3,275
Arcadia 870 920 2,000
Coastal 1,160 1,450 4,225
Crestal N/A N/A 2,000
Mountain Front Recharge 1,000 1,130 N/A
Total 11,800 14,725 13,920 – 19,700

3.3.2.1 Charnock Subbasin (Charnock Wellfield)
The City’s largest wellfield is the Charnock Wellfield, which is located approximately 5,000 feet southeast of the southeastern boundary of the City in the Charnock subbasin. Though only five wells are currently active, this site has had 20 wells throughout its history. The five supply wells are operated as necessary using variable frequency drives (VFDs) to serve fluctuating treatment plant demand. Under normal operation, four of the five wells are operating at one time. Wells are cycled

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-9 on and off to keep well locations healthy and prevent over pumping of well locations. Based on recent data, Slade’s 2018 report estimated this range to be 6,410 to 8,080 AFY for the Charnock subbasin.

3.3.2.2 Olympic Subbasin (Olympic Wellfield)
The Olympic Wellfield is located along and around Olympic Boulevard in what is sometimes referred to as the Olympic Corridor. As many as seven wells have been constructed in this wellfield, with only two remaining in operation today. Those two wells are Santa Monica 3 and Santa Monica 4. A third well (Santa Monica 7) has been idled since 1984 due to sand migration into the well casing. This well was abandoned and replaced with a new supply well (Santa Monica 8) in early 2018. Santa Monica 3 and 4 are both operated using VFDs as necessary to serve demand at the Arcadia AWTP. Santa Monica 8 is currently in the regulatory permitting process. The City plans to have this well in production in 2020. Slade’s 2018 report estimated the sustainable yield to be in the range of 2,360 to 3,145 AFY.

3.3.2.3 Arcadia Subbasin (Arcadia Wellfield)
The Arcadia Wellfield is located at the Arcadia AWTP, just outside of the eastern edge of the City at Bundy Drive and Wilshire Boulevard. As many as ten wells have been drilled at this location with only the following two wells remaining in operation today: Arcadia 4 and Arcadia 5. A third well, Santa Monica 1, is located in a traffic median along San Vicente Blvd. A previous study had estimated the subbasin’s sustainable yield to be around 2,000 AFY. However, based on recent data, Slade’s 2018 report estimated the sustainable yield to be in the range of 870 to 920 AFY for the Arcadia subbasin.

3.3.2.4 Coastal Subbasin
The Coastal subbasin underlies the southern portion of the City. This subbasin has not been utilized as a groundwater source to date. In its 2013 Memorandum, Review and Evaluation of Historic Perennial Yield Values, Santa Monica Groundwater Basin, Slade assigned a value of 4,225 AFY for the Coastal subbasin, which was largely based on prior studies by others. Beginning in fall 2017 and continuing through the winter, the City drilled three deep exploratory borings to begin the process of gathering the necessary data to define the sustainable yield in the Coastal subbasin. As a result of the drilling program, the City completed a new water supply well in the Coastal subbasin. The City is in the process of permitting this well and has plans for at least two more in the near future. Based on new data, the sustainable yield of this subbasin is estimated to be on the order of 1,160 to 1,450 AFY.

3.3.2.5 Crestal Subbasin
The City does not overlay the Crestal subbasin and has not used this subbasin as a water supply. In the 2017 Preliminary Sustainable Yield Report, Slade noted that the previous sustainable yield value of 2,000 AFY was chiefly defined in a City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power report dated April 1991, which assigned a range of values of 1,000 and 3,000 AFY for the sustainable yield of this subbasin. In its March 27, 2013 report, Slade selected the midpoint of that range (i.e. 2,000 AFY) as the preliminary sustainable yield value for this subbasin. Until additional data are obtained for the Crestal subbasin, the previous value of 2,000 AFY may be valid. There are currently no plans by the City at this time to explore the Crestal subbasin as that subbasin lies entirely outside of City limits, and the City does not presently have ownership or access to viable drilling locations.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-10

3.3.2.6 SMGB Recharge
As noted previously, due to the local geology and the highly urbanized nature of the City, there are no spreading basins in the SMGB. During the 1980s, the City recharged up to 2,148 AFY of imported water from MWD into the Charnock subbasin using an aquifer storage and recovery well. The City, however, ceased this operation in 1990, and the City does not currently provide additional groundwater recharge into the SMGB. Based on two recent studies conducted by the City, it is estimated that approximately 1,000 – 1,030 AFY of precipitation is naturally recharged to the basin.

In addition, a satellite-based study being conducted by the City is investigating potential undocumented pathways for natural recharge that appear to follow ancestral LA River channels.

The City is also in the process of planning the drilling and permitting of a new artificial recharge well as part of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), discussed later in this report.

3.3.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
The SMGB is currently unadjudicated and the City is currently the only municipality with a history of pumping significant volumes of water in the basin. The SMGB has not been identified as being in overdraft conditions in the most recent Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118. The California SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water and the Regional Water Quality Control Board provide additional oversight of the SMGB's groundwater quality and help monitor contaminant levels. In cooperation with the Cities of Los Angeles, Culver City and Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles County, the City has coordinated formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), and is in the process of preparing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan as required by Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) by January 2022. As the GSA moves forward with the SGMA process, the Sustainable Yield Analysis for the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin will be a key component in preparing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and will be subject to review and approval by the Department of Water Resources.

3.4 NON-POTABLE WATER
The City commissioned the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) in 2001. The primary objectives of this facility are to eliminate contamination of Santa Monica Bay caused by dry weather urban runoff, and to provide cost-effective treatment for producing water acceptable for reuse in landscape irrigation and indoor plumbing. The SMURRF project was funded by the following: the City, a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) loan, the City of Los Angeles, an MWD recycled water rebate program, federal Intermodal Surface Transpiration Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant funds, and Los Angeles County Proposition “A” grants. The SMURRF is operated by the City, although operating costs and revenues are shared jointly with the City of Los Angeles.

The SMURRF, which is currently considered a stormwater best management practice (BMP), treats dry weather urban runoff from the City’s Pico-Kenter and Santa Monica Pier drainage areas. The SMURRF is designed to effectively treat up to 0.5 MGD of urban runoff that was previously discharged into Santa Monica Bay. The treated water is pumped through a reclaimed water (“purple pipe”) distribution system that serves parks, medians, Woodlawn Cemetery, and dual-plumbed buildings. Treated water is also used by City operations for street sweeping, sewer jetting, and pressure washing.

In addition to reducing pollutants entering Santa Monica Bay and increasing supply reliability, the SMURRF was designed to increase public awareness of Santa Monica Bay pollution and alternative water uses. The SMURRF is located in a prominent tourist location adjacent to the Santa Monica

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Current Water Sources and Supplies 3-11 Pier and provides a new access to the beach through a walkway from which visitors can view the facility. As a walk-through facility, visitors can see the array of the equipment at two separate overlook points. Each piece of equipment is laid out in a logical format and water is day lighted at five separate points allowing visitors to view the purification process. Educational material about the workings of the facility is also available. Due to its strategic location, the SMURRF has enhanced community awareness of water conservation and reuse.

There are approximately 27 recipients of the SMURRF’s recycled water, of which two include commercial/institutional users receiving recycled water for indoor use through a dual-plumbed system. Current dual-plumbed and landscape uses include the City’s Public Safety Facility and the RAND Corporation. The Water Gardens, an office-professional campus near the City’s eastern boundary with Los Angeles, accepts recycled water for its water features and landscape areas.

Recent additional users include Tongva Park, City Hall, Colorado Ave., and Esplanade landscape areas among others.

From 2010 to 2017, recycled dry weather urban runoff has accounted for less than 1% of the City's overall water supply (potable plus recycled). Table 3-5 lists the total production (effluent) from the SMURRF from 2010 through 2017.

Table 3-5 Historical SMURRF Production
Year Production (AFY) Year Production (AFY)
2010 91 2014 134
2011 79 2015 81
2012 93 2016 89
2013 96 2017 98
Average 95
The SMURRF has maximum production capacity of 560 AFY (0.5MGD). However, the City’s most recent conservation efforts have significantly reduced the dry weather runoff reaching the SMURRF. Current treated water production at the SMURRF is around 98 AFY. The City has had to supplement the runoff influent with potable water to meet existing City needs and third-party contracts for treated SMURRF water as well as for keeping the equipment operational. Due to recent restrictions on public landscape irrigation and conservation by other users, the production volume of SMURRF water has dropped measurably. The need for supplemental potable water is currently averaging around 8% of total daily SMURRF production. This results in an average of 87 AFY runoff generated influent and 8 AFY of influent that is comprised of potable water supply.

Efforts are underway to secure more reliable sources of water for the SMURRF and to increase the average production-to-capacity ratio. These are discussed in more detail in Section 5.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Use 4-1

4.0 Future Water Use
To meet its water self-sufficiency goals and eliminate its reliance on imported water, the City requires a clear understanding of its future water needs. The objective of this section is to project annual potable water use needs for planning years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. Potable water demand projections are based on historical water demand unit rates, population growth projections, and estimates of non-revenue water. Underpinning the City’s ability to produce sufficient volumes of local groundwater necessary to meet projected demand and water selfsufficiency is the estimated sustainable yield for the Santa Monica Basin discussed in Section 4.2.

4.1 POTABLE WATER USE ANALYSIS
The City water use trends from Section 2.2 show that the City’s implementation of the water conservation programs/policies from 2015 through 2017 has resulted in a significant reduction in potable water use, even with increases in residential population. While it is possible that the City’s currently estimated per capita use can be reduced further through additional focused conservation messaging and new water conservation programs, for planning purposes it is assumed that the City’s future water usage will be similar to 2015 to 2017 demand (i.e. 110 gpcd). For comparison, this plan also discusses future water demand based on water conservation program projections.

4.2 POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The City has two planning documents, the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the City’s General Plan and the Downtown Community Plan (DCP), both identifying City zoning by year 2030.

The DCP is guided by the same vision as the LUCE and focuses on the Santa Monica downtown region. These plans consider future population growth to ensure sufficient capacity for new housing. Population projections used to project future water demands were provided by the City’s Planning Department based on projections from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and its planning documents. The 2030 population projections reflect the projections from the LUCE and DCP.

4.3 POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
As noted above, future water projections are estimated based on the most recent per capita water use of 110 gpcd. Based on this unit rate, and the projected population, future potable water demands were calculated and are summarized in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Potable Water Projections Based on Residential Population PROJECTIONS 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Unit Water Use Rate (gpcd) 110 110 110 110 110
Population1 95,315 97,429 102,726 103,038 103,440
Potable Water Demand (AFY) 11,744 12,005 12,657 12,696 12,745 Non-Revenue Water2 (AFY) 587 600 633 635 637
Adjusted Potable Water
Demand (AFY)
12,332 12,605 13,290 13,331 13,383
1 Population data provided by the City's Planning Department 2 Non-Revenue Water Loss Rate for the City is 5%

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Use 4-2
As shown in Figure 4-1, a majority of the population growth is projected to occur by 2030, with a more gradual growth between 2030 and 2040. From 2020 to 2040, the potable water demand is projected to increase at an average rate of approximately 2% and water conservation is estimated to reduce projected water demand by 3% - 5%. Note that the projected potable water use reflects an average annual amount and does not account for seasonal peak, maximum day variations, or water losses due to reverse osmosis treatment. These volumes of water are discussed and included in the upcoming sections.

Figure 4-1 Potable Water Demand Projections

4.4 WATER CONSERVATION ANALYSIS AND EFFECT ON FUTURE DEMANDS In the 2014 SWMP, the City used the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s Water Conservation Tracking Tool to model and evaluate opportunities to conserve water in the future. This model was used by the City to select conservation programs and policies that would position the City for selfsufficiency and to estimate implementation costs of these programs. The details of this model can be found in the 2014 SWMP. An updated list of conservation programs since the 2014 SWMP was provided by the City using its conservation model and is shown in Table 2-2 Water Conservation Objectives and Outcomes 2015-2017
In addition, for this SWMP update, a water conservation model was used to project future demand reduction through conservation program activities. A summary of these projections is provided below in Section 5.4.
12,332 12,605
13,290 13,331 13,383
12,758 13,015 13,036
11,349 11,467 12,029 11,928
12,559 12,661 12,758
84,000
87,000
90,000
93,000
96,000
99,000
102,000
105,000
5,000
7,000
9,000
11,000
13,000
15,000
17,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population
Volume (AF)
Residential Population Future Potable Water Demand (110 GPCD) Historic Potable Water Demand Potable Water Demand (Active Conservation)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-1

5.0 Future Water Supply Options
In conjunction with the City’s extensive water conservation efforts, additional water resources are required for the City to become independent from imported water provided by MWD. This section presents possible local water supply options and a timeline to allow the City to achieve its water self-sufficiency goal. Additional water resources include increased production of local groundwater and non-potable water supply by doing the following: optimizing existing groundwater treatment processes at the Arcadia AWTP to reduce water loss, new wells to increase local groundwater production, and the harvesting, treatment, and reuse of nonconventional water resources, such as dry and wet weather runoff, municipal wastewater and brackish groundwater. As part of the City’s commitment to the adaptive management of its water resources, the City recognizes that the vagaries of projected population growth and climate change support the increased future reliance on the reuse of its nonconventional resources, with a corresponding reduction in reliance on groundwater.

5.1 WATER SELF-SUFFICIENCY SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
In 2010, the Santa Monica City Council directed staff to develop a plan to reach a 100% sustainable water supply (100% water self-sufficiency from local sources) by 2020. In a March 2011 study session with the City Council, staff presented preliminary concepts and principles that would be involved in achieving the water self-sufficiency goal by the year 2020. These included conservation, expanded use of local groundwater, and enhanced reuse of stormwater.

Table 5-1 summarizes the City’s existing local groundwater supplies in comparison to the projected water demand (i.e. needed potable water production). Until the City achieves full sustainability, some continued use of import water will be necessary. However, it is expected that the amount of imported water utilized will steadily decrease between now and 2023.

Assuming no changes in the 2018-estimated sustainable yield and recently updated estimates of associated groundwater production, the estimated local supply needed to achieve self-sufficiency is approximately 12,495 AFY by 2023 and 13,383 AFY by 2040. In addition, peak summertime water usage will need to be accounted for in terms of supply production capacity, as the projections shown in Table 5-1 are only average annual estimates.

It should be noted that if the low end of the sustainable yield estimate is assumed, future demand may exceed what could sustainably be pumped from the basin. This could preclude the City from withdrawing additional groundwater under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA). Should this occur, the City would need to continue purchasing imported water from MWD to meet its potable water demand.

The potential limitations on future groundwater withdrawals from the City’s active subbasins indicate that the City’s approach of additional water supply wells, efficiency upgrades at the Arcadia AWTP, pursuing nonconventional resources, and continuing conservation are necessary for the City to achieve and sustain its long-term objective of independence from costly imported water. The limitations also support proposed biennial updates to the sustainable yield analysis, conservation programs, and working jointly with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to refine the hydrogeologic model. Details for this water self-sufficiency strategy are provided below.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-2
Table 5-1 Comparison of Projected Demand and Local Supplies

PROJECTED DEMAND/SUPPLIES

PROJECTED DEMAND/SUPPLY (AFY)
2020 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040
Projected Demands
Projected Potable Water Demand
(110 GPCD)
12,332 12,495 12,605 13,290 13,331 13,383
Projected Potable Water Demand
(w/ Conservation)
12,029 11,928 11,928 12,559 12,611 12,758
Projected Water Demand Range 12,029 -
12,332
11,928 -
12,495
11,928 -
12,605
12,559 -
13,290
12,611 –
13,331
12,758 -
13,383
Supplies
Arcadia Water Treatment Plant
(RO)
9,603 9,525 10,9322 10,9322 10,9322 10,9322
Closed Circuit Reverse Osmosis
(CCRO)
- 2,812 2,812 2,812 2,812 2,812
Recycled Water 560 560 560 560 560 560
Imported Water3 1,866 -
2,169
170 170 170 170 170
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Recharge from
SWIP1
- 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030
1 SWIP recharge well will assist with maintaining the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin. 2 This value includes additional wells that may be required to sustain water self-sufficiency. 3 The City will maintain its MWD connection for emergency purposes. Imported water usage will be minimal and be required for maintenance of the City’s connection.

5.2 ADDITIONAL LOCAL GROUNDWATER OPPORTUNITIES
As noted in the previous section, at present, the City obtains its local water from the SMGB via the following three subbasins: Charnock, Olympic, and Arcadia. The SMGB also includes the Coastal and Crestal subbasins, which are currently not used for production by the City. Over the years, there have been a number of scientific literature reviews performed to assess potential groundwater sustainable yield levels. Historically, preliminary estimates of sustainable yield for the SMGB have ranged between approximately 7,500 AFY to 19,000 AFY. These disparate estimates have produced a level of variability that the City will need to further assess over time and, to the extent feasible, reduce in order to be able to plan more effectively. To this end, the City is planning to collect additional hydrogeologic boring data to update and refine future sustainable yield reports. The following sub-sections describe the plans related to each of the currently productive subbasins in more detail.

5.2.1 Charnock Subbasin (Charnock Wellfield)
The City has determined that wellfield groundwater monitoring data, which shows reduced thirdparty VOC contamination, warrants a change in groundwater monitoring frequency. In addition, the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-3
City is evaluating the cost benefit of completing or acquiring another supply well in the subbasin, which would provide for additional operational flexibility.

The City currently has a calibrated numerical groundwater flow model of the wellfield. To better quantify sustainable yield estimates going forward for all of the City’s wellfields, and the SMGB writ large, the City is planning to work cooperatively with the USGS to incorporate City data into the USGS model for the SMGB. These studies will begin in 2018.

5.2.2 Olympic Subbasin (Olympic Wellfield)
Today, only the Santa Monica 3 and Santa Monica 4 wells are in operation within the Olympic subbasin. The City recently completed a new well (Santa Monica 8) which is planned to go into production in 2020. This well has an estimated production rate of 600 gpm. In addition, the City is planning to abandon Santa Monica 3 and replace it with a new well (Santa Monica 9) capable of a higher production rate. Santa Monica 3 previously experienced sand migrating into the well casing.

To ameliorate this condition, a liner was installed in the well casing. This corrected the sand issue but also resulted in lower production rates. Completing the two new wells (Santa Monica 8 and Santa Monica 9) allows the City to produce more groundwater, and provides the flexibility to take a well offline for repair without a significant reduction in current production levels.

Similar to the Charnock Wellfield, the City also has a calibrated numerical groundwater flow model of the Olympic Wellfield. To better quantify sustainable yield estimates going forward for this wellfield this data will also be incorporated in the USGS model. Doing so will assist the City in its water resource planning.

5.2.3 Arcadia Subbasin (Arcadia Wellfield)
The Arcadia subbasin has three wells in operation currently: Arcadia 4 and 5 and Santa Monica 1 (SM 1). Degradation of the SM 1 well has led to significantly decreased yields. To illustrate the capacity degradation of SM 1, when it was originally drilled it produced a yield of 850 gpm, more than three times the current yield. Due to the lack of production, as well as quality issues experienced at SM 1, the City has considered re-drilling this well. Successful re-drilling of this well would provide additional data for future updates to the sustainable yield estimate for this subbasin, while simultaneously improving groundwater production.

5.2.4 Coastal Subbasin
The Coastal subbasin is not currently utilized by the City for water supply. Previous studies estimated a yield of 4,225 AFY. The most recent 2018 sustainable yield analysis estimates an annual yield of 1,160 – 1,450. Recently, the City completed a new water supply well in the Coastal subbasin at the Santa Monica Airport (Airport 1). The estimated production rate of this well is 300 gpm. The well is currently in the regulatory permitting process and will be placed into future production once the necessary conveyance pipelines are in place. Based on the data obtained from this boring, the City plans to drill up to two additional wells in the Coastal subbasin.

5.2.5 Crestal Subbasin
There are currently no plans at this time to explore the Crestal subbasin as it lies entirely outside of City limits, and the City does not have ownership or access to viable drilling locations.

5.2.6 Arcadia Treatment Facility
As part of its self-sufficiency planning, the City is currently evaluating options to maximize treatment efficiencies at the Arcadia AWTP. If implemented, the modifications at Arcadia may allow for the double benefit of increasing the total overall treatment capacity of the facility, while

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-4
simultaneously squeezing more potable water out of the existing treatment waste stream, thus improving facility efficiency by reducing the amount of the reject water sent to the sewer by the current reverse osmosis system. As envisioned, the Arcadia finished water production capacity would increase from the current 8.85 MGD to around 12 MGD by 2023. The amount of reverse osmosis reject water would decrease from the current 18% to 8% (i.e. ~92% efficient facility).

Beyond 2023, it is projected that demand may require a second, small standalone treatment facility in order to meet City needs. The necessity for the distributed treatment facility is being weighed against several criteria including, but not limited to, cost, non-behavior based conservation goals that could permanently reduce demand, community acceptance, resiliency goals, and the sustainable yield of the City’s aquifers.

5.3 NON-POTABLE REUSE OPPORTUNITIES
Currently, the only source of non-potable water supply within the City is the dry weather runoff that is captured and treated at the SMURRF. The City does not have the capability to harvest, treat, and reuse stormwater or municipal wastewater at this time. Wastewater generated in the City is sent to the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment.

Understanding the need for conjunctive reuse, the City has embarked on constructing several forward-looking projects that will correct this gap in its water portfolio.

Conjunctive reuse is generally defined as an integrated approach for water resource resiliency that utilizes managed conservation, aquifer pumping, aquifer recharge and storage, and the recycling of all available water resources, including non-conventional resources such as dry and wet weather runoff, municipal wastewater, and brackish groundwater. This approach is not only desirable from an environmental perspective, but is also a critical component to the City’s future self-sufficiency planning. To address the lack of conjunctive reuse in the City’s water supply, the City has leveraged existing infrastructure such as the SMURRF, and integrated these resources with two very innovative projects discussed in the following subsections.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-5

5.3.1 Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP)
The City’s SWIP is comprised of three
integrated project elements to improve
drought resiliency, increase water supply,
and enhance flexibility in the
management of the City’s water
resources. The SWIP is currently
moving into the first stages of the designbuild process. The project construction is expected to be completed by late 2020.

Figure 5-1 shows the location of the three
SWIP project elements.

SWIP Element 1 involves the installation
of a containerized brackish/saline
reverse osmosis unit at the SMURRF.

SWIP Element 1 is designed to integrate
with the Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI)
stormwater harvest tank project as
described below. The CBI is currently in
construction and will be completed in fall
2018. When operational, the containerized
reverse osmosis unit would be utilized to advance treat non-conventional water resources such as dry and wet weather runoff and brackish groundwater. The City plans to expand its non-potable system to serve an additional 100 AFY to customers along San Vicente Boulevard. When fully operational, SWIP Element 1 will provide supply to both the non-potable system and for groundwater recharge, when properly permitted. Element 1 will be completed in2020.

SWIP Element 2 includes the construction of a below ground AWTP at a location beneath the Civic Center Parking Lot. The AWTP would advance treat approximately 1.0 MGD (1120 AFY) of municipal wastewater for non-potable reuse and, when properly permitted, for groundwater recharge. Treatment processes would include, among other things, a membrane bioreactor, membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, UV disinfection, and advanced oxidation.

SWIP Element 3 consists of two below grade stormwater harvest tanks. One tank (3.0 million gallons [MG]) would be constructed beneath Memorial Park. The other below grade tank (1.5 MG) would be located adjacent to the AWTP described in SWIP Element 2. Project elements to be located under the Civic Center Parking Lot would be constructed to accommodate future development on the site. The harvested stormwater will be utilized as a supplemental feed source for treatment at the AWTP described in Element 2 and will be connected to the AWTP by SMART technology and Supervisory Command and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. Elements 2 and 3 are schedule to be completed in2020.

Figure 5-1 SWIP Locations

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-6
Combined, the SWIP and the
CBI will produce
approximately 1.5 MGD (1,680
AFY) of water for immediate
non- potable reuse, and when
properly permitted, for
indirect potable reuse via
aquifer recharge. All nonpotable treated water would be distributed via the City’s
existing non-potable water
“purple pipe” system. Benefits
of the SWIP include capturing
stormwater and urban runoff
for treatment and reuse,
improving beach water quality
and complying with SWRCB’s
Enhanced Watershed
Management Plan (EWMP)
requirements. The SWIP, by
diverting up to 1 MGD (1,120
AFY) of sewage for treatment,
will also free up some
additional hydraulic capacity in
a portion of the City’s sewer collection system. This could allow for future savings and/or redirection of future capital improvement priorities and expenditures. Figure 5-2 summarizes the various elements of SWIP.

5.3.2 Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) Project
The CBI Project includes the installation of a subgrade 1.6 MG stormwater harvest tank on the north side of the Santa Monica Pier to capture runoff from the downtown Promenade Area. The harvested stormwater will be routed to the SMURRF for treatment and non-potable reuse. During dry weather, a set of horizontal sub drains beneath the CBI harvest tank will collect shallow brackish groundwater, which will be routed to SMURRF for treatment and permitted reuse. The continuous routing of wet weather and dry weather flow to SMURRF will maintain its peak treatment capacity of 0.5 MGD (560 AFY) and prevent structural damage to the buried tank due to high groundwater levels. In conjunction with SWIP Element 1, the CBI Project will be able to supply water to meet the full capacity of the SMURRF and thus eliminate the need to supplement the system with potable water. The CBI Project will also improve beach water quality at the stormwater outfall beneath the Santa Monica Pier and provide for water resiliency. Figure 5-3 summarizes the major components of the CBI project.

SWIP Element
1 •Install brackish/saline reverse osmosis at
SMURRF
•Allow the SMURRF to advance treat up to 0.5
MGD (560AFY) of non-conventional water
resources such as dry and wet weather runoff
as well as brackish groundwater
SWIP Element
2 •Construct Advanced Water Treatment Plant
(AWTP) beneath the Civic Center parking lot
•Advance treat approximately 1 MGD (1,120
AFY) of municipal wastewater for reuse
SWIP Element
3 •Constuct a 3 MG tank beneath Memorial Park
•Construct 1.5 MG tank beneath the Civic
Center parking lot, adjacent to the AWTP
from SWIP Element 2
Figure 5-2 SWIP Elements

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-7
Figure 5-3 Clean Beaches Initiative

5.3.3 Future Groundwater Recharge Opportunities
With continued advances in treatment and monitoring technologies and increasing experience with potable reuse projects in California, it is likely that California will continue to adapt or modify regulations that will expand the opportunities for the further development of potable reuse projects. By implementing innovative projects like the CBI and SWIP, the City will be well positioned to take advantage of these potential regulatory changes to conjunctive reuse as they evolve. These projects will provide a template for future projects in other parts of the City where there is an adequate supply of wastewater and runoff to treat and use for recharge via new or existing wells.

Some challenges with such projects that will need to be addressed include the energy requirements, the need to dispose of the brine-concentrate flows that result from the reverse osmosis treatment processes, and the costs associated with treating these waste streams. As currently planned, brineconcentrate will be disposed to the sewer for further treatment at the City of Los Angeles Hyperion wastewater treatment plant. However, for a full picture of project economics one would also need to consider the energy requirements of the project compared to those associated with the transport of imported water from distant watersheds, and the offset cost benefits of reducing the City’s wastewater flows to the City of Los Angeles.

5.4 FUTURE DEMAND REDUCTION THROUGH CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES In developing the water conservation plan to reach and maintain self-sufficiency, the City evaluated the potential for further water efficiency and conservation within the service area. This included an assessment of the current level of low water use and CalGreen efficiency fixtures in the City, as well as identifying where the greatest opportunity for reducing water consumption exists. Based on this analysis, a program plan was developed to reach the City’s long-term objectives.

5.4.1 Market Saturation Assessment
The City reviewed the estimated saturation levels of indoor water using fixtures and appliances within the various customer classes or sectors to identify remaining water saving opportunities for fixture and appliance replacement. Based on this assessment there is still significant opportunity for water savings through fixture replacement in all sectors. From 1990 to 2001, 46,977 ultra-low flush toilets (ULFTs) that use 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) were installed through the direct install, rebate or other incentive program. Table 5-2 shows the number of toilets installed per sector, saturation rate, and number of high water using toilets estimated in Santa Monica.

Clean
Beaches
Initiative
•Install a subgrade 1.6 MG stormwater harvest tank on the north side of the Pier •Allow the SMURRF to maintain its peak 560 AFY of water for permitted reuse

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-8
Table 5-2 Saturation of 1.6 gpf Toilets in the Customer Sectors

CUSTOMER TYPE
TOTAL

TOILETS
(2002)

TOTAL ULFT

INSTALLED
TOTAL

NATURAL

ATTRITION

REPLACEMENT

PERCENT

SATURATION

POTENTIAL

HIGH WATER
USING

TOILETS
Single Family 17,002 6,513 5,043 68% 5,446
Multi-Family 58,086 38,181 16,428 94% 3,477
Commercial 33,165 2,283 15,759 54% 15,123
Total 108,255 46,977 37,230 78% 24,046
Although a significant percent of high water using toilets have been replaced with 1.6 gpf models, there still is significant opportunity, particularly in the commercial sector. In addition, many of the fixtures upgraded over the years are outdated compared to new CalGreen standards and technologies in the market. For example, from 1990 to 2013 the City of Santa Monica provided incentives or direct install to replace old 3.0 gallon per flush toilets with 1.6 gpf models. Then in 2013 the City began programs for the replacement of toilets using 1.6 gpf toilets with 1.28 gpf and eventually only incentives for toilets using 1.06 gpf or less. Given the substantial improvement in toilet flush efficiency, 1.6 gpf toilets could be again replaced with 0.80 gpf resulting in up to a 50% reduction in water usage from those toilets. A similar pattern of replacement and standard improvements has occurred for showerheads and bathroom and kitchen faucet aerators. Since 1992, the standard for showerhead flow rates has gone from over 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) to

2.0 gpm under CalGreen with many available EPA Water Sense vetted showerheads with flow rates as low as 0.80 gpm. Similar trends are seen with kitchen faucet aerators that went from over 2.5 gpm to CalGreen standard of 1.8 gpm and as low as 0.50 gpm for bathroom faucet aerators. Based on these findings, the City proposes to continue a combination of direct install programs, rebate incentives, and free devices to capture the potential water savings from fixture replacement.

Impact of Tourism and Job Population
The City’s overall per capita water consumption is 110 gpcd, while the per capita use for single family and multifamily residential usage is only 73 gpcd. This shows that Santa Monica residents have made significant efforts to improve water efficiency at their property. Key areas with the highest potential for water use reduction include the downtown commercial and multifamily sites.

In 2016, 8.4 million visitors came to Santa Monica1. This significant surge of visitors into the City greatly impacts the overall water demand in the City and offers an opportunity for demand reduction. Based on a study on tourism and water usage, domestic water use per tourist per day is

1 https://www.santamonica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2-Page-Annual-Econ-Imp-Summary-2016.pdf

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-9

29.52 gpcd with the average length of stay in Santa Monica at 1.37 days, resulting in nearly 1,000 AF of water use per year or 9% of the total water usage in the City.

As noted previously, the City’s conservation and enforcement efforts have reduced the aggregated average per capita water use to 110 gpcd, which is the unit rate used to project future water demand in Section 4. When just residential use is considered, the City’s per capita use is around 73 gpcd. With the continued efforts by the City and community writ large, it may be possible to conserve additional water and lower the aggregated water usage down to 90 gpcd by 2025 or 68 gpcd for the residential sector. To reach this objective, the City proposes to continue the current programs and staff levels implemented during 2012 to 2017 to sustain the water saving trends, as well as implement new highly strategic projects and programs to target previously unreached opportunities.

An aggressive ramp up of fixture replacements over a 3-year period complimented with stringent enforcement of the Retrofit on Resale ordinance as well as an enhancement of the Water Neutrality ordinance are needed to reach a gpcd of 90 by 2025. An estimated $30 million in additional program funding would be necessary to complete the 3-year fixture replacement plan and fund outreach efforts and the necessary staff to manage the program and enforcement.

5.4.2 Continuing Programs
Santa Monica will continue several of the current successful programs into the future. This includes the rebate incentive programs for fixtures, high water using landscape replacement incentive, partnership program with SMMUSD, water use consultations and community outreach efforts.

Table 5-3 shows the projected level of activity over the next 10 years for each of these programs as part of the overall plan to reach water self-sufficiency. The projected level of program participation is based on historical trends, available market of opportunity, and strategic community engagement campaigns to increase programs over multi-year periods.

2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236018306_Tourism_and_Water_Use_Supply_Demand_and_Security _-_An_International_Review

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-10 Table 5-3 Projected Activity for Ongoing Water Conservation Programs CURRENT MEASURES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 TOTAL SF PHET Rebates 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 3,000 SF HECW Rebates 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 2,500 SF WBIC Rebates 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,000 Water Use Consultation SF 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 1,200 Water Use Consultation MF 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,350 Water Saving Devices FA 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 15,400 Water Saving Devices SH 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 7,000 Soil Moisture Sensor Rebate 0 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 135 Water Use Consultations CII 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 540 MF PHET Rebates 0 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 2,025 CII WBIC Rebate 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 540 SF Soil Sensor Rebate 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 450 CII PHET Rebate 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,500 CII 0.125 gpf Urinal Rebates 0 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 675 CII Waterless Urinal Rebate 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 250 CII Ice Machine Rebate 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 SF Landscape Rebate 60 100 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 810 MF Landscape Rebate 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 90 CII Landscape Rebate 0 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 6 6 87 Community Outreach & Education - - - - - - - - - - 0 Total 3,247 3,943 3,943 3,943 3,918 3,918 3,917 3,917 3,913 3,913 38,572

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 425
Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-11 5.4.3 New Programs To meet self-sufficiency and the long-term goal of 90 gpcd for the entire City, Santa Monica has identified additional areas of water saving opportunity that requires the development of new incentive and outreach programs. Table 5-4 summarizes the programs and projected implementation level for each one. Additional program details are also provided below. Table 5-4 Incentives and Programs NEW MEASURES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027MF HECW Incentive 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 WN MF PHET 0.80 gpf 2,450 365 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 WN SF PHET 0.80gpf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 WN CII PHET 0.80 gpf 0 0 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 WN SMMUSD PHET 0.80 gpf 0 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WN SMMUSD Tank PHETs 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WN SMMUSD Urinals 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School Education Program 90 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 CII Direct Install PHET 0 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 300 CII Direct Install Urinals 0 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 WN MF PHET 1.28 gpf 35 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Performance Pays 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SMMUSD WBIC Incentive 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pilot Projects 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Graywater System Incentive 0 0 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 SMMUSD Landscape Incentive 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,629 1,999 1,351 1,352 1,361 1,362 1,361 1,392 1,391 1,342

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 426
Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-12
Santa Monica Unified School District Partnership for Improving Water Efficiency and Sustainability in District Locations
Continuing the partnership with Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), the City will provide funding for irrigation and landscape upgrades based on potential water savings. Phase one of the program will include upgrading irrigation timers at nine SMMUSD sites to a weatherbased central control irrigation system. This advanced technology will allow SMMUSD to improve in managing their irrigation and reduce the response time in identifying and repairing leaks. The second phase will include a variety of landscape and irrigation upgrades including turf replacement, rain capture and reuse, and improvements in the irrigation operations.

Clothes Washer Incentive for Multi-family
A study of water usage in the multi-family sector completed by the University of Florida Environmental Engineering Sciences showed water usage for clothes washers made up 18 to 28% of the water usage for the property3. Unlike in-home or in-unit clothes washers that process 6 to 8 loads per week, common area washers process an average of 20 to 50 loads a week4. Given most coin-operated clothes washers in common areas use 35 to 45 gallons per load compared to water efficient models using as low as 15 gallons per load, the water savings opportunity is significant.

The City proposes to develop an incentive program that specifically targets multi-family common area laundry facilities by offering an incentive to replace their current clothes washers with models with a Water Factor of 4 (using 20-15 gallons per load). The upgrade could result in a 50% water savings or more per load. For property owned washers, the City would provide a one-time rebate incentive to make the upgrade. The incentive would be based on the potential water savings not to exceed the cost to upgrade the washers. The second and most common washers in multi-family are leased machines. With lease machines, property owners or management companies lease the machines in contract intervals from 3 to 7 years. In this scenario, the City would identify the lease cost difference for a property owner to upgrade to a high efficiency model with a Water Factor of 4.

The incentive would be based on the years of the lease agreement. The longer the property owner agrees to lease high efficient washer models, the great the potential savings and therefore the greater the incentive.

The City proposes to start this program in fiscal year 18/19 with 10 clothes washers upgraded through the incentive program. The following fiscal year the City would target to upgrade 30 clothes washers and then thereafter 50 each year. The number of clothes washers at each site varies depending on the number of units and whether there is a mix of units with clothes washers and dryers in their units. Overtime, the City will expand the incentive program to other facilities that have common area laundry including mobile home parks, motels, homeless shelters, hostels

3 http://www.conservefloridawater.org/publications/WaterUseDemandManagementMultiFamilyResidentialSector-1.pdf 4 http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/laundromats.aspx

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-13
and commercial laundromats. The focus for commercial laundromats would be on multiple load models that can wash using up to half of the water of traditional coin-operated top-loader models.

Performance Pays
Within the commercial sector there are opportunities for water savings in water using processes that do not fit into the standard water fixture incentive programs. This can include water used in process operations for food preparation and production, manufacturing, and cooling. The potential savings from efficiency improvements is not standardized and requires a customized program that incentivizes businesses with cost-effective incentives based on projected water savings. In developing this new program, the City will model the program after similar programs that have been successful, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP’s) Technical Assistance Program (TAP) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Water Savings Incentive Programs. Both programs provide a portion of upfront incentive funding based on calculated water savings estimates of an efficiency improvement project. Upon completion of the project and a monitoring period, the remaining incentive is provided based on actual water savings results. Thus, the incentive is driven by the effective performance of the project to reduce water usage. This program is applicable to upgrades for industrial scale laundry equipment, commercial kitchen sanitary systems, and onsite wastewater reuse technology, to name a few.

Pilot Project Program for Innovative Technologies
New technologies in water efficiency are coming on the market quickly both in the United States and around the world. For the City to leverage potential innovative technologies, Santa Monica has incorporated an innovative technologies Pilot Program in the plan. This program will allow the City to pilot upcoming technologies in water use efficiency and water loss management. These smallscale projects would have a 2-year timeline with the average pilot project cost up to $20,000 based on estimated annual savings achieved.

Expansion of Water Neutrality Offsets and Applicability In fiscal year 2018/19, the City will begin the direct install portion of the Water Neutrality Ordinance for development projects that paid in lieu fees to offset their water usage. The City will coordinate with the SMMUSD to upgrade over 500 toilets and urinals at school sites, funded through the Water Neutrality in lieu fee funds. Additional focus will be on low-income multi-family and high-volume use toilets in the commercial sector.

Currently the Water Neutrality Ordinance requires a 1:1 offset in new water demand from new development and new pools/spas. In fiscal year 2018/19, the City will be updating the ordinance to clarify the ordinance objectives and what types of water usage in development should be captured including tenant improvement projects that result in an increase in new water demand at the property. To ensure the City meets and continues to be water self-sufficient and the long-term goal of 90 gpcd, Water Neutrality may need to evolve to Water Positive by requiring new developments to not just offset their new water demand, but help in the conservation effort to reduce current demand. That means a new positive offset greater than 1:1.

Meter Replacement with AMI “Smart Meters”
In fiscal year 2016/17, the City began a pilot installation program to install advanced meter infrastructure (AMI) or “smart meters.” AMI meters interface directly with the billing system and reads water usage in real time to identify water use peaks and patterns of increased water usage.

The City then utilizes the Water Smart online software to communicate to customers on their water usage and alert them of potential water leaks or other increases in water usage. In fiscal year

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-14
2018/19 the City will continue to monitor the pilot’s effectiveness in communicating water efficiency to customers and addressing leaks to consider expanding the AMI technology throughout the service area.

Datalogger Analysis for Water Usage Analysis
To address real time potential leaks or unknown spikes in water usage, the Water Conservation Unit is utilizing a flow meter and datalogger. The Meter Master Model 100EL is designed to specifically log and provide data analytics for customer water usage. This provides an important tool for the Water Conservation Unit to help identify leaks and educate the customer on their water usage. The Meter Master flow recorders permit demand data logging from most existing water meter installations, regardless of meter make or size. It uses a strap-on magnetic sensor to digitize a meter’s highly accurate magnetic drive signal without any meter alteration or service interruption.

The flow recorder has a companion software for downloading, graph and report generation, and exporting to other software applications.

The datalogger would be attached to a meter for 7 to 10 days to monitor water usage in 5 second intervals. The data is then downloaded into the software to analyze water usage patterns and volume. Through the software analysis, leaks, changes in irrigation timer settings and other water usage increases can be identified to best help customers resolve the high-water consumption. This technology will be used in compliment with the water use consultation services and water waste ordinance enforcement.

School Education Program
The City will partner with the Discovery Science Center of Los Angeles to implement a pilot level school program to educate students on the importance of water conservation and the impacts on our water supply and local watershed. Students in fifth grade will participate in a grade-specific, standards-aligned assembly that focus on water use efficiency and conservation in an interactive and dynamic way. At the start and end of the assembly, students will complete a quiz on their knowledge on water conservation, Santa Monica water supply, and our watershed. This will provide valuable data to show the impacts of the program as well as gauge the level of knowledge on water conservation. The City will work with the Discovery Science to develop a Santa Monica specific booklet to provide to participating students to take home and share with their family. The program will run at a pilot level through the end of FY 18/19. Based on the results and feedback from students and teachers, the program will be expanded to all fifth graders within Santa Monica.

Tree Replacement and Incentive Program
Towards the goal of lower aggregated per capita use, the City has recently implemented a tree replacement program to remove trees with roots that interfere with the sewer collection system.

Replacement trees will have a much lower water demand than the existing trees.

To encourage a full watershed approach to landscape transformations, the City will be providing incentives to residents and businesses to add native and other appropriate tree species into their non-parkway landscapes. Additional trees have been found to help reduce heat effects, filter urban pollutants and fine particulates, regulate water flow and improve water quality, and absorb carbon

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-15
dioxide helping to mitigate climate change5. In addition, they provide a local source of food and nutrients while encouraging healthy bio systems.

Greywater System Incentives
Currently Santa Monica residents and businesses, through the permitting process, can install greywater systems that capture and filter graywater from washing machines and faucets to reuse for irrigation or other approved uses. The use of graywater on site is less energy intensive than treating wastewater and can be a cost-effective alternative water supply for irrigation and other uses. To further encourage the use of graywater on site, the City proposes to offer incentives to residents and businesses to install City approved systems on their property.

Passive Water Conservation Savings
Water savings through passive water conservation will be addressed in a future memorandum.

5.4.4 Summary
Through the currently established programs and proposed new programs, the City can potentially save an estimated 677AF per year by 2025 and as much as 732 AF per year in 2030.

5.5 PATHWAY TO WATER SUPPLY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
To assess the City’s self-sufficiency goals, projected demands and supplies are compared through the 2040 planning horizon.

5.5.1 Projected Water Supply Needs
In 2017, potable water use was 11,498 AFY and non-potable use was 98 AFY, totaling 11,596 AFY of water use in the City. To meet these demands, the City produced 7,276 of treated groundwater supply and approximately 98 AF from the SMURRF, relying on imported water from MWD (36%) to make up the rest of its water supply needs. Projected water demand and supply needs through 2040 are provided in Figure 5-4.

The following are key future water supply assumptions:
• Current estimate of groundwater sustainable yield will remain relatively stable through 2025 and is sufficient to support planned additional aquifer pumping. • Proposed new wells are capable of estimated production rates. • Modifications at the Arcadia AWTP increase production capacity from the current 8.85 MGD to 12.1 MGD, and the percentage of system reject water is reduced from the current 18% to 8% (i.e. 92% facility efficiency is achieved).
• Modifications at SMURRF, and integration of the adjacent CBI Project, increase daily treated water production for reuse to 0.5 MGD (560AFY) in 2020.

5 http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/411348/

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-16
• SWIP Elements 2&3 provide an additional 1.0 MGD (1,120 AFY) of advanced treated water for various reuse in 2022.

The projected future water supplies discussed above and shown graphically in Figure 5-4 are based on an aggregated (residential plus commercial/industrial) per capita consumption rate of 110 gallons/day. Sustained lower per capita consumption would contribute to a lower future demand.

It is projected that by 2023, the City will need to supply 12,495 AFY of water to become selfsufficient and not rely on MWD. However, even with continued success with conservation efforts, including the Water Neutrality Ordinance, by 2025 and beyond, the City will likely need additional sources of supply to maintain its self-sufficiency. This is primarily due to projected population increases.

To achieve water resiliency, the City will need to address peak demands during months when higher water is typically required. As part of the road to sustainability, the City’s goals are first to focus on meeting average annual demand needs and a second focus would be to meet peak demand periods, which may be addressed in part with permanent non-behavior based conservation methods such as low-flow toilet rebates, turf replacement, and the City’s Water Neutrality Ordinance. Increased reuse of non-conventional resources could also help decrease peak demand.

Figure 5-4 Future Water Supply Options

5.5.2 Summary and Recommendations
Through its water conservation efforts, the City has measurably reduced its reliance on imported water. The City and the community are committed to reducing water use in the future to help achieve the City’s water self-sufficiency goal by 2023. Along with the further focused conservation efforts, the City understands the need for a diversified water portfolio to meet its 2023 selfsufficiency goal, and to achieve and maintain water security, resiliency and independence over the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-17
long-term. These goals are obtainable but they will require continued innovation, as well as the ready and lasting commitment of resources to be successful.

Below is a set of recommendations for water self-sufficiency and resiliency by 2023. These recommendations are but a critical first step in what will be an ongoing strategic program for the adaptive management of the City’s water resources. Combined, the estimated cost for the water treatment enhancement projects is approximately $45.5 M. This cost does not include the drilling or acquisition of additional groundwater supply wells. A table summarizing the treatment enhancement projects and a tentative water self-sufficiency schedule are provided in Appendix B. • Conservation
o Continue public outreach, education and water conservation messaging with a focus on commercial/industrial users to maintain community water awareness and the current levels of conservation success achieved to date. o Adopt the State’s water conservation paradigm for the City, i.e. “Making Water Conservation a Santa Monica Way of Life”.
o Coordinate City expertise and resources to develop a holistic strategy for reducing the City’s aggregated per capita use rate from the current 110 gpcd to 90 gpcd. o Review and update City conservation results every two years to expedite response to developing trends and help refine future conservation metrics and forecast strategies.
o Develop and model various risk-based climate change scenarios designed to help focus ongoing conservation programs and forecast potential challenges to water supply reliability.
• Groundwater Supply
o Update the Sustainable Yield Analysis and Sustainable Water Master Plan every two years in lieu of the current five-year update cycle to more effectively manage the City’s groundwater resources and assist in strategic planning for water supply reliability and resiliency.
o Work with the City’s SGMA partners to develop the Sustainable Groundwater Plan in accordance with SGMA requirements.
o Drill or acquire up to four new water supply wells by 2023. Half of the new wells should be constructed prior to 2020 to achieve the City’s self-sufficiency objectives through increased local groundwater production.
o Drill and permit a deep nested monitoring well and a separate aquifer recharge well, both in support of the SWIP by 2020.
o Work cooperatively with the USGS to evaluate and model the hydrogeology of the SMGB to more sustainably manage the City’s groundwater resources. o Implement a feasibility study to assess options and costs for a small-scale standalone water treatment facility to be constructed in 2023 or beyond depending on demand.
o Implement a study and maintain a database to identify available properties for possible acquisition within the City that could be utilized for future groundwater wells or distributed treatment facilities.
• Non-Potable Supply
o Complete SWIP construction and integration of the CBI project by late 2020, and permit the produced water for immediate non-potable reuse. Complete regulatory

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) City of Santa Monica | SUSTAINABLE WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BLACK & VEATCH | Future Water Supply Options 5-18
testing and permitting for indirect potable reuse of SWIP treated water via aquifer recharge by 2022.
o Implement a feasibility study by no later than 2020 for additional distributed projects, similar to the CBI and SWIP, that harvest non-conventional resources for conjunctive reuse to enhance the City’s future water reliability, thereby further reducing the City’s primary reliance on local groundwater. • Treatment Enhancements
o New reverse osmosis technologies are available to recover more potable water from the treatment process. A pilot test of the CCRO technology will be conducted. If successful, this project would install a 3-MGD CCRO at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant.
o Focused modifications at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant could provide increased treatment capacity of approximately 12-MGD. If feasible and effective, the treatment system modifications would be completed by 2023. This project goes hand in hand with the CCRO project above.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins))

APPENDIX A

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins))

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) RICHARD C. SLADE & ASSOCIATES LLC

CONSULTING GROUNDWATER GEOLOGISTS
14051 BURBANK BLVD., SUITE 300, SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91401 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: (818) 506-0418 • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: (707) 963-3914 WWW.RCSLADE.COM

UPDATED

PRELIMINARY STUDY
OF THE

SUSTAINABLE YIELD

OF THE GROUNDWATER SUBBASINS

WITHIN THE SANTA MONICA BASIN

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

The City of Santa Monica
Water Resources Division
1212 Fifth Street 3rd Floor
Santa Monica
CA 90401
Prepared by:

Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC
Consulting Groundwater Geologists
Sherman Oaks, California
Job No. 462-LASOC
June 2018

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) RICHARD C. SLADE & ASSOCIATES LLC

CONSULTING GROUNDWATER GEOLOGISTS
14051 BURBANK BLVD., SUITE 300, SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91401 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: (818) 506-0418 • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: (707) 963-3914 WWW.RCSLADE.COM

UPDATED

PRELIMINARY STUDY
OF THE

SUSTAINABLE YIELD

OF THE GROUNDWATER SUBBASINS

WITHIN THE SANTA MONICA BASIN

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

The City of Santa Monica
Prepared by:

Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC
Consulting Groundwater Geologists
Studio City, California
Job No. 462-LASOC
June 2018
Earl F. LaPensee
Certified Hydrogeologist No. 134
Richard C. Slade
Professional Geologist No. 2998

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins))

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS USED IN REPORT ................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 SUSTAINABLE YIELD ......................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 5 SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................. 6 DISCUSSION OF “PERENNIAL YIELD,” “SAFE YIELD,” & “SUSTAINABILITY” TERMS .... 8 PREVIOUS SUSTAINABLE YIELD VALUES ....................................................................... 9 CALCULATION OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD .........................................................................10 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10 Summary of Methods for Calculating Sustainable Yield ................................................ 14 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................16 GROUNDWATER BASIN AND SUBBASIN BOUNDARIES ................................................16 GENERAL GEOLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...............................................17 Water-Bearing Sediments ............................................................................................. 18 Recent (Holocene) Alluvium ...............................................................................18 Lakewood Formation .........................................................................................18 San Pedro Formation .........................................................................................18 Non-water-Bearing Rocks ............................................................................................. 19 Geologic Structures ....................................................................................................... 20 WATERSHED AREA ...........................................................................................................22 NATURAL RECHARGE ......................................................................................................23 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE AND CONSERVATION ..............................................................25 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 25 Sustainable Water Master Plan ..................................................................................... 26 Water Neutrality Ordinance ................................................................................26 Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards ...........................................27 HYDROLOGIC BASELINE CONDITIONS ...........................................................................27 Rainfall Totals ............................................................................................................... 27 Accumulated Departure of Rainfall ................................................................................ 28 Selection of Baseline Hydrologic Period ........................................................................ 29 GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS ....................................................................................30 Withdrawals by the City ................................................................................................. 30 Groundwater Withdrawals by Others ............................................................................. 32 WATER LEVELS .................................................................................................................34 Water Level Hydrographs .............................................................................................. 34

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-ivWater Level Hydrographs – “Key” Well Concept ........................................................... 38 Arcadia Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph ............................................................38 Charnock Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph .........................................................39 Olympic Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph ............................................................40 Coastal Subbasin Key Well Hydrographs ...........................................................41 Crestal Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph .............................................................42 GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE .........................................................................................43 Storage Subunits and Parameters ................................................................................. 43 Calculation of Groundwater in Storage .......................................................................... 44 SUBUNIT/SUBBASIN CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE CALCULATIONS ..45 Change in Groundwater Storage ................................................................................... 45 Arcadia Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin ...............................................45 Charnock Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin ............................................46 Olympic Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin ..............................................47 Coastal Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin ...............................................48 PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE (PERENNIAL) YIELDS ....................49 DISCUSSION OF HISTORICAL VALUES BY OTHERS .....................................................50 Comparison of Sustainable Yield Values ....................................................................... 50 Arcadia Subbasin .......................................................................................................... 51 Charnock Subbasin ....................................................................................................... 52 Olympic Subbasin ......................................................................................................... 54 FUTURE PLANNED WITHDRAWALS AND INJECTION ....................................................55 EVALUATION OF RAINFALL RECHARGE TO THE SANTA MONICA BASIN ...................56 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................57 REFERENCES REVIEWED ......................................................................................................60 APPENDIX 1 – FIGURES
Figure 1 - Location Map of Study Area
Figure 2 - Map of DWR Groundwater Basins
Figure 3A - Groundwater Subbasin Boundary Map
Figure 3B - Well Location Map
Figure 4A - Generalized Geologic Map of the Santa Monica Area Figure 4B - Generalized Geologic Map Legend & Symbols
Figure 5 - General Stratigraphic Section for the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County Figure 6 - Map of Watershed and Local Drainages
Figure 7 - Groundwater Elevation Contours of the West Coast & Central Groundwater Basins Figure 8A - Annual Rainfall Totals, Various Rain Gages
Figure 8B - Accumulated Departure of Rainfall
Figure 9 - Selected Baseline Period
Figure 10A - Arcadia Wellfield/Subbasin Hydrographs

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-vFigure 10B - Charnock Wellfield/Subbasin Hydrographs Figure 10C - Olympic Wellfield/Subbasin Hydrographs
Figure 11A - Key Well Hydrograph, Santa Monica Well No. 5, Arcadia Subbasin, Total Change in Storage
Figure 11B - Key Well Hydrograph, Charnock Well Nos. 16 & No. 20, Charnock Subbasin, Total Change in Storage
Figure 11C - Key Well Hydrograph, Santa Monica Well No. 7, Olympic Subbasin, Total Change in Storage
Figure 12 - Usable Area of Groundwater Storage Subunits APPENDIX 2 – TABLES
Table 1
-
Summary of Well Construction Data for Historic and Existing City Wells Used in this Study
Table 2 - Groundwater Production by City Wells and Other Wells (1988 through 2017) Table 3
-
Preliminary Calculations of Change in Groundwater in Storage During Baseline Period for the Arcadia, Charnock and Olympic Groundwater Subbasins Table 4 - Preliminary Calculations of Sustainable Yield, Santa Monica Subbasins Table 5 - Comparison of Sustainable Yield Values, Santa Monica Subbasins Table 6
Table 7 -
Potential Sustainable Yield Values, Santa Monica Subbasins Potential Lower and Upper Sustainable Yield Values, Santa Monica Subbasins APPENDIX 3 – ICF May 25, 2018 Memorandum

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-viLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS USED IN REPORT
The following provides a list of abbreviations that may be used more than once throughout this report and is provided for the convenience of the reader.

Abbreviation Description
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
b symbol used for saturated aquifer thickness in an equation BCC Brentwood Country Club
brp below reference point
bgs below ground surface
Cl Chloride
DWR California Department of Water Resources
GRA Groundwater Resources Association
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
KJC Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
LACC Los Angeles Country Club
LADWP City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
msl mean sea level
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
PGC Penmar Golf Club
PWL(s) pumping water level(s)
RCC Riviera Country Club
RCS Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC, Consulting Groundwater Geologists RWQCB-LA Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region S storativity (storage coefficient of an aquifer)
Sgw groundwater in storage
ΔS change in water levels for the baseline period
SS Specific Storage
Sy specific yield
SBBM San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SMGB Santa Monica Groundwater Basin
SMURRF Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility
SWL(s) Static water level(s)
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
ULARA Upper Los Angeles River Area
WCB West Coast Groundwater Basin
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Measurements/Units Abbreviations
gpd gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute
gpm/ft ddn gpm per foot of drawdown; gpy = gallons per year mg/L milligrams per Liter; µg/L = micrograms per liter
sq mi square miles

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins))

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
In support of the City of Santa Monica’s (City) efforts to achieve water self-sufficiency, the City has retained Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC, Consulting Groundwater Geologists (RCS) to assess the sustainable yield of the five subbasins within the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin (SMGB). These groundwater subbasins, as identified by others, include the Arcadia, Charnock, Coastal, Crestal, and Olympic subbasins. The City currently has active water wells and pumps groundwater from three of these five subbasins, namely the Arcadia, Charnock and Olympic subbasins. In addition, the City has recently completed a new water supply well (Airport No. 1) in the Coastal subbasin at a location at the City’s Santa Monica Airport. The City plans up to two additional wells at the Airport and is currently in the process of permitting the new well for use as drinking water supply. The City has never had any water-supply wells in the fifth subbasin in the SMGB, the Crestal subbasin.

The assessment of the quantity and extent of groundwater in the subsurface and the amount of water that can be sustainably extracted for use is dependent on the understanding and monitoring of a myriad of complex natural system factors, none of which can be determined with absolute certainty. This is because all of these systems are interrelated in some fashion and most transitory through time. The RCS calculations herein for the changes in groundwater in storage for the three subbasins in the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin for which key data are available, are therefore a conservative estimate that will change through time based on the vagaries of climate, geology, natural and artificial recharge, well location and pumping by the City and existing/future third parties. Refining these calculations will be an ongoing exercise that will typically require the latest climate information, water level data, groundwater withdrawal data and subsurface geologic information.

In this current update, the potential sustainable yield of the Olympic, Charnock and Coastal subbasins of the SMGB have been revised, based on data from wells and exploratory borings recently constructed in these subbasins by the City. Thus, this updated report contains the information and data presented in the previous July 2017 report, along with additional data for 2017 regarding rainfall, geology, static water levels in key wells, and groundwater withdrawals from active City wells and known private pumpers. Further in 2017, in addition to the new Airport No.1 well, the City also successfully completed a new municipal-supply well (Santa Monica No. 8, SM-8) in the Olympic subbasin. This well is a replacement for the defective Santa Monica Well No. 7 (SM-7), which was destroyed following completion of SM-8. As part of the City’s recent exploratory drilling program a third location, at the City’s Colorado Maintenance Yard, was completed as a new groundwater monitoring well in the Coastal subbasin. It should be noted that because these wells have been only recently constructed, no long-term water level data have been generated and such data remains to be collected and evaluated later.

Because our evaluations and conclusions presented in this report are based on newly-acquired data, this Updated report supersedes any/all versions generated prior to the date of this current report.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-2-

SUSTAINABLE YIELD
Sustainable yield of an aquifer or basin is currently accepted to mean the rate at which groundwater can be withdrawn (pumped) on a perennial basis under specified operating conditions without producing an undesired result. Such undesirable results can include, among other things, the unsustainable reduction of the water resource, degradation of water quality (e.g., salt water intrusion), land subsidence, and uneconomic pumping conditions. The pumpage and change-in-storage method has been used in this evaluation to calculate the sustainable yield values herein. This method basically involves determining the change in static water levels (SWLs) in key water wells and computing the related change in the groundwater in storage, over a representative period of precipitation, known as a hydrologic baseline period; and then deriving an estimated sustainable yield from known annual groundwater withdrawal data that induced those water level changes. The net change in groundwater in storage occurring between the beginning and the end of this selected base period was determined and an average annual change in storage was calculated. The long-term average annual sustainable yield represents the algebraic sum of the calculated values of average annual withdrawals by pumping and average annual storage change for each subbasin.

Storativity is defined as the amount of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit of change in head. Groundwater in storage was calculated using the ground surface area of each groundwater subbasin, the estimated specific yield of the aquifer(s) in which the existing water wells are perforated, and the average thickness of the aquifer systems in each respective subbasin.

A 30-year baseline period from 1988 through 2017 was established to help determine and update sustainable yield values, based on more current hydrologic and hydrogeologic data.

Because the City did not pump for several years in the Arcadia Subbasin (4 years) and the Charnock subbasin (13 years), this rendered a level of complexity to the calculation of changes in groundwater in storage in these subbasins for a 30-year baseline period. To overcome this complexity, the change in groundwater in aquifer storage (ΔS) was calculated by assessing a split baseline period in the Arcadia and Charnock subbasins because of the years during which the City did not extract any groundwater from these two subbasins. City wells in the Olympic subbasin were continuously pumped over the entire baseline period and hence, there was no need to split the baseline period for this subbasin
Thus, updated average subbasin withdrawals by the City over the 30-year baseline period are as follows:
o Arcadia subbasin
440 AFY (wellfield shutdown, and hence no pumping in 4 out of those 30 years) o Charnock subbasin
6,290 AFY (wellfield shutdown, and hence no pumping in 13 out of those 30 years) o Olympic subbasin
1,860 AFY (continuously pumping during the entire 30-year baseline period)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-3-
For comparison, when the recent subbasin withdrawals solely for the 5-year period from 2013 through 2017 are assessed, the average volumes of groundwater pumped solely by the City were:
o Arcadia subbasin: 635 AFY
o Charnock subbasin: 8,042 AFY
o Olympic subbasin: 1,775 AFY
In addition to City withdrawals, there are two golf courses in the Arcadia subbasin, and one golf course in the Crestal subbasin that pump groundwater for irrigation purposes. When these private golf course groundwater withdrawals are included (a total of approximately 570 AFY combined for the two courses in the Arcadia subbasin) the total groundwater withdrawals from the Arcadia subbasin are estimated be on the order of 1,010 AFY over the 30-year baseline period, and approximately 1,200 AFY over the last five years. Potential pumpage by the golf course in the Crestal subbasin is unknown, but could be expected to be on the same order as the other two courses. Taking these withdrawals into account, total combined average annual withdrawals from the three above-listed subbasins has been approximately 9,200 AFY over the extended 30 year baseline period.

The City plans to construct two additional municipal-supply wells in the Coastal subbasin not far from the recently completed Airport No. 1 well. Combined, these three wells would theoretically be able to produce a minimum of approximately 1,450 AFY. In addition, the City is planning to purchase another water-supply well in the Charnock subbasin from a third party. This well reportedly has the capacity to produce another 1,450-1,610 AFY. In the Olympic subbasin, the City is planning to replace a poorly performing well (SM-3), which also has casing problems.

When completed this new replacement well is expected to produce approximately 1,368 AFY, which is roughly 360 AF greater than the current supply capacity from the deficient SM-3. The City also plans to bring the new SM-8 well online within the next year. This well replaced SM-7, which has casing problems and was never placed into active production. SM-8 is expected to produce 970 AFY of additional water. Perhaps more importantly, the City is scheduled to begin construction in 2019 on the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). The SWIP will harvest and treat non-conventional water resources such as runoff, brackish groundwater and municipal wastewater for beneficial conjunctive reuse. When completed, and properly permitted, the SWIP is expected to provide approximately 1,100 AFY of highly treated water for aquifer recharge in the Olympic subbasin, further enhancing the long-term yield of this important subbasin.

Based on the planned water supply improvements discussed above and the total amounts extracted from the three subbasins, and the calculated change in groundwater storage, RCS was able to determine estimated ranges of the sustainable yield for each of the four groundwater subbasins in which the City has water supply wells.

The following table lists: the current estimated yields based on the pumping and change in storage method described elsewhere in this report; the ranges of possible sustainable yield if additional factors such as new wells; storativity in confined aquifers (which is generally higher than that of unconfined aquifers); and mountain front recharge were considered; and previous estimates of sustainable yield values for those portions of the subbasins currently subject to pumping by the City. As noted earlier, the City has never owned or operated any municipalsupply wells in the Crestal subbasin. The estimates below also assume that City wells are pumped on a continuous operational mode (i.e. 24hours per day annually).

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-4-

GROUNDWATER

SUBBASIN

ESTIMATED

SUSTAINABLE YIELDS
(AFY)

PREVIOUSLY

CALCULATED

SUSTAINABLE
YIELD
(AFY)
Arcadia 870 to 920 2,000
Charnock 6,410 to 8,080 4,420 to 8,200
Olympic 2,360 to 3,145 3,275
Coastal 1,160 to 1,450 4,225
Crestal Yet to be Determined 2,000
Subtotal 10,800 to 13,595 15,920 to 19,700
Recharge Value 1,000 to 1,130 NA
Total 11,800 to 14,725 NA
Note: Data from one private golf course in the Crestal subbasin are not included in the above table. The Recharge Factor is a conservative percentage of the estimated annual natural recharge to the SMGB from adjacent and distal mountain front areas derived from USGS data.

The potential for limitations on future groundwater withdrawals from the City’s active subbasins presented by the estimated sustainable yields indicates that the City’s approach of replacing underperforming wells, investigating additional water supply in the Coastal subbasin and the pursuit of nonconventional resources and indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge from its planned SWIP are both prudent and necessary for the City to achieve and sustain its long-term objective of independence from environmentally-costly imported water. Importantly, it is recommended that the City continues its heretofore successful water conservation programs, pursues the acquisition of the third party well in the Charnock subbasin, and expedites the further assessment of the Coastal subbasin. Identification of additional viable groundwater reserves in the Coastal subbasin will help alleviate the current heavy reliance on the three subbasins currently providing groundwater supply and could facilitate the implementation of adaptive pumping measures where individual wells or wellfields could be periodically rested to allow for natural recharge.

Based on detailed modeling work conducted jointly by the USGS and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (2016), and a recent Technical Memorandum prepared by ICF Consulting on behalf of the City (2018), potential recharge to the SMGB via rainfall and underflow in the subsurface from adjacent and more distal mountain front area was estimated to range from 12,131 to 12,722 AFY. Assuming a conservative estimate of 8% of the total amount of annual recharge estimated by the USGS and ICF reports is available to augment basin recharge from local precipitation volumes, then a supplemental recharge factor of 1,000 to 1,130 AFY could conceivably be applied to the currently-calculated sustainable yield, providing a potential upper sustainable value of 11,800 to 14,725 AFY for the City’s four primary groundwater subbasins (see table above). The City has engaged Earth Consultants International (ECI) to further assess pathways for basin recharge from mountain front areas utilizing innovative approaches such as Differential Interferometer Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) data generated by satellite-based platforms.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-5-

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Monica (City) is a general law city, incorporated in November 1886, and is authorized to engage in the provision of water service to its residents and customers, pursuant to California Water Code Section 38730 et seq; it is a “local agency,” as defined in California Water Code Section 10753(a). The City provides retail water service through the operation of its City-owned Water Resources Division and its associated groundwater production and treatment facilities that are located both within the City and within proximal areas that lie within the adjoining City of Los Angeles. The City Water Resources Division is currently the sole municipal-supply producer of groundwater from the SMGB; which covers approximately 50 square miles, and underlies and extends beyond the entire 8.3 square mile boundary of the City of Santa Monica. The City’s water system serves a resident population of around 93,834 via 17,847 connections. The City’s residential population is projected to grow by approximately

1.6% per annum through 2030. Considered a world class tourist destination, the City’s visitors can swell the residential population daily by 100,000 persons or more, particularly during the summer months.

As a charter member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the City is currently purchasing imported water to augment its local supply. Recent data from 2017 shows the City imports around 25 to 30% of its supply, with the remainder coming from local groundwater. For the long term, the City is committed to eliminating its dependence on imported water. The City seeks to achieve this objective through continued community engagement and water conservation, the sustainable pumping of its local aquifers, and the treatment and reuse of other non-conventional water resources, such as brackish groundwater, dry weather and storm-water runoff, and treated municipal wastewater. Part of this effort which the City is pursuing at present is to site, design and construct additional municipal-supply water wells in certain of the local groundwater subbasins. As an additional element of the City’s effort to reduce its dependence on imported MWD water, the City is implementing an ongoing program of sustainable groundwater management in conformance with California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. Towards this goal Santa Monica is the lead agency in the newly-created Santa Monica Basin Groundwater Sustainable Yield Agency

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-6-
(SMGBSA). The SMBGSA comprises the Cities of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Culver City, and Los Angeles County.

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
In 2014, and in part as a response to State-wide drought conditions commencing around 2010, the State Legislature passed SGMA legislation. Generally, and as described by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), this act “…empowers local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans that are tailored to the resources and needs of their communities. Good groundwater management will provide a buffer against drought and climate change, and contribute to reliable water supplies regardless of weather patterns. California depends on groundwater for a major portion of its annual water supply, and sustainable groundwater management is essential to a reliable and resilient water system” (DWR, Website 2017 at http://www.water.ca.gov/cagroundwater/).

In accordance with SGMA, both the DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have been given the responsibility of developing regulations and reporting requirements needed to carry out SGMA for all groundwater basins in the State, except those in which pumping rights have been determined by the courts (i.e., in adjudicated groundwater basins). The DWR has been tasked to determine boundaries of the numerous groundwater basins in the State, to establish a priority ranking of those basins (in terms of such items as total groundwater withdrawals, water level trends, and possible “overdraft”), and to develop regulations for groundwater sustainability. The SWRCB has been tasked to set fee schedules, data reporting requirements, probationary designations, and interim sustainability plans for the basins.

To carry out its duties about SGMA, the DWR has consequently established a program to implement the provisions of the act. To this end, the DWR has set out five basic objectives of that program, namely:
o Develop regulations to revise groundwater basin boundaries. o Adopt regulations for evaluating and implementing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and coordination agreements.
o Identify basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft. o Identify water available for groundwater replenishment. o Publish best management practices for the sustainable management of groundwater.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-7-
Recently, the DWR has adopted a Draft Strategic Plan (DWR, 2015) to help achieve those five stated objectives. In its Draft Strategic Plan, the DWR outlined the following elements that the plan will attempt to accomplish:
o A description of current groundwater conditions in the State, demonstrating the unsustainable nature of current management practices and framing the need for action.
o The identification of legislation and other drivers of policy. This includes the SGMA, the California Water Action Plan, and the Proposition 1 Water Bond. o The identification of “success factors” in addressing the key challenges facing groundwater management in the State.
o Description of the goals and objectives of the plan necessary for program implementation and DWR actions to address these items.
o Presentation of an initial plan for the DWR regarding communication and outreach to partnering, regional and local agencies, stakeholders, and the public.

In the 2015 Draft Strategic Plan (p.5), the DWR cited recent groundwater conditions regarding declines of water levels in many groundwater basins in the State and especially those prone to large-volume withdrawals in support of agriculture. According to the DWR, factors leading to declines in water levels include:
o “Chronic long-term pumping of groundwater more than the safe yield of the groundwater basin. Population growth, expansion of agricultural practices, allocation of water to environmental resources and restrictions to protect threatened species all have contributed to either increased water demand or decreased availability of surface water supplies in California. In response, many water users pump groundwater to offset the reduction in surface water supply.” o “Short-term increase in groundwater pumping in drought years. Drought conditions in the last three years have exacerbated the groundwater conditions in many basins as more people use groundwater to meet their needs.”
o “Changes in irrigated land use. During the last two decades, more agricultural lands have been converted from annual crops to permanent crops, such as vine, nuts, and fruit trees, resulting in water demand hardening. Permanent crops require irrigation during the drought, while in the past many acres of annual crops were left idle through drought years.”
o “Climate change, resulting in reduced snowpack, will exacerbate the water supply and demand imbalance.”
SGMA was promulgated for defined groundwater basins in the State, as shown and described in DWR Bulletin 118 (1975, and its 2003, 2004, 2013 and 2016 updates). Under SGMA, the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-8-
“DWR was to consider, to the extent available, all of the data components” needed for prioritization of the groundwater basins. DWR is to consider the following elements:

1. “Population overlying the basin”.

2. “Rate of current and projected growth of the population overlying the basin”.

3. “Number of public supply wells that draw from the basin”.

4. “Total number of wells that draw from the basin”.

5. “Irrigated acreage overlying the basin”.

6. “The degree to which persons overlying the basin rely on groundwater as their primary source of water”.

7. “Any documented impacts on the groundwater within the basin, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation”.

8. “Any other information determined to be relevant by DWR”.

This current study attempts to address Item Nos. 3, 4, and part of Item No. 7, regarding impacts of pumpage on groundwater in the subbasins within the SMGB. The focus of this current RCS report is, thus, on changes in groundwater levels over time in the local subbasins for which adequate data are available.

DISCUSSION OF “PERENNIAL YIELD,” “SAFE YIELD,” & “SUSTAINABILITY” TERMS Estimates of the “safe yield” or “perennial yield” of the individual subbasins within the SMGB have been generated for the City by prior investigations. This current study is an attempt to help establish updated values for the perennial (or sustainable) yield, so that the City can determine, for purposes of future planning, the approximate amounts (i.e., volumes) of groundwater that can be pumped on a sustainable basis from each of its local groundwater subbasins, without inducing a negative impact on the groundwater resources within those subbasins for which a sustainable yield can be determined at this time.

The term “safe yield” of a groundwater basin was originally defined as the “rate at which water can be withdrawn from an aquifer for human use without depleting the supply to such an extent that withdrawal at this rate is no longer economically feasible” (Meinzer, 1923). Later, other studies, like Todd (1959, p. 363), noted that the term “safe yield” has been taken by some investigators to imply a “fixed quantity of extractable water [that is] limited to the average annual basin recharge”. In our professional opinion, the term “safe yield”, if used, should be restricted, strictly to those groundwater basins for which the pumping rights have been adjudicated by the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-9-
courts. The SMGB has not been adjudicated. An example of a nearby region which has previously been adjudicated by the courts, and where the term “safe yield” is used, is the nearby Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA). In this current RCS report, the term “sustainable yield,” rather than “safe yield” or “perennial yield” shall be used.

Todd (1959, p. 363) also defined the term “perennial yield” as the “rate at which water can be withdrawn perennially under specified operating conditions without producing an undesired result”. Such undesired results listed by Todd included:
a) Progressive reduction of the water resource.
b) Development of uneconomic pumping conditions.
c) Degradation of groundwater quality.
d) Interference with water rights.
e) Land subsidence caused by lowered groundwater levels.

Thus, the term “perennial yield” generally refers to a condition that is dependent upon changing groundwater conditions, of which reduction of the groundwater supply and degradation of the groundwater quality in any groundwater basin would be important issues. In essence, “perennial yield” can be considered a dynamic value, which can change under varying conditions of groundwater withdrawals and rainfall recharge.

More recently, the term “sustainable yield” has come into the vernacular as related to groundwater resource potential and supply. Sustainable yield as defined by the DWR is “the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result” (DWR, 2017, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act website). Thus, such a definition appears synonymous with the slightly older term “perennial yield,” and this current study has been conducted in general accordance with methods that are used to conduct typical “perennial yield” studies. As previously stated, RCS shall use the term “sustainable yield” in the current study to reflect the change to this more commonly accepted term for “perennial yield.”

PREVIOUS SUSTAINABLE YIELD VALUES
In an Updated Draft Memorandum (dated March 27, 2013), prepared by RCS for Kennedy Jenks Consultants (KJC) and the City, an initial review was performed of historic reports that had presented sustainable yield values for the subbasins within the SMGB. That 2013-dated

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-10-
RCS document was utilized by the City as a potential starting point for water resource supply and planning purposes. Specifically, in that Memorandum, RCS tabulated sustainable yield values that had been estimated in previous studies of the groundwater subbasins, as follows:

Groundwater
Subbasin
Sustainable Yield Value by Others
(AFY)
Arcadia 2,000
Charnock 4,420 to 8,200
Olympic 3,275
Coastal 4,225
Crestal 2,000
Total 15,920 to 19,700
Further refinement of those previous values, to the extent permitted by currently available data, was an important objective of this current study.

CALCULATION OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD
Introduction
RCS (1986) cited typical methods of determining the perennial (or sustained) yield of an aquifer system(s) in a groundwater basin. The traditional or classical assessment of sustainable yield is based on evaluation of the key factors of the basic hydrologic water balance equation, where the movement, flows and quantities of groundwater are governed by the equation: InflowOutflow = Change in Storage (ΔS). The hydrologic water balance equation is controlled by several variables, as shown in the following equation:

Surface water recharge (via percolation of rainfall and stream flows and imported water) + Groundwater underflow + Decreases in surface water and groundwater in storage = Surface water discharges + Groundwater outflows + Consumptive use + Export of water from the basin + Increase in surface water storage + Increase in groundwater in storage.

Inflow into a groundwater basin typically consists of: groundwater underflow from upgradient groundwater basins and from adjoining hill and mountain areas; deep percolation of surface water runoff; infiltration of rainfall directly on the ground surface; deep percolation of water in artificial spreading basins; deep percolation of excess irrigation (irrigation return); and direct injection of water into the subsurface. Outflow from a groundwater body typically consists of:
subsurface outflow; groundwater extractions by water wells; and spring flow and evapotranspiration of shallow groundwater. When inflow is greater than outflow, the amount of groundwater in storage will increase (and groundwater levels will rise). Conversely, when outflow is greater than inflow, the volume of groundwater stored in the aquifer systems will

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-11-
decrease (and water levels will decline). Thus, if outflow (e.g., pumping from wells) exceeds inflow over time, then water levels will show a gradual decline over time (a decline in ΔS). Such a reduction in groundwater in storage necessitates better management of the groundwater uses to help stabilize water levels whereby water level declines may be reversed to a more stable condition (i.e., no ΔS over time).

The individual data components of the traditional water balance solution of sustainable yield consist of the following:

Specific Inflow elements (recharge) include:

1. Deep percolation of rainfall.

2. Infiltration runoff in rivers, streams and creeks.

3. Deep percolation at spreading basins.

4. Direct use of recharge wells.

5. Deep percolation of imported water (i.e., spreading basins).

6. Groundwater underflow from adjacent basins.

7. Irrigation returns.

Specific Outflow elements (discharge) include:

1. Surface outflow from streams and creeks.

2. Groundwater outflow.

3. Springs (direct surface outflow).

4. Evapotranspiration.

5. Pumpage from wells.

6. Sewer and storm drain system discharges from basin.

7. Export of water resources to another basin.

In the development of a sustainable yield “model” for the SMGB, the following specific elements could be considered for each subbasin for which the required data are available:

1. Selection of an appropriate baseline period for data, based on precipitation records.

2. Collection of available data for wells, such as water levels, representative withdrawals, etc.

3. Calculating groundwater in storage.

4. Calculating the inflows into each subbasin.
a. Groundwater underflow.
b. Estimates of direct recharge via precipitation.
c. Estimates of recharge from surface water runoff and excess irrigation.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-12-
d. Estimates of returns from excess irrigation, and from possible subsurface sewage disposal.
e. Annual volumes of imported water.

5. Calculation of outflows from the basin:
a. Pumpage from City wells.
b. Flow from University High School Springs
c. Stream gages (not available for SMGB, thus flows can only be grossly estimated).
d. Estimated irrigated areas and potential evapotranspiration. e. Groundwater underflows (e.g., flow of springs/seeps into ocean); groundwater flow directions and gradients in each subbasin are required. f. Per capita/household use of water.
g. Amounts of local water exported to the Hyperion Treatment Plant.

However, Bredehoeft et al (1982) noted that there is a common misconception among water resources managers about determining the water balance of an area and that certain basic hydrologic principles are being overlooked. Those investigators approached their reexamination of the issue on a purely mathematical basis. They cite that computation of the average water level drawdown can be done through the following basic equation, assuming a water table or unconfined aquifer system:

S = ΔV/(Sy*A)
Where: S = the basin-wide average drawdown.

ΔV = the volume removed from storage (discharged and/or “captured”) Sy = the specific yield of the sediments (i.e., that amount of water that can be removed from storage by gravity).

A = the area of the basin
Because groundwater in the aquifer systems of the SMGB might be under different hydrogeologic conditions (e.g., unconfined, semi-confined or confined), it is recognized that estimates of sustainable yield derived by utilizing the change in storage method could be conservative and that additional compensating factors would need to be considered. An example of one such factor could be the increase in volume of water following release (pumping) of groundwater in storage under confined conditions. However, such an increase in volume could also be relatively minor, compared to total volumes pumped.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-13-
Regarding conducting a traditional water balance analysis of the SMGB, historic and current data for each of the items described in the text above were, until recently, generally lacking for the subbasins of the SMGB. However, in 2017 the City began an integrated hydrogeologic data acquisition program that, when fully realized, will allow for transition towards a more traditional water balance analysis in future biennial updates to the sustainable yield of the SMGB subbasins for the purpose of comparing and planning future aquifer management strategies.

The results of this current updated study are based primarily on pumpage and change in groundwater in storage, and include a discussion of SMGB recharge from a separate study in 2018 conducted by ICF Corporation (ICF).

In this study, only the physical aspects of groundwater in the aquifer systems have been evaluated, in terms of the potential pumping that could be conducted over the long term without permanently lowering groundwater levels in the local subbasins. Compensating factors include new hydrogeologic data collected by the City and potential recharge to the SMBG from areas previously not considered, such as adjacent and distal mountain front areas. Groundwater quality, another factor to consider that could impact the supply of potable water to the City, is not addressed in this report, because the City is currently treating its pumped groundwater to comply with existing State and Federal regulations in terms of the established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) that exist for certain constituents in raw groundwater and drinking water. Also, not addressed in this updated report are water rights, primarily because pumping rights in the SMGB have not been adjudicated by the courts, although the City has long been the only significant pumper in the SMGB.

Potential land subsidence caused by historic or future pumping is not within the expertise of RCS and therefore is not addressed. However, anticipating this concern, the City has commissioned a separate satellite-based Differential Interferometer Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) study to assess various subbasin characteristics, including subsidence. DInSAR technology is capable of detecting minute changes in surface topography caused by groundwater withdrawal, geologic faulting and other natural and anthropogenic forces. A DInSAR study conducted in 2017 by Earth Consultants International (ECI) concluded there were no indications of basin-wide subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. A supplemental DInSAR study is currently being conducted by the City to assess for potential seasonal near surface pathways for basin recharge from mountain-front areas adjacent to, and possibly distal

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-14-
from, the SMGB. The City is also in the process of working with recognized climate change experts to define a scope of work for conducting climate change stress-tests of its biennial updates to its sustainable yield analysis and conservation programs in order to assist in the adaptive management of all its water resources, and to aid in water related capital improvement project planning and construction.

Summary of Methods for Calculating Sustainable Yield
The pumping and change-in-storage method basically involves deriving sustainable yield from pumpage data and from the change in the volume of groundwater in storage, over a representative period of precipitation and water well operations. To employ this method, the geology of the groundwater basin must be well defined, as to the areal extent and thickness of the water-bearing deposits, and the average specific yield (i.e. related to porosity and permeability) of those materials. After the hydrogeologic characteristics of the basin have been defined, a representative rainfall period (i.e., baseline period) is selected, from which pumpage and the change in groundwater in storage values can be derived. The selected baseline period should not be preceded by a hydrologically high rainfall period to avoid so-called water-in-transit problems. Following selection of a representative rainfall baseline period, and assuming representative water well operations, the volume of pumped groundwater during that period is totaled and an average annual pumpage volume is calculated for this baseline period. The net change of groundwater in storage occurring between the beginning and the end of the selected baseline period is then determined and an average annual change in groundwater in storage is calculated. The annual sustainable yield is then the algebraic sum of the calculated values of average annual pumpage and average annual change in groundwater in storage.

Generally, storativity (or storage coefficient) is the degree to which an unconfined or confined aquifer system yields water to a well; i.e., it is the amount of groundwater in storage that can be provided to a well and is governed by the equation: S = SSb + Sy Where: S = the storativity
SS = the specific storage
b = the aquifer thickness.

Sy = the specific yield (that amount of water yielded only by gravity drainage)
Because the pumping and change-in-storage method relies on the specific yield of an aquifer, then for unconfined alluvial aquifers the specific yield is approximately equal to the storativity

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-15-
(the water that can be provided to a well by gravity drainage). However, for confined aquifers the storativity can be greater, because water is supplied to a well not only by gravity drainage but also by that delivered by an increase in the volume of the water pumped from storage, due to lowering the amount of head (pressure) in an aquifer. Thus, as noted previously, the changein-storage method is considered to provide conservative results for a confined aquifer system, which could yield lower values. Thus, actual changes in groundwater in storage are difficult to quantify, but uncertainty in the calculated values can be reduced by further characterization of the hydrogeologic conditions through the application of additional hydrogeological data such as geophysical logs, pumping tests of local wells, and reasonable compensating factors, such as future recharge volumes not previously considered.

Recognizing the likelihood of lack of available hydrogeologic data and the inherent uncertainties in those data that are available, the pumpage and change-in-storage method is still applicable for estimating the sustainable yield of the subject subbasins, because the City has sufficient data on SWLs and groundwater extraction volumes from each of its wells, and estimates can be made for the known private-party pumping in at least one of the subbasins of the SMGB.

Accordingly, the only items required to be analyzed when applying the pumping and change-instorage method to evaluate the sustainable yield of the local subbasins are the following. o Precipitation over the study area, as obtained from a representative rain gage. o Volume of groundwater in storage, as calculated from estimates of the specific yield of the sediments and the total footage of saturated aquifer systems, as identified by evaluation of available electric logs of the boreholes for water wells and wildcat oil/gas wells.
o Representative annual groundwater withdrawals obtained directly from City records and from estimates of pumpage by others.
o Recognition that both unconfined and confined aquifer conditions exist in the SMGB, and therefore resulting estimates of sustainable yield are conservative.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-16-

FINDINGS

GROUNDWATER BASIN AND SUBBASIN BOUNDARIES
Figure 1, “Location Map of Study Area”, in Appendix 1, shows the setting of the City of Santa Monica, relative to the State of California. Figure 2, “Map of Groundwater Basins”, in Appendix 2, illustrates the boundaries of the City relative to those of the SMGB and other groundwater basins that adjoin the SMGB. The SMGB, which is currently non-adjudicated, encompasses a surface area of approximately 50 square miles (sq mi). The current surface boundary of the SMGB (and those of the adjoining groundwater basins) is based primarily on published DWR studies (1961, 1965 & 2016). The boundaries of this basin underlie the entire City limits and extend beyond City boundaries into those of the City of Los Angeles on the north, east and south.

Even though this report discusses and provides estimates of the sustainable yield of the five locally-known subbasins identified previously by others within the SMGB, the following is to be noted: the Santa Monica Basin, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118 Update (2016), is known as the “Coastal Plain of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Basin (Basin No. 4-011-01). As such, two key DWR components of the definition of this basin and its boundaries are:

1. No individual subbasins were recognized within the SMGB by DWR.

2. The entire eastern boundary of SMGB was taken by DWR to be along the general northwest-southeast alignment of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone (in fact, DWR has shown this fault to extend northward to the bedrock at the toe of the south flank of the Santa Monica Mountains).

The MWD published a study in 2007 to describe the numerous groundwater basins within its large service area. In that study, the MWD (2007) delineated five separate subbasins within the SMGB, namely the Arcadia, Charnock, Coastal, Crestal, and Olympic subbasins. Figure 3A, “Groundwater Subbasin Boundary Map,” in Appendix 1, illustrates the names and approximate locations of the five groundwater subbasins identified in that MWD study within the SMGB. The basis for the delineation of these groundwater subbasins and their respective boundaries are unknown, as there does not appear to be any available reports that specifically identify when and how those subbasins and their names/boundaries were first formulated. However, the subbasin boundaries appear to loosely coincide with major geological structural features (e.g., faults) in the SMGB, but in some cases certain subbasin boundaries do not follow the reported

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-17-
ground surface traces of such features. For example, the southern boundary of the Olympic subbasin does not exactly follow that of the Santa Monica fault zone, and the eastern border of the Charnock subbasin appears not to follow the ground surface alignment of the Overland Ave fault (see Figure 3A).

As of April 2018, there are 17 existing municipal-supply water wells owned by the City in the SMGB. Of these wells, 10 are being pumped on an active basis to help meet the current water demand of its residents and customers. The other seven City wells are either inactive or are otherwise not in operation. Table1, “Summary of Well Construction Data for Historic and Existing City Wells Used in this Study” in Appendix 2, provides the construction data available for each existing City water-supply well. Figure 3B, “Map of City Well Locations,” shows: the locations and names of existing City wells; the DWR-defined (2016) basin boundaries for the SMGB; and other pertinent information.

GENERAL GEOLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
RCS (2013) prepared a report for the City to provide its professional opinions regarding the subsurface hydrogeologic conditions throughout the SMGB; thus, the reader is referred to that report for a detailed discussion of those conditions. For the purposes of this study, only a summary of the hydrogeologic conditions provided in that RCS 2013 report is presented herein, because the focus of this study is to provide estimates of the sustainable yield of the subject subbasins for which requisite data are available.

Figure 4A, “Generalized Geologic Map of the Santa Monica Area,” and its companion, Figure 4B “Generalized Geologic Map Legend & Symbols,” illustrate the geologic conditions as mapped at ground surface by others throughout the SMGB (as identified by DWR, 2016), and provide the legend to the geologic symbols shown on Figure 4A, respectively. Figure 5, “General Stratigraphic Section for the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County,” shows the stratigraphic relationships and basic geologic framework of the different geologic formations shown in Figure 4A, as mapped by the DWR (1961). Specifically, the sediments/rocks within and beneath the SMGB portion of the City of Santa Monica are divided into two broad groups: 1) a potentially water-bearing sediments group (these deposits tend to be readily capable of absorbing, storing, transmitting and yielding groundwater to water wells); and 2) a non-water-bearing rocks group which underlies the water-bearing sediments and which are comprised by geologically old,

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-18-
lithified, or cemented sedimentary rocks and/or crystalline rocks of low permeability. These two groups of earth materials are described below.

Water-Bearing Sediments
Recent (Holocene) Alluvium
Alluvium, which is of the Recent or Holocene in geologic age, occurs along and within the relatively narrow mountain front canyons and creek channels that drain across the SMGB. These Recent alluvial deposits are geologically young and likely attain a maximum thickness of only perhaps 50 to 150 ft in the Santa Monica area.

In general, these earth materials are relatively shallow deposits of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated, complexly inter-layered and inter-fingered deposits comprised by gravel, sand, silt and clay. Permeability ranges from moderate in the coarsergrained sand units to relatively low in the clay-rich layers. Groundwater, where present in this shallow aquifer system, is considered to occur under water table conditions (unconfined), and, thus, this groundwater occurs strictly within the void spaces between the gravel and sand grains in each layer. Because of their limited areal (spatial) extent and their limited thickness, these alluvial deposits are not a viable source of groundwater for the City.

Lakewood Formation
The Lakewood Formation, which is of upper Pleistocene age, lies directly beneath the various alluvial deposits in the region. The upper portion of this formation is of continental origin (i.e., its sediments were shed from the north and east by the erosion of the Santa Monica Mountains and other, local but smaller highland areas).

In contrast, the lower portion of this formation reportedly contains sediments of marine origin (sediments deposited by the ocean). Overall, this formation is comprised by layers and lenses of poorly consolidated gravel, sand, silt and clay.

The DWR (1961) has identified and named several aquifers in the Lakewood Formation in the Coastal Plain area of Los Angeles County. These aquifers include:
the “Palos Verdes Sand;” the Exposition aquifer; the Gage aquifer; and the Gardena aquifer (see Figure 5). Each of these sandy and/or gravelly aquifers is separated by fine-grained, silty and/or clayey strata known as aquicludes; such aquicludes have only limited permeability and are not considered usable as potential sources of groundwater. However, these aquifers have not been documented by the DWR or others to be present in the SMGB. Thus, these strata were either never originally deposited in the basin, or the original formation sediments were subsequently removed by erosion following their deposition. Hence, groundwater from this formation would not be available to the City for any future water wells.

San Pedro Formation
Directly underlying the Lakewood Formation is the San Pedro Formation of lower Pleistocene age. According to DWR (1961 and 1965), this formation may attain a maximum thickness of from 100 to 280 ft in the Santa Monica area, whereas it may attain a thickness up to 300 ft in the Ballona Gap to the south.

Key aquifers identified and named by DWR (1961; see Figure 5) within this formation include, from “top” to “bottom,” the following: the Hollydale aquifer, the Jefferson

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-19-
aquifer, the Lynwood aquifer, the Silverado aquifer, and the Sunnyside aquifer (which is very near the base/bottom of the entire formation). Once again, these aquifers are separated by various thicknesses of intervening fine-grained, clay-rich aquicludes of much lower permeability. The Silverado aquifer is well known because it is pumped by many water wells across the entire Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County. In SMGB, many of the stratigraphically higher (shallower and younger) aquifers have been removed by erosion after their deposition, and only the Silverado aquifer is interpreted by the DWR (1961) to exist. It is possible, however, that the Sunnyside aquifer may also be present and, if so, it would form the base of the aquifer systems available to new wells in the local groundwater subbasins.

One notable consideration for some of the aquifers in the San Pedro Formation is that they often contain uniform, fine-grained sands, which if not properly accounted for during the design and construction of a new water well, tend to enter the perforated sections of the well casing whenever the well is pumped; this leads to sand in the groundwater pumped from a well (i.e., such a well is known as a “sander, such as the former SM-7 which was recently replaced by the City with well SM-8.

Another notable consideration for these aquifers, and for the San Pedro Formation as a whole, is that they have been impacted over time by geologic forces, mainly faults, which have offset and displaced the earth materials and created possible barriers to groundwater flow. In addition, folds are present which have “bent” or “warped” the sedimentary layers into different inclinations from the horizontal.

Driller’s logs of water wells and available geophysical electric logs (E-Logs) of water wells and wildcat oil wells have been acquired and reviewed by RCS. Those efforts reveal that the San Pedro Formation is comprised by moderately consolidated and stratified layers and lenses of fine-grained gravel, sand and silt which contain various amounts of clay (RCS, 2013). Colors in these layers and lenses vary from tan to buff to yellow brown in the upper portions of the formation; such colors indicate an oxidizing environment. Older portions, nearer the base of the formation, tend to be of marine origin, tend to have a gray to gray black color, and often contain fossil marine shells. Those darker colors indicate an anaerobic, or reducing, environment.

As noted above, only the lower (and somewhat more consolidated) portion of the San Pedro Formation exists in the SMGB. Further, correlation of available E-logs reveals the overall thickness of this formation is essentially zero along the front of the Santa Monica Mountains on the north side of SMGB, and thickens to perhaps 300 to 400 ft on the south side of the basin. Importantly, this formation supplies nearly all the groundwater being pumped by existing (and future) water wells in SMGB.

Non-water-Bearing Rocks
Immediately beneath the San Pedro Formation (i.e., the bottom of which is generally considered to form the base of fresh water in the SMGB) is the Pico Formation of upper Pliocene age.

Even though this formation may contain some groundwater, it is generally considered to be not capable of yielding water to wells in sufficient quantities and of adequate quality for municipalsupply purposes; hence it is also considered herein to be “non-water-bearing;” albeit a few wells in the Lakewood area have been reported to obtain usable groundwater from the Pico

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-20-
Formation (DWR, 1961). Local examples are Arcadia Well Nos. 4 and 5, which appear to have at least some of their perforations (in the lower portion of each well) placed into the upper portion of the Pico Formation.

Strata within the Pico Formation tend to be well-bedded and well-consolidated, and to consist principally of interbedded deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel of marine origin. Individual beds of gravels and sands are reported to range in thickness from 20 to 100 feet and are separated by thicker beds of clay and micaceous siltstone (by DWR, 1961). The Pico Formation is also known to contain petroleum and/or natural gas (often methane) at greater depths.

Below not only the base of the water-bearing sediments which form the SMGB, but also beneath the Pico Formation, and as also exposed at ground surface in the Santa Monica Mountains to the north, are a series of geologically older, lithified and/or cemented, sedimentary rock formations and various crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks. Because of their lithified and/or cemented and/or crystalline character, these rocks do not contain free water in the interstices between the individual sand or gravel grains or within the matrix of the rock.

Rather, the groundwater in these rocks is contained solely within fractures, joints, and/or along bedding planes. Hence, the groundwater storage capacity of these rocks is low, and their longterm ability to yield groundwater to water wells is poor. Consequently, only limited quantities of water are available to wells from these types of rocks. Moreover, electric log signatures of the sedimentary rocks in this group, as encountered in deep wildcat oil/gas wells in and around the SMGB, suggest the contained groundwater is brackish in character and non-potable. It is likely the original connate water in the existing sedimentary rocks was never flushed by percolating fresh water over time. For these reasons, these rocks are classified as non-water-bearing in the Santa Monica region and, therefore, these older formations and rocks are the local bedrock (or basement rock), and they are also not a part of the SMGB.

Geologic Structures
There are several significant geologic structures, consisting chiefly of faults, that occur throughout the Los Angeles Coastal Plain region and a few of these occur in and proximal to the SMGB. These structures can impact the movement and direction of groundwater and have been selected by others to form the boundaries between adjoining groundwater basins in the Coastal Plain, and even between the subbasins (as defined by others) which comprise the SMGB (as defined by DWR). A more detailed discussion of these local faults was provided in RCS (2013)

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-21-
and is presented herein strictly for information purposes, regarding the SMGB and its subbasin boundaries. It is not within the scope of services for this project to describe or evaluate the relative movement of these faults and/or their history of or potential for movement. Figure 6, “Map of Watershed and Local Drainages,” shows, among other things, the approximate locations of the faults described herein.

Key structures mapped by others to define the boundaries of the SMGB and its subbasins, include the following:
o The Hollywood-Brentwood fault system, which traverses the area in a general eastwest direction across the northern edge and north-central portion of the SMGB. This fault system forms the northern boundary of the Olympic subbasin (i.e., the southern boundary of the Arcadia subbasin).
o The Santa Monica fault system, which extends across the basin in a general eastwest direction, forms the northern boundary of the Coastal subbasin (or the southern boundary of the Olympic subbasin). Based on modeling conducted by the City, an alternative interpretation is that this fault may not extend upward into the shallower sediments nearer ground surface in the Olympic subbasin. This scenario could provide a pathway for recharge from the Olympic subbasin into the Coastal subbasin.
o The Newport-Inglewood fault zone, which traverses in a general southeast to northwest direction across the Coastal Plain, is considered to form the eastern boundary of SMGB and its Crestal subbasin. As seen on Figure 4A, DWR has extended this fault northward to the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains.

Thus, this fault (per DWR) forms the boundary between the SMGB on the west and the Hollywood Groundwater Basin and the Central Groundwater Basin on the east. o The Overland Ave fault, which is an en-echelon fault associated with the NewportInglewood fault zone, which creates the eastern boundary of the Charnock subbasin. o The Charnock fault parallels both the Overland Ave fault and the Newport-Inglewood fault zone and forms the eastern boundary of the Coastal subbasin (or western boundary of the Charnock subbasin).
o The Santa Monica Mountains delineate the northern boundary of the SMGB whereas the Ballona Escarpment demarks the southern boundary of the SMGB (see figures 3A & 4A).
o The westerly boundary of the SMGB is the Pacific Ocean.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-22-

WATERSHED AREA
There are several canyons located along the front of the Santa Monica Mountains that drain in a general southerly direction from those mountains into the SMGB. Figure 6 illustrates the locations and names of the key local drainages and the main watershed divide along/near the crest of the Santa Monica Mountains, north of the City. The watershed boundary has been adapted from a watershed map prepared by the Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee (October 1999). Also shown on Figure 6 are: the City limits; the boundaries for DWR’s SMGB; and the names and boundaries for the subbasins within the SMGB, as identified by others. As noted above, some of these faults have been taken by others to form the boundaries between those individual subbasins.

Figure 6 illustrates only that watershed area where the local streams can drain directly into and across the SMGB. Rainfall falling within this watershed will have the potential to directly recharge the aquifer systems underlying the northern and central portions of this basin. Thus, the aquifers underlying the SMGB are recharged in part by deep percolation of direct runoff in streams crossing the Santa Monica area. Another component of recharge to the shallow aquifer systems would also occur by percolation of direct precipitation on the topographically flatter portions of the local subbasins (i.e., the areas located south of the Santa Monica Mountains).

One other recharge component is deep percolation of excess irrigation on: residential lawns; golf course turf; park areas; and even landscaped street medians.

Based on Figure 6, the area of the watershed, including the mountain/hillside areas and the SMGB itself, was calculated to be approximately 86 sq mi. Of this, approximately 36 sq mi are comprised by the largely undeveloped hillsides on the south flank of the Santa Monica Mountains, whereas the remaining 50 sq mi are occupied by the surface area of the SMGB which extends south to the northern boundary of the West Coast Groundwater Basin (WCB; see Figure 6).

There is likely an additional input of recharge to the SMGB from the Hollywood and Central groundwater basins on the east, and perhaps also from the WCB on the south (minor amounts of rainfall recharge from this basin occur, due to drainage from the Ballona Escarpment area).

Recharge to SMGB from these adjoining groundwater basins would occur via subsurface underflow (see locations of these adjoining groundwater basins on Figure 3A and/or Figure 6A).

While the amounts of such underflow are unknown, the aforementioned USGS modeling report

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-23-
and the related ICF Technical Memorandum pertaining to mountain front recharge suggests these volumes of underflow could be significant. Furthermore, a portion of surface water runoff along Ballona Creek can recharge the sediments of the shallow Ballona aquifer, but most of the surface runoff along this creek eventually drains to the Pacific Ocean. The magnitude of the amount of recharge along Ballona Creek to the deeper aquifer systems, such as the Palos Verdes sand, the Silverado aquifer, and/or the Sunnyside aquifer, is unknown.

The Newport-Inglewood fault zone along the east side of the SMGB is, at least, a partial barrier to groundwater flow from the east to the west. Thus, additional inputs of recharge water to deeper aquifer systems along this boundary, such as the Palos Verdes sand, and the Silverado and the Sunnyside aquifers may not be significant. Further, because these aquifer systems generally dip from north to the south across the SMGB, and this dip direction continues southward into the WCB, any recharge along Ballona Creek (in the southern portion of SMGB) would likely flow southward and, therefore, it would not add to the groundwater in storage beneath the City.

NATURAL RECHARGE
The aquifer systems underlying the City are generally replenished by rainfall falling directly on the surface of the land, through infiltration of stream runoff along canyons/streams and gullies, especially along the front of the Santa Monica Mountains, and by irrigation return water.

Recharge along the front of the Santa Monica Mountains and into the sediments of the Sawtelle Plain are likely significant along major canyons, such as Rustic, Santa Monica/Sullivan, Mandeville, Kenter, Sepulveda, Dry and Stone canyons.

To better quantify recharge in the SMGB, the City retained ICF to determine potential recharge based on a detailed study on the subject prepared jointly by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) titled; Estimating Spatially and Temporally Varying Recharge and Runoff from Precipitation and Urban Irrigation in the Los Angeles Basin, Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5068. As part of this detailed study, the USGS assessed the amount of water that can be attributed to natural recharge from precipitation, runoff and urban irrigation (USGS, 2016) for the Los Angeles (coastal) basin, which includes the SMGB. The USGS study also included all the surface water drainages bordering the SMB (e.g., mountain-front areas) that could potentially contribute recharge to the adjacent sediments in the basin. The USGS developed a model which

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-24-
incorporated a new method for estimating recharge from residential and commercial landscape irrigation based on land use and the percentage of pervious land area. The USGS model also assessed climate data from over 200 monitoring sites, including monthly precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperatures. It also included data for land use type, land cover, soil, vegetation and surficial geology. The model was calibrated to available stream flow records.

Based on their review of the USGS data, ICF found that the potential combined average mountain-front and urban inflow into the SMGB was on the order of 11,212 AFY, not including recharge from the estimated volume of non-revenue City water which is currently thought to range between 2% and 5% of the total treated water placed into distribution within the City’s water system. Thus, for 2017, the volume of non-revenue water could be approximately 226 to 565 AFY. Recognizing that the valleys and ridges of the mountain-front represent a threedimensional terrain that contains additional surface area not accounted for in a traditional twodimensional area calculation, the City had a LiDAR base map prepared and then overlaid a Triangular Irregular Network System (TINS) on the topography which allowed a computer algorithm to calculate the surface area as if the mountain ridges were flattened out. An analysis of the TINS data by Earth Consultants International (ECI) estimated an approximate 12% increase of mountain-front recharge area. When this information is factored into the USGS inflow average, the annual inflow could be on the order of 11,927 AFY, or a range of 12,153 to 12,492 AFY when the estimate of non-revenue water inflow (226 to 565 AFY; see above) is added to the overall USGS inflow volume. A copy of the ICF Technical Memorandum is provided in Appendix 3.

Preliminary DInSAR data compiled by ECI suggests that other inflow may be occurring in the near subsurface from mountain-front areas outside of the SMGB. If confirmed by the ongoing Supplemental DInSAR study, the estimated inflow from these distant recharge areas could increase the total inflow into the SMGB by perhaps an additional 716 to 1,000 AFY, bringing the range of the average potential SMGB inflow to be 12,869 to 13,492 AFY.

Outflow from the SMGB to the northern end of the West Coast Basin (WCB) appears to be indicated in Figure 2.1 of the “Regional Groundwater Monitoring Report for Water Year 2015- 2016,” as published by WRD; that figure is reproduced herein as Figure 7, “Groundwater Elevation Contours of the West Coast & Central Groundwater Basins.” Review of Figure 7,

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-25-
which shows contours of the equal elevation of groundwater for Fall 2017, reveals that due to pumping within the WCB, the overall direction of groundwater flow at the northwestern portion of that basin, and in the area between the Charnock fault and the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, is generally towards the southeast. This can be seen by groundwater contours being between mean sea level (msl) and 10 ft below msl in the area southwest of the Charnock fault and between 20 to 70 ft below msl in that area between the Charnock fault and the NewportInglewood fault zone (see Figure 7).

To assess these possible outflow conditions and how they relate to the Coastal subbasin and the overall sustainable yield of the SMGB, the City is planning to work in close consultation with the USGS on a phased project to, among other things, integrate the City’s existing groundwater flow data that is wellfield-specific, into the broader USGS flow modeling for the SMGB. When completed, the integrated flow model will provide the City with a powerful tool for the adaptive management of its groundwater resources. Current plans are to have a preliminary version of the integrated flow model by the USGS available by 2020.

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE AND CONSERVATION
Introduction
Artificial recharge can be important to the overall water balance and is typically conducted by either directly injecting properly-treated water into the subsurface via recharge (injection) wells, or by allowing water to percolate into the subsurface sediments by diverting surface water into artificially-constructed basins known as spreading grounds.

Because of the degree of urbanization within the City and the surrounding groundwater subbasins, there is insufficient available land area to support artificial recharge on the scale necessary to derive maximum benefit via the construction of spreading basins at ground surface in the SMGB. Further, the surface sediments in many parts of the City are fine-grained, with a high percentage of poorly permeable silt and clay, making surface water percolation in those areas less feasible.

According to available records, the City conducted limited subsurface recharge of imported MWD water at one of its wells in the Charnock wellfield for a period of approximately 13 years (between 1975 and 1988). However, the amount of water injected was relatively small and ranged only from 0.3 AF in 1977 to 2,533 AF in 1979 (see RCS, 2013). Specifically, the City’s Charnock Well No. 12 was used to inject the imported MWD water to help replenish the aquifer

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-26-
systems in this Charnock wellfield area. However, that well was destroyed in the 1990s and water is no longer being injected by the City into any well at its Charnock wellfield (or any other City wellfield) at this time
As discussed earlier in this report, a key objective of the City’s SWIP is to produce highly treated water that, when properly permitted, could provide as much as approximately 1,100 AFY of new water for aquifer recharge at the Olympic wellfield. The SWIP is scheduled to begin construction in 2019, and the City has already embarked on the permitting process for SWIP treated water applications with the LARWQCB, State Water Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW), and the LACDPH.

Sustainable Water Master Plan
Santa Monica is a recognized leader in California for its environmental and water conservation policies. The City has been actively implementing water efficiency programs since 1988 and is one of the original signatories to the State’s Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU) adopted in 1991 and amended in 2008. In 2014, the City adopted a Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP) with the goal of achieving water supply self-sufficiency in 2020 by eliminating reliance on imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Since the adoption of the SWMP, the City has been actively implementing new water supply, water reuse and conservation programs and projects to achieve this objective.

Two City conservation programs that influence both local water demand and irrigation, and hence, the sustainable yield of the subbasins within the SMGB are:

Water Neutrality Ordinance
On July 1, 2017, the new Water Neutrality Ordinance went into effect capping water use for new developments to the average five-year historical use for that individual parcel. If the projected annual water use for the development is greater than the existing annual average for that parcel over the past five years, the increased amount must be offset by water-efficient retrofits of an existing building somewhere else in the City. Offset retrofits currently include low-flow indoor fixtures (toilets, showerheads, and aerators). The ordinance applies to pools, ponds, spas and other water features as well. This ordinance was developed and is currently being implemented by the City (SMMC 7.16.050).

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-27-
Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards
Green Building Ordinance Update: Santa Monica has had a Green Building Ordinance with irrigation components since 2008. In December 2016, the ordinance was significantly updated to reduce the amount of outdoor water use for new developments.

Overhead spray irrigation is banned for all new developments and for new landscape on existing developments. In addition, turf grass is banned on new commercial developments and is limited to 20% of landscaped area for new residential developments. (SMMC 8.108).

Taken together, these two programs, along with other permanent non-behavior-based conservation programs (e.g., low flow toilets, washing machine replacement at multifamily units etc.), are estimated to be able to conserve approximately 1.5 to 3.0% of the total water demand of the City by 2020. Reduction in total future demand by either conservation or reuse will result in savings in local groundwater production and helps support the City’s twin long-term objectives of protecting and sustaining the strategic yields of its groundwater resources and water self-reliance.

HYDROLOGIC BASELINE CONDITIONS
Rainfall Totals
As discussed in previous sections, direct rainfall both local and on adjacent mountain front areas and its subsequent runoff and deep percolation has a very important impact on groundwater levels and, hence, on the effect of recharge to groundwater in the local SMGB.

Further, ongoing conservation programs that provide for permanent water savings and aquifer recharge via the SWIP will reduce demand and contribute towards offsetting natural potential outflow from the SMGB. To help calculate the estimated sustainable yield, RCS utilized information provided in the ICF Technical Memorandum and acquired available rainfall data through the website of the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) for the Desert Research Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno for several (four) rain gages within and around the SMGB, to compare the data from each of the gages. The rain gages assessed in this study are:
o Gage WR047953 at the Santa Monica Pier (however, no data are available after 2016 for this gage).
o Gage WR044214 in the Center of Culver City
o Gage WR049152 at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). o Gage WR045114 at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) which is located south of and outside of the SMGB and, thus, is not directly applicable to conditions affecting the Santa Monica area. It is used herein only for the purposes of comparison.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-28-
These rain gages are generally located on the west, south of, in the southeast portion, and in the northeast portion of the SMGB. The approximate locations of these rain gages, as provided by the WRCC, are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 8A, “Annual Rainfall Totals”, in Appendix 1, illustrates the annual rainfall totals as a bar graph for all four rain gages; these data span a maximum period of record from 1934 through 2017 (depending on the rain gage, because the beginning and ending years for each rain gage are different, as shown thereon). Based on these rainfall data, the following are notable:

O The long-term average annual rainfall for the four rain gages from this period of record (1937 through 2017) ranges from 10.91 inches (through 2016) at the Santa Monica Pier rain gage, to 16.22 inches at the UCLA rain gage located near the northeastern corner of the SMGB.

O The highest annual rainfall totals generally occurred at the UCLA rain gage, whereas the lowest annual rainfall totals typically occurred at the Santa Monica Pier rain gage.

This phenomenon is likely attributable to the effects of orographic lifting which causes moist air to cool and induce precipitation as it moves up and over the Santa Monica Mountains, thus accounting for the higher totals at the UCLA gauge and along the mountain front in general.

Accumulated Departure of Rainfall
Figure 8B, “Accumulated Departure of Rainfall” (Appendix 1), shows the local annual patterns in rainfall for the period of record of the various rain gages and is used to ascertain if there is a correlation between wet periods and wellfield water levels (i.e., recharge). The accumulated rainfall departure values on the figure are plotted relative to the long-term average annual rainfall for each of the rain gages and their respective period of record. The accumulated departure curve illustrates temporal trends in the rainfall data and helps to identify local long-term patterns (or trends) in rainfall over time. This figure reveals the following:

O Those portions of the curve ascending towards the right-hand side of the graph (positive slopes) indicate a series of years when the annual rainfall was generally at or above the long-term average. Thus, this defines a generally “wet” period, when the accumulated precipitation totals were increasing, relative to the long-term mean value.

Conversely, the slopes of the curves declining to the right-hand side of the graph (negative slopes) indicate those years where accumulated precipitation totals were declining, relative to the long-term average; these declining trends represent general periods of deficient rainfall or a “dry hydrologic period” (i.e., a drought). These “wet” and “dry” periods are specifically denoted on Figure 8B for the rain gage data evaluated herein.

O Based on the data, three rain gauges more or less correlate with each other. Those gauges are Culver City, LAX, and UCLA. Data from the fourth gage, Santa Monica Pier, appears skewed, and therefore was not considered further. Of the three remaining

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-29-
gages, the Culver City gage was selected for use in this study due to its proximity and compliance with the selection criteria listed below.

Selection of Baseline Hydrologic Period
A key step in determination of the sustainable yield utilizing the pumpage and change in storage method is the selection of hydrologic baseline period for rainfall that would be representative of long-term conditions, as obtained from an accumulated departure curve. These data would then be correlated to static (non-pumping) water levels at/near the City’s wellfields.

In selecting such a baseline period from the selected accumulated departure curve, the following criteria were utilized:
o The period includes both hydrologically wet and dry cycles. o The period ends near the present for which historical data are available. o The accumulated departure from mean annual precipitation is similar for the beginning and end of the period.
o Cultural conditions are similar at the start and end of the period. o Adequate data on water levels and groundwater extractions are available throughout the identified baseline period.

Review of Figure 8B shows that the rain gages at LAX and UCLA display very similar trends over time, with respect to their accumulated departure percentages. The Culver City gage, although it has similar trends as those for the LAX and UCLA gages from the early-1980s onward, displayed different trends than those two gages prior to the early-1980s. Figure 9, “Selected Baseline Period,” shows that the 30-year period from 1988 through 2017 satisfies the above criteria, particularly for the Culver City and LAX rain gages, as follows:
o The 30-year period for these two rain gages includes both a hydrologically wet cycle and a hydrologically dry cycle. The years 1992 through 2010 may be considered a “wet” cycle, whereas the years 1988 through 1992 and 2010 through 2016 constitute a “dry” cycle. However, there is a slight deviation from this in the Santa Monica Pier and UCLA rain gages, which show that the ”wet” cycle at the outset of 1988 in the previous two curves commences a year before.
o Sufficient historical data are available for pumping withdrawals and static water levels for the new 30-year period (1988 through 2017).
o The accumulated departure from mean annual precipitation occurs at approximately the same “level” in 1988 as it does in 2017 for the two key rain gages (Culver City and LAX). However, and particularly for the Santa Monica Pier rain gage but also somewhat for the UCLA rain gage, the accumulated departure differs considerably.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-30-
The following compares the average historic rainfall to the average rainfall for the 1988 through 2017 for the LAX and Culver City gages:

Rain
Gage
Rainfall Average,
Period of Record
(inches)
Rainfall Average
1988 - 2017
(inches)
Culver City 12.02 11.88
LAX 11.77 11.60
o The differences in average rainfall for the 30-year baseline period between the Culver City and LAX rain gages are 0.14 inches and 0.17 inches, respectively. o Current cultural conditions in the SMGB (population, developed area, etc.) are similar to what they were in 1990, although the population has increased slightly, from approximately 86,900 in 1990 (US Bureau of the Census, 1992) to the current 93,000. This is an increase of around 6,100 over 27 years o There is sufficient historical data available from the various City wells, for annual rainfall conditions, and for groundwater withdrawals by the City over the 30-year baseline period. However, reliable static water levels not available for all City wellfields; this may be particularly true for the Charnock wellfield.

For this study, the accumulated departure of rainfall curve for Culver City was selected as a “best fit.” Thus, these data were used to help discern possible trends in the SWLs in City watersupply wells, as discussed later herein.

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
Withdrawals by the City
Available data for the total historic groundwater production from each City-owned wellfield have been tabulated, along with RCS estimates of private pumpage by others, on Table 2, “Groundwater Production from City Wells and Other Wells (1988 through September 2017).” The tabulated values for historic total annual groundwater withdrawals during this 30-year period were those available from: City reports and Excel spreadsheet data provided to RCS by the City for its wells in the Arcadia, Charnock, and Olympic subbasins; from another third party water company well owner, for its limited production from its Charnock wellfield up through 1996; and from RCS estimates of groundwater withdrawals for irrigation-supply from private wells located at two known golf courses in Arcadia subbasin. There have never been any active, City-owned, municipal-supply wells in the Coastal or Crestal subbasins and, thus, there are no City withdrawal data for these two subbasins.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-31-
Table 2 presents data for the period of 1988 through 2017 hydrologic baseline period and shows the following:
a) The Arcadia wellfield has historically been the least productive of the three existing City wellfields. Minimum and maximum annual groundwater production at this wellfield has ranged from 0 AF for at least 4 years (1997 through 1999) to 714 AF in 2014. The average annual groundwater production by active wells at this wellfield was approximately 440 AFY during the 30-year baseline period. By way of comparison, groundwater extracted for the recent five year period between 2013 and 2017, the average was 635 AFY at that wellfield.
b) The Charnock wellfield continues be the most productive of the City’s three wellfields. Minimum and maximum groundwater withdrawals have been: 0 AFY in the 13-year period 1997-2009, inclusive, which was caused by problems relating to third party groundwater contamination at and near this wellfield; and 8,377 AF in 2014. For the 30 years of data on Table 2, discounting the 13 years when the entire wellfield was purposely shut down, the long-term average annual withdrawal was approximately 6,290 AF. However, given the fact that various wells are known to have had mechanical and/or regulatory limitations that have affected wellfield production, it is likely that the estimated sustainable production rate for the wellfield has been previously underestimated, especially when estimates of basinwide recharge are considered. For the five year period between 2013 and 2107 the average withdrawal was 8,048 AFY. In further recognition of this supposition, the City is exploring the acquisition of an existing but currently unused water-supply well on an adjacent property owned by a third party. That “new” well would likely increase overall production by the City from the Charnock wellfield region by 1,450 to 1610 AFY.
c) The Olympic wellfield represents the second most productive of the three City’s existing wellfields. As seen on Table 2, the minimum annual groundwater production from this wellfield was 385 AF in 2004, whereas its largest annual production volume was 3,176 AF in 1995. The average annual production from this wellfield during the 30-year baseline period was 1,860 AF. Like the Charnock wellfield, the Olympic wellfield has also experienced periods of mechanical problems and regulatory limitations related to is overall annual production rates and volumes, and thus when the estimates of basin inflow are considered, the sustainable production capacity of this wellfield is likely greater than the current annual average extraction value.

Examples of operational limitations include restricted production in 2003-2004 due to nearby leaking underground fuel storage tanks, and well casing problems in SM-3 that required a new liner to be installed. This casing liner had the effect of significantly reducing the amount of water that could be pumped from this well.

Recently the City has constructed a new well (SM-8) that is believed to be capable of producing approximately 970 AFY of additional water. The City also plans to replace the deficient SM-3 well. That new well, when completed later this year, is anticipated to be capable of producing approximately 750 gpm, or ±1,200 AFY. Lastly, when properly permitted, highly-treated water from the SWIP can be artificially recharged into the aquifer systems near SM-8; the overall production from that well and available groundwater yield from this wellfield should increase.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-32-
The total groundwater withdrawals from the three subbasins in which the City has had its active wells has ranged approximately from 522 AF in 2004, to 11,001 AF in 2016. The average annual production during the 30-year baseline period has been on the order of 8,590 AFY for all City-owned wells. This average production includes only those years in which pumping was performed by the City from the three subbasins, which eliminates the 4 years of non-pumping conditions in the Arcadia subbasin (from 1997 through 2000), and the 13 years of non-pumping conditions from the Charnock subbasin (from 1997 through 2008). As noted above, it does not consider documented mechanical or regulatory limitations that may have adversely affected production rates; see Table 2.

It should be noted that a few City wells, namely Arcadia Nos. 4 and 5, Santa Monica No. 3, and Charnock No. 13, reportedly had wire-wrapped steel liners installed inside the original well casing at some time after the original construction of the well. Such casing liners are needed when, for example, the original well begins to pump sand. The typical impact of these liners on each well is to reduce the overall specific capacity of the wells, thereby increasing the amount of drawdown in the well and/or limiting the ability of the wells to pump at its former rates.

However, it does not necessarily limit the ability of the wells to produce the same volume of water prior to liner installation, because the same water volume can be pumped if the newlylined well pumps for a longer duration, but at its lower rate. As noted elsewhere herein, the City has plans to replace SM-3 with a new well in the future.

Groundwater Withdrawals by Others
The only other existing groundwater withdrawals that currently occur in the SMGB subbasins are from one privately-owned residential irrigation well, and irrigation wells at three golf courses, namely the Brentwood Country Club (BCC), the Riviera Country Club (RCC), and the Los Angeles Country Club (LACC). Because the three golf courses lie mainly within the City of Los Angeles, it can be assumed that Los Angeles provides potable water for all domestic needs at those golf courses. Thus, the onsite water wells at each golf course are assumed herein to provide sufficient groundwater to meet the entire annual irrigation demands of each golf club (i.e., none of the water supplied by the City of Los Angeles is assumed to be used for irrigationsupply). Two other golf courses exist in the SMGB, the Bel Air Country Club and the Penmar Country Club. However, neither of these courses reportedly has any existing onsite watersupply wells at this time.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-33-
Historically, there have been other wells that were known to have formerly been used to extract groundwater for municipal-supply from the SMGB. These wells are owned by a third party and were reported to include the following:
 Wells at that third party’s Charnock wellfield in the Charnock subbasin; the last wells in this wellfield were shut down at the end of 1996 due to the presence of MTBE contamination in the groundwater being pumped by the City’s Charnock wells located to the northeast. In the last two years of active use, those remaining third party-owned Charnock wells pumped a total of approximately 570 AFY. This average value has been listed in Table 2 for each of the years in which these wells were reportedly pumping during the baseline period. One of these wells, Charnock No. 10, reportedly had a pumping capacity of 900 to 1,000 gpm (1,450- 1,610 AFY).  A few wells at its Sepulveda Plant in the Charnock subbasin, which terminated production in ±1960, and hence, this production precedes the onset of our 30-year baseline period.
 A few wells at its Manning Plant in the Crestal subbasin, but these wells were all destroyed during the construction of the I-10 Freeway, which pre-dates the baseline period being studied for this updated project.
 Data are sparse, but reportedly only a limited number of wells existed at its former Pacific Plant, Lincoln Plant, PenMar Plant, and Zanja Plant, all of which were in the Coastal subbasin. These wells and wellfields no longer exist and, although the date of the most recent production by any of these wells is unknown, it is highly likely that none were active at any time during the baseline study period for this project.

Actual groundwater production data from the wells at the known golf courses are not available to the City for this study. To assess the magnitude of the groundwater extractions at the golf courses listed above, RCS used computer methods and Google Earth® imagery and estimated that the total irrigated areas of turf on those “local” golf courses are on the order of 105 acres for the BCC golf course, 125 acres for the RCC golf course, and 170 acres at LACC (note, there are two, 18-hole courses at this latter country club). Further, in coastal areas of southern California, it is reasonable to assume that each acre of golf course turf requires on the order of

2.5 AF of water for irrigation each year.

Furthermore, the amount of groundwater pumped on an annual basis by the known small diameter irrigation well located at the residence along San Vicente Blvd. However, using the above estimate for the golf courses, and estimating an irrigated acreage of slightly greater than one acre on this residential lot, then it is estimated that a maximum of about 2 AF of water per year would likely be pumped by that privately-owned residential well. This annual volume is

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-34-
considered by RCS to be insignificant for this update of the sustainable yield analysis and will not be considered further herein.

Based on the assumptions above, and the above-approximated irrigated acreages and unit irrigation demands for typical coastal-area golf courses in southern California, the assumed total annual irrigation demands supplied by groundwater pumped by wells at those three golf courses could be as follows: 260 AFY for BCC; 310 AFY for RCC; and 450 AFY for LACC (note that these values assume that any/all golf course wells at those golf courses have been in active use throughout the entire 30-year baseline period being used herein). Thus, private groundwater withdrawals by others for irrigation-supply in the Arcadia subbasin would total ±570 AFY (for the BCC and RCC), whereas those in the Crestal subbasin would be ±450 AFY (as noted above, LACC has two, 18-hole golf courses on its property). It is not known whether UCLA and/or the Veterans Administration facilities, which are also in the Crestal subbasin area, have any active water-supply wells at this time.

WATER LEVELS
Water Level Hydrographs
Graphs of water levels versus time were used to help discern trends in SWLs over time in City water-supply wells within SMGB. Thus, these hydrographs were used to determine in which portions of the subbasins where the City has active wells, water levels are rising or declining over time and which areas of those subbasins may be more influenced directly by rainfall recharge. Figures 10A through 10C provide graphs of water levels versus time (i.e., hydrographs) for the wells with available data in each City wellfield (or subbasin) in which the City has water wells. These hydrographs have been plotted along with the accumulated departure of rainfall for the base period using the Culver City rain gage, to illustrate the possible correlation between changes in water levels and changes in rainfall over time. Recharge as underflow from the adjacent mountain front areas is not included in these estimates but was accounted for in the estimates of sustainable yield, via changes in water levels. In addition, the same horizontal and vertical scales have been used for each graph to show comparative differences between the hydrographs, which had to be expanded due to the limited amplitude of water level fluctuations in the wells in the subbasin over time. For this current study, historic SWL data from the previous RCS (2013) report were updated with more recently obtained data, updated through 2017 for City wells, as provided by City staff. It should be noted that there are

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-35-
likely some inherent discrepancies in the accuracy of the SWL data reported over the 30 year baseline period, as the method of collecting data in the field can and often does vary over time.

Therefore, the use of hydrographs from these wellfields for estimating sustainable yield likely result in estimates that are conservatively low. Review of the hydrographs reveals the following:
o Arcadia Wellfield/Subbasin. Water level data are available for five City wells in the Arcadia subbasin. These wells include the three Arcadia wells (Nos. 2, 4, and 5; Well No. 2 has been destroyed, and only Well Nos. 4 and 5 are active) and two Santa Monica wells (Nos. 1 and 5). Updated SWLs were available only for Santa Monica Well Nos. 1 and 5 (through December 2017) and Arcadia Well No. 4 (through March 2017). Review of Figure 10A, “Arcadia Wellfield/Subbasin Hydrographs,” shows that the three Arcadia wells all have similar water level depths and similar water level trends over time. Most SWLs in these three wells over their respective periods of record were typically at depths in the range of 10 ft to ±60 ft bgs; a few water levels for these wells are anomalously deep and are likely pumping water levels.

In comparison, for Santa Monica Well Nos. 1 and 5, even though their water levels are similar, the water level depths in these two wells differ considerably from those in the Arcadia wells. Specifically, during their respective periods of available data, SWL depths in Santa Monica Well Nos. 1 and 5 were typically at depths in the range of 90 ft to ±140 ft bgs (not including the anomalously deep wells). Generally, Santa Monica Well Nos. 1 and 5 are located west of the City’s Arcadia wellfield (see Figure 3) and have slightly different hydrogeologic conditions.

Relative to the accumulated departure of rainfall curve for the Culver City rain gage on Figure 10A, a clear correspondence between patterns in SWLs and rainfall is difficult to discern in the Arcadia wellfield wells. This may be due to the possibility that pumping water levels (or even non-representative SWLs taken shortly following shutdown of the pump in the wells) have been recorded as SWL data, and/or that it is difficult to obtain accurate SWLs in any of these wells because wells in this wellfield are closely spaced, thereby inducing water level drawdown interference on one another when pumping. However, where there are relatively consistent SWL data (such as in 1943 through 1950), then a trend can be seen to emerge: the SWLs in the Arcadia wells appear to be acting in concert with the accumulated departure of rainfall curve within that period. However, the water level data for Santa Monica Well No. 5 reveal a much greater degree of agreement with the accumulated rainfall departure curve on Figure 10A. That is, yearly changes in its SWLs appear to be mimicking changing rainfall trends.

Also notable on the Figure 10A hydrograph for the Arcadia wells is that none of the SWLs over time attain a depth that is shallower than about ±5 to 7 ft bgs, regardless of the amount of antecedent rainfall. This suggests that these water levels represent a “spill point” for Arcadia subbasin at/near this wellfield. That is, once water levels rise to this depth, the groundwater may “spill” over the nearby fault and into the adjacent Olympic subbasin to the south.
o Charnock Wellfield/Subbasin. Figure 10B, “Charnock Wellfield/Subbasin Hydrographs,” illustrates the water level data for seven City wells in this wellfield (see

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-36-
Table 1 for construction data for the five currently-active wells in this wellfield); note, over the years, at least 20 wells have been constructed for the City at this wellfield, which lies west of Sawtelle Blvd in the City of Los Angeles (refer to Figure 3B for well locations). Because the City’s Charnock wells tend to have similar depths and similar perforated intervals, and are located very near one another, their water level depths and trends over time are, as expected, seen to be similar on Figure 10B.

Notably, Well No. 7 has the longest period of available water level data of any well shown on Figure 10B. Based on the operational use of this wellfield, and on a review of the Charnock hydrographs on Figure 10B, the following are noted:
a. Many of the water level data prior to the mid-1990s may be considered as being impacted by a wellfield pumping depression. That is, the various wells, when actively pumping, would tend to create water level drawdown interference on those wellfield wells that were not pumping at the time; hence, a monitored water level in a non-pumping well would tend to be lower than a true static level.
b. During the period of the wellfield shutdown from the mid-1990s through ±2010, water levels in all the wells showed a long-term and continuous period of rise; this water level trend also matched a concomitant period of increased rainfall (a “wet” period).
c. Once pumping in the wellfield resumed in ±2010, wellfield water levels exhibited a rapid and relatively steep decline. This decline also was consistent with the ongoing drought (as reduced recharge in direct local precipitation) in southern California at this same time.

It is apparent on Figure 10B that the water level in the Charnock wellfield show some response to changes in rainfall. For example, water levels for Well No. 7 between 1937 and 1955 appear to show general correspondence to rises and declines in the accumulated departure of rainfall curve for the Culver City rain gage. However, starting in 1955, and continuing until 1975, measured water levels appear to decline whereas the accumulated departure of rainfall shows increasing rainfall conditions.

This anomaly may be explained by changes in wellfield operations that may have affected pumping water levels (e.g., increased production rates, or recording pumping water levels as SWLs). Between 1970 and 1995 the data are inconsistent and lacking (possibly again due to vagaries in pumping rates and individual wells potentially interfering with one another when pumping). However, in 1996 the water level data for most of the wells become consistent, and all show a slow and continuous rise over time. This phenomenon is basically a long-term record for the recovery of all water levels in this entire wellfield, because these wells were all inactive from ±1996 through ±2010, due to third party MTBE contamination within/near the City’s Charnock wellfield. This unified response is likely the only true record of static water levels for the wellfield and suggests that the other slight deviations from matching the accumulated departure curve could be the result of various wellfield operation activities and the monitoring of water levels that may not have been true static water levels because they could have been impacted by nearby pumping. Further supporting this hypothesis is the fact that since the pumps in the seven active wells were turned back on in ±2011, water levels in those wells have generally declined rapidly, and in unison.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-37-
o Olympic Wellfield/Subbasin. Historically there have been three City wells in this wellfield (Santa Monica Well Nos. 3, 4, and 7); each of these wells is located within a median along Olympic Blvd (see Figure 3B). Two of these, Santa Monica Well Nos. 3 and 4, are currently active. In April 2018, construction of a new well for the City was completed. This new well (SM-8) will serve as a replacement for well SM-7, which was recently destroyed. New SM-8 has yet to be provided with a permanent pump, but once permitted, it is expected to produce around 600 gpm.

Figure 10C, “Olympic Wellfield/Subbasin Hydrographs”, graphically depicts the available water level data for the three historic wells over time. The data indicate that the water levels from the three wells have had similar depths and trends over time. SM-7, which has been out of production since 1989 except for a few brief periods of pumping, was destroyed in 2018. Prior to that, it was used for static water level monitoring. At least some of the water level data from SM-3 and SM-4 could be considered water levels that have been impacted by nearby pumping. Water level data from SM-7 has tended to exhibit slightly deeper water levels than those in the other two wells. This could be because SM-7 is located down gradient from SM-3 and SM-4 and thus pumping at these two wells may be acting to dampen the water level response measured in the former SM-7. In other words, inflow in to the subbasin is possibly being diverted into the two producing wells before it reaches SM-7. Comparing the SWLs to the accumulated departure of rainfall for the Culver City rain gage for the period 1979 through 2017 for the wells shows that the data generally correspond, but there is a noticeable amount of offset (i.e., a delay) between changes in rainfall and a corresponding change in SWLs. For example, the accumulated departure of rainfall curve indicates rising rainfall totals started in 1992 and continued until 1998. However, a rise in water level in these wells does not commence until around 1996. Thus, there appears to be a three- to four-year lag between changes in rainfall and changes in water levels However, this may be attributed to the fact there was an increase in production levels at the Olympic wellfield beginning around 1993 and continuing through much of this period.

Complicating this analysis is the down gradient location of SM-7 from SM-3 and SM4 and overall proximity of the wells to one another, two of which were producing continuously for more or less the entire 30-year base line period. o Coastal Subbasin. There are five existing wells in this subbasin; three of these are inactive, and the remaining two are groundwater monitoring wells. Two of these inactive wells, Saltwater Well Nos. 1 and 2, are located near Santa Monica Beach near the west terminus of Pico Blvd. Saltwater Well Nos. 1 and 2 formerly produced brine for a former treatment system at the City’s Arcadia Water Treatment facility, but they are no longer used. The third well, Airport Well No. 1, was successfully constructed as a municipal-supply well in April 2018, but it has yet to be equipped with a permanent pump. This well is expected to produce around 300 gpm when it is permitted for production. The City has plans to construct at least two other watersupply wells in the future at the Santa Monica Airport.

The two groundwater monitoring wells include the Marine Park well, which is located near the PGC at Marine Park, and the newly-constructed Colorado Yard No.1 well, which was completed in November 2017. Except for the Airport Well No. 1 watersupply well and the Colorado Yard monitoring well, the older wells are not

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-38-
representative of subbasin aquifer conditions, including usage for water level monitoring because they are either too shallow, or in the case of the Salt Water wells, they are too close to the beach, and therefore potentially subject to tidal influences.

Water Level Hydrographs – “Key” Well Concept
In comparing the water level data in the wells to the baseline period and, ultimately, to estimate the amount of change in storage in the subbasins for which data are available, RCS did not need to use water level data for every City well, especially when such wells are located proximal to each other in the three respective City wellfields. For example, there are several City wells at the Charnock wellfield, all of which are perforated within the same aquifer systems and to similar depths. As such, only one key well needed to be selected to be representative for this individual wellfield. Measured water level data for this key well reflects water level changes that are similar to those in other adjacent wells. To the extent possible, the selected key well also had the longest and most complete period of record for the baseline period, in comparison to the other wells in the same wellfield.

Figures 11A through 11C (in Appendix 1) provide graphs of the available water level data versus time for “key” selected City wells in those groundwater subbasins of the SMGB, for which data are available for City wells, for the 1988 through 2017 hydrologic baseline period. These key wells were selected as being representative of changes in water levels over their period of record and this selection was based on their geographic location, on the completeness of their measured water level record, and on the length of their perforated intervals (that is, wells with the longest length of perforation intervals would obtain their supply from multiple aquifer systems).

Further, a schematic diagram of each selected “key” well is included on its respective figure (Figures 11A through 11C) to illustrate the casing depth and the depths of the perforation intervals in those wells (if the requisite casing data were available), in relation to the historical water level data. The recorded water levels have been plotted based on their measured depth from a base reference point (brp), which is assumed to be approximately at ground surface for each well.

Arcadia Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph
Figure 11A, “Key Well Hydrograph, Santa Monica Well No. 5”, is a hydrograph of this key City well to show SWLs vs time for the 30-year baseline period (located in the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-39-
central portion of the Arcadia subbasin, in the northern portion of the City). Data from this well, which was selected as being representative of changes in static water levels in the Arcadia subbasin, have been plotted along with the accumulated departure of rainfall for the Culver City rain gage (as adapted from Figure 9) for comparative purposes. Note that the accumulative departure for each year represents the entire span for that year, and not just the point on which the curve falls. Thus, for example, the accumulated departure value for 2017 is based on the rainfall total through the end of that year.

Figure 11A reveals the following:
o The response of the measured water levels to increases in rainfall is illustrated by the successive “up & down” patterns (i.e., rises and declines), noted by the sawtooth pattern in water levels for Santa Monica Well No. 5. On an annual basis, groundwater levels tend to be shallower in the early part of the year and deeper near the end of each year. This graph illustrates that the response between changes in rainfall is immediate and that changes in rainfall recharge and changes in water levels have been relatively rapid; Figure 4 shows the well is located near a stream, and the well has relatively shallow perforations (145 to 235 ft bgs). Thus, the nature of the water level responses could indicate that this well contains at least part of its perforations within a shallow, unconfined (water table) aquifer system that is responding to seasonal runoff in the stream bed that is percolating into the subsurface. Also, of interest is that the water levels in this well has never risen above a depth of ±108 ft bgs during its period of record, regardless of the trend in the rainfall departure curve. o In evaluating the total change in SWLs (represented by the symbol ΔS on the graph) during the baseline period, then the difference in the water levels between the beginning and the end of the 30-year baseline period can be defined. This difference amounts to approximately -8 ft on the graph; this represents an overall decline in the measured water levels between the beginning and the end of the baseline period. This calculation and its significance are discussed in greater detail in the section below titled “Subunit/Subbasin Changes in Groundwater in Storage Calculations”.

Charnock Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph
For this subbasin, there was only one well, namely Charnock Well No. 16, which had adequate available historic data to permit an evaluation of the water levels for the baseline period; the resulting data are shown in Figure 11B, “Key Well Hydrograph for Charnock Well No. 16 & No. 20.” Note that nearly all the plotted water level data on the figure are for Well No. 16, except for data from 2016- 2017, which includes data from the adjacent well No. 20. Review of Figure 11B reveals the following:

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-40-
o Notable on this figure is the existence of the long-term and continuous rise in water levels in this well that occurred between mid-1996 and late-2010. This is the time during which the City’s entire Charnock wellfield was shut down due to contamination of local groundwater by a third party and it is likely the only period during which actual static water levels were recorded. This continuous rise in water levels represents a long-term water level recovery period for this subbasin.

However, starting in late-2010, and after construction of the treatment plant for this wellfield had been completed and pumping of the active wellfield had resumed, water levels once again began to experience a steep and rapid decline (to depths of 155 to 156 ft brp) by late-2016. This result is likely due to the resumption of wellfield pumping involving numerous wells located very near one another.
o The wellfield start-up happened to coincide with a marked decline in precipitation for several subsequent years. This same relationship, a decline in precipitation and measured water levels, for the period starting in late-2010 and continuing until late-2016 is also seen on Figures 11A (Arcadia wellfield) and 11C (Olympic wellfield).

Thus, it appears that water level responses in the various subbasins are potentially affected by pumping wells that are sited very near one another, and that the observed water level changes are prone to the vagaries of water level recording methodology and how frequent actual SWL measurements versus pumping water levels were and are being collected.
o The total change in water levels during the baseline period at this Charnock well, represented by the symbol ΔS which is the difference in measured water levels (combination of pumping and static) at the beginning and the end of that period, amounts to +12 ft; this represents a water level rise between the beginning and the end of the baseline period. This significance of this calculation, which because of the admixture of water levels types may be conservative, is discussed in greater detail in the section below titled “Subunit/Subbasin Changes in Groundwater in Storage Calculations Olympic Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph.”
Olympic Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph
There are only three City wells in this subbasin for which there are available water level data. Those data for Santa Monica Well No. 7 are considered to be more representative than the other two wells as an indicator of SWL changes in this subbasin for the baseline period because the well was not pumped for an extended time, making the collection of actual static water levels possible. However potentially countervailing this benefit, SM-7 was in proximity and down gradient from two active pumping wells in the subbasin (SM-3 and SM-4). The location of this well raises the possibility that water level records may be conservatively low, as the upgradient production wells may have influenced local water levels. Figure 11C, “Key Well Hydrograph for Santa Monica Well No. 7,” illustrates the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-41-
water level changes. From roughly 1993 until ±2017, SWLs in SM-7 have generally responded to longer-term trends in the accumulated rainfall departure curve for the Culver City rain gage (see Figure 11C), even though shorter-term changes cannot be discerned as readily. Additional review of the figure indicated the following:
o There are a few periods for which SWLs appear “depressed” (in the years 1988 to 1989 and late-1994 to early-1998), as shown by the symbol “P,” indicating that these specific “SWLs” may have been measured during actual pumping of the well, or that they were heavily influenced by recent pumping of the well (such as a measurement taken shortly after pump shutdown). Thus, it is difficult to determine an actual SWL that was not influenced by pumping. Nonetheless, if we take the point in mid-1995 as representing a “representative” deep SWL, then total water level change has amounted to 45 ft. In addition, the SWLs could have also been influenced by pumping of nearby Santa Monica Well Nos. 3 and 4, located east of Santa Monica Well No. 7. Note also on Figure 11C that SWL depths in Well No. 7 have never declined to the depth to its uppermost perforations during the baseline period.
o The SWLs in Well No. 7 also appear to show responses of the SWLs to longerterm changes in rainfall, even though it is difficult to discern shorter term changes like those for Santa Monica Well No. 5 in the Arcadia subbasin. This fact is particularly noticeable after 2010, when both rainfall and SWLs show a declining trend through to the end of the baseline period. However, correlation of SWLs to trends in rainfall is not well-defined prior to that date. Further complicating this analysis is the fact that mapping of the geology in the Olympic wellfield indicates the possibility of faulting in the subsurface which, if confirmed, could act as a barrier to block or delay some natural recharge from upgradient areas. o The total change in water levels in this well during the baseline period (symbol ΔS), is noted to be -30 ft, representing a decline in water levels between the beginning and the end of the baseline period. The significance of this calculation is discussed in greater detail in the section below titled “Subunit/Subbasin Changes in Groundwater in Storage Calculations”. It should be noted that the operational limitations discussed in this section, such as pumping wells being located in proximity to each other may have resulted in increasing the amount of water level change over time, which in turn would result in a conservative estimate of sustainable yield.

Coastal Subbasin Key Well Hydrographs
There are no active City water-supply (production) wells within the Coastal subbasin, although the City does own two local water level observation wells near the beach: Salt Water Well Nos. 1 and 2. However, these two wells are not useful because the tidal changes from the nearby ocean appear to be the principal cause of changes in SWLs in these wells, and because they are too shallow to provide useful information for estimating sustainable yield of this subbasin.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-42-
Notably, the City has recently constructed two new production wells in this subbasin.

One such new well, City Hall Well No. 1, can produce at rates ranging from 8-10 gpm and was constructed to be used solely meet the limited water demands at the new City Services Building in the future. Specifically, this new well is for use by a special City sustainable building project, which reportedly will require only approximately 10,000 gallons/day. City Hall Well No. 1 is very shallow and was cased to a depth of only 160 ft bgs, with perforations being placed continuously between 60 and 160 ft bgs (see Table 1). Because this well is new, there are clearly no long-term SWL data for this well.

Hence, SWL data from this well have very limited use regarding determination of ΔS for this subbasin. However, useful hydrogeologic data were obtained during the drilling, construction, and testing of this new City well. That is, the borehole for this well was drilled to a depth of approximately 652 ft bgs, and the new electric logs indicate that in addition to the two water-bearing zones that were perforated in this shallow well, there was another deeper, potentially water-bearing zone at a depth of approximately 280 ft to 300 ft bgs. The base of fresh water in this area was identified on the new electric logs to be at a depth of approximately 540 ft bgs.

The second new production well in this subbasin, Airport Well No. 1, was drilled and constructed to a depth of 610 ft bgs in April 2018; this well has perforations set between the depths of 190 and 590 ft bgs (see Table 1). When tested, this well produced water at a sustained pumping rate of 300 gpm. The City is also planning to construct two additional wells in the Airport area, and it is anticipated that each of these two wells could also be able to produce water at a rate of ±300 gpm. The results of the pumping from new Airport Well No. 1 will be extrapolated to the two proposed wells and the combined flows from the three wells will be used later in this report to provide an initial estimate of the sustainable yield of this groundwater subbasin.

Crestal Subbasin Key Well Hydrograph
Currently, there are no readily available data on water levels for water-supply wells or groundwater monitoring wells within this subbasin. Thus, trends and/or changes in SWLs cannot be determined at this time; and, hence, there is no calculation herein for the ΔS in this subbasin.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-43-

GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE
Storage Subunits and Parameters
The locations and alignments of several faults in the SMGB, as mentioned in various geologic publications and in the RCS (February 2013) report, were originally used by others (such as MWD, 2007) to subdivide this groundwater basin into the five distinct subbasins. The faults may or may not comprise barriers to groundwater flow. If these faults do define complete barriers, groundwater could be discretely contained and/or compartmentalized within each subbasin. As such, each of the five subbasins could conceivably comprise its own groundwater subunit. .

Recent studies conducted by the City by ICF (2018) and Earth Consultants International (ECI, 2017) to assess natural recharge into the SMGB have found that recharge from mountain-front areas adjacent to the SMGB are a significant source of subsurface inflow. Further, a preliminary DInSAR study conducted by ECI suggests that inflow from mountain-front areas outside of the SMGB may also be occurring under certain conditions. These hypotheses are being tested in a supplemental DInSAR study that is currently underway. Together, these studies have begun to provide a basic understanding of how the individual subbasins are being recharged, how they may be interacting, and what might be better approaches for sustainable and adaptive management of these important groundwater resources.

Boundaries of the City of Santa Monica overlie portions of the Arcadia, Olympic and Coastal subbasins; City limits do not overlie any portion of the Charnock or Crestal subbasins (indeed, the City’s Charnock and Arcadia wellfields lie outside the City boundaries and within those of the City of Los Angeles). However, because the City does derive a part of its supply from its Charnock wellfield, the groundwater in storage has also been defined for this subbasin. The Crestal subbasin was not evaluated at this time because the City has never, and does not currently, obtain any of its groundwater supply from this subbasin.

To assess the volume (amount) of groundwater in storage in the subbasins, the following data are needed:
o Groundwater Storage Subunits: The surface area of each of these subunits should be defined where hydrogeologic/hydrologic boundaries do or are considered to occur. Such boundaries may consist of: boundary faults (especially if these faults are barriers to groundwater flow); streams or creeks that occur along the edges of the basin and that may form a divide; and where bedrock/basement rocks meet alluvial sediments. In addition, where applicable, it is conservatively assumed (to help preclude seawater intrusion) that the western boundary of these subbasins generally occurs in a buffer zone between the coast and Lincoln Blvd. Data from the City Hall

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-44-
No.1 well where the base of fresh water was encountered below a depth of 500 ft indicates that salt water intrusion has not occurred in this buffer zone Thus, the groundwater storage subunits defined for this study were considered to represent the specific regions (i.e., the usable areas) where groundwater could potentially be available to current and future City water-supply wells. In this current report, the locations and names of the usable groundwater storage subunits are shown in Figure 12, “Usable Areas of Groundwater Storage Subunits.” o Saturated Thickness: This is a time-dependent value and is based on the depth to SWLs (for a specific period) and on the actual depth to the base of fresh water and/or the depth of the base of the water-bearing aquifer systems in the local subbasin. The thickness of the water-bearing sediments herein is generally based upon geologic cross sections which show the approximate base of fresh water, as noted in the RCS report (2013). Calculations of the saturated thickness were based on water level conditions during the baseline period. Thus, the calculation of the volume of groundwater in storage is valid for any one point in time, because the amount of groundwater in storage changes with either rising or declining water levels; i.e., groundwater in storage must be recognized as a time-dependent variable in a groundwater subbasin/basin.
o Specific Yield: This quantity is generally defined as the percentage of groundwater in the void spaces (i.e., in the pore space) within the potentially water-bearing sediments that will drain by gravity toward a well. Specific yield is primarily dependent upon the characteristic type of the earth materials in a subbasin. For example, clay or clayey sands tend to have a much lower specific yield (ranging from 2 to 7%) compared to that for gravelly sands (often 20% to 25%).

Calculation of Groundwater in Storage
The calculation of the theoretical volume of groundwater in storage (Sgw) was performed by RCS (February and March 2013) using the following formula:

Sgw = (A) (b) (Sy), where:

A = The surface area of each subunit considered, in units of square miles (sq mi), which is equal to the approximate width of the surface area times the approximate length of the surface area. In the case of this current study, each subunit was considered as being that region of the subbasin from which groundwater could be available to existing or future City wells. The units of surface area had to be converted from square miles to acres for the final calculation. The surface areas used for each of the subbasins are shown on Figure 12.
b = The saturated thickness of potentially water-bearing sediments, in units of feet. The fault boundaries (by others) between the various subbasins/subunits have been assumed herein to be vertical planes. In this study, because RCS is not calculating the total amount of groundwater in storage, but only the change in storage in each subbasin (with requisite data) over the baseline period, then this quantity is replaced by the change in water levels, or ΔS value.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-45-
Sy = The assigned specific yield of the sediments, which was based on our interpretation of the predominant type of sediments as listed on available drillers’ logs for wells constructed in each subbasin.

The above factors determined the amount of groundwater in storage in each subbasin, in units of cubic feet (ft3) of water, and these ft3 values were then converted into acre feet (AF).

SUBUNIT/SUBBASIN CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE CALCULATIONS The following provides the basic calculations for the changes in the amount of groundwater in storage, over the baseline period, in each subbasin for which requisite data are available.

Subbasin boundaries have been adjusted slightly since the RCS (2013) report, regarding calculating the area of usable groundwater in storage. That is, generally, Lincoln Blvd was conservatively selected by RCS to be the westernmost boundary for the available groundwater in storage in the region, whereas the southern boundary was selected to be along Washington Blvd. Figure 12 shows the approximate boundaries of the “usable” groundwater storage subunits delineated for this current study.

The method of determining the amount of change in groundwater in storage used in this evaluation was calculated based on the changes in water levels during the entire 30-year baseline period. However, pumping of the wells in the Arcadia and Charnock Subbasins was not continuous, because the wells were shut down for various extended time periods. In the case of the Arcadia subbasin, pumping at the Arcadia wellfield was shut down for four years whereas for the Charnock subbasin, pumping at the City’s Charnock wellfield was shut down for approximately 13 years. In the Olympic wellfield, pumping from City wells was conducted during the entire 30-year baseline period. There are no current pumping data for the Coastal subbasin, as the City is in the process of permitting its new Airport No. 1 well.

Change in Groundwater Storage
Arcadia Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin
Only a small portion of the City overlies the Arcadia subbasin and five City wells currently extract groundwater from this subbasin. Of these five wells, Santa Monica Well No. 5 was used for the key hydrograph for this subbasin, primarily because this well was not pumped during the hydrologic baseline period and, thus, its data provide a relatively reliable picture of SWL changes in the subbasin. The following discusses the

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-46-
methodology for calculating the amount of change of groundwater in storage for this groundwater subunit/subbasin:
o Area of Subunit: The entire area calculated for this subunit was based on that region of the subbasin that was available to the City for withdrawal of groundwater. The western border of this area is taken along Lincoln Blvd, whereas its northern border is along the front of the Santa Monica Mountains; the usable area of this subunit was measured to be approximately 6.6 sq mi. o Change in Water Levels (ΔS): For this subbasin, the change in the water levels was determined by review of the water level hydrograph for the key City well in the subbasin, namely Santa Monica Well No. 5, for the hydrologic baseline period. This well was representative of the change in SWLs over time in this entire subbasin. The change in groundwater is storage is the difference between the SWL at the beginning of the hydrologic baseline period (in 1988) and the end of the baseline period (end of 2017).

The hydrograph for this well (Figure 11A) indicates that ΔS, the change in water levels over the baseline period for Santa Monica Well No. 5 was on the order of - 8 ft (i.e., SWLs declined by 8 ft over the baseline period). It should be noted that this change is a negative quantity, because SWLs were shallower at the beginning of the period (in 1988), than at the end of 2017. o Specific Yield: As discussed in the RCS (2013) report, the sediments that are perforated in the existing wells in the Arcadia Subbasin were variously described on the available drillers’ logs as ranging from interbedded clay and gravel to finegrained silty sands and gravel to hard sandstone and rock. Based on our rereview of those driller’s logs, Sy values for this subunit were assigned to be on the order of 8% to 12%.
o Table 3, “Preliminary Calculations of Change in Groundwater in Storage During the Baseline Period for the Arcadia, Charnock and Olympic Groundwater Subbasins,” lists the resulting RCS calculations the changes in storage during the baseline period, based on the assumptions and parameter values listed above for the usable area in each subbasin for which adequate data are available and in which the City has or could have its water-supply wells. It should be noted that no values for the change in storage in the Coastal or Crestal Subbasins have been provided because of the lack of data at this time.

Charnock Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin
The Charnock subbasin occurs east of and outside of the City’s boundaries; currently active City wells include Charnock Well Nos. 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20. Of these six wells, Well No. 16 was chosen as the key well hydrograph to represent changing water levels over time, because it had data throughout most of the baseline period (see Figure 11B); recent data points for Well No. 20 were added to that graph, because Well No. 16 did not have any new data after early-2016 (pumping in that well has been continuous), whereas Well No. 20 did have SWL data after that date. Because the two wells are near

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-47-
each other within the same wellfield, then the SWLs for Well No. 20 can be considered representative and, thus, useful for inclusion into the Well No. 16 graph. o Area of Subunit: This groundwater storage subunit, as measured for this current study, has a usable surface area of approximately 3.7 sq mi, based on a southern boundary along Washington Blvd.
o Change in Water Levels (ΔS): Figure 11B, the key well hydrograph for Charnock Well No. 16 and No. 20, shows that at the beginning of the baseline period the SWL was 158 ft bgs, whereas at the end of the baseline period, the SWL was higher at 146 ft bgs. This represents a total change in water levels of ±12 ft, or an increase over the baseline period. o Specific Yield: As mentioned in the RCS (2013) report, the lithology of this subbasin generally consists of interbedded brown clay to sand and gravel and blue clay, sand to hard sand, and fine-grained sand to gravel. Additional review of the driller’s logs for this study suggests that a reasonable range of Sy values is 12% to 18% for this subbasin.

Table 3 shows that the change (in this case an increase as denoted by a positive set of numbers in Table 3) in the groundwater in storage for the 1988 through 2017 hydrologic baseline period for the Charnock Subbasin is on the order of 3,400 to 5,100 AF. For the 30-year baseline period, the average annual increase has been on the order of 120 to 180 AFY.

Olympic Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin
The Olympic subbasin transects the central portion of the City, from the coastline on the west to the Charnock fault on the east. Currently, only two wells, Santa Monica Well Nos. 3 and 4, are used by the City to extract groundwater from the defined groundwater storage subunit within this subbasin; Santa Monica Well No. 7 is used as a water level observation well. For the purposes of this study, the hydrograph for Santa Monica Well No. 7 was selected as the key well to represent changes in water levels over time, because it has a relatively complete and continuous record of water levels. The following summarizes the requisite parameters for this groundwater storage subunit:
o Area of Subunit: The area of this subunit was conservatively estimated, for this current study, to be approximately 3 sq mi; the western boundary was selected at Lincoln Blvd to help preclude seawater intrusion. o Change in Water Levels (ΔS): The Figure 11C hydrograph for Santa Monica Well No. 7 reveals a SWL of 118 ft bgs, in early-1988. However, by the end of the baseline period, the SWL was 148 ft bgs by late-2017. Thus, ΔS amounts to approximately -30 ft in that well for the hydrologic baseline period.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-48-
The negative number reveals a decline in the change in water levels across this subbasin during the baseline period.
o Specific Yield: Based on additional review of the driller’s logs for wells in this subbasin, average Sy values were considered to range from 10% to 15%.

Table 3 shows that the change (decline) in the groundwater in storage for the 1988 through 2017 hydrologic baseline period for the Olympic subbasin shows 5,900 to 8,800 AF. For the 30-year baseline period, the average annual decline has been on the order of 200 to 300 AFY.

Coastal Groundwater Storage Subunit/Subbasin
Based on the results of the drilling and construction of municipal-supply Airport Well No. 1 and a new groundwater monitoring well at the City’s Colorado Yard, it appears that the Coastal subbasin can support production wells. Based on pumping tests of Airport Well No. 1, pumping rates are likely to be on the order of ±300 gpm. The City has plans for two additional water-supply wells within the Santa Monica Airport in this subbasin.

Sustainable yield estimates for the Coastal subbasin are very preliminary because of the lack of long-term SWL data. Future pumping from this subbasin will provide the data needed to refine the potential range of sustainable yield for this subbasin. At this time the results of pumping tests conducted at the end of the construction of the Airport Well No. 1 have been used and extrapolated to the two additionally-planned City wells; the combined value for the three wells could be used as a conservative baseline value for the sustainable yield of this subbasin, until long-term SWL data become available and can be evaluated.

The City has a new, successfully-constructed well, Airport Well No. 1 that pumped at a sustained rate of 300 gpm during its recent constant rate pumping test. Below are preliminary estimates of the various hydrogeologic parameters for this subbasin.

Regardless, long-term water level and pumpage data will still need to be obtained to calculate the changes in storage in this subbasin over time. As this will require additional years of pumpage and water level monitoring, and should a future well ever be constructed at any of the three exploratory borehole sites, then other methods will likely be needed to provide an estimate of the sustainable yield of this subbasin. The current hydrogeologic parameters of the Coastal subbasin are as follows:

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-49-
o Area of Subunit: The area measured for the usable portion of the Coastal subbasin, from Lincoln Blvd on the west and along the edge of the wetlands for Ballona Creek, was determined to be approximately 7.1 sq mi. It should also be noted that the recent well drilled and constructed at City Hall within this subbasin demonstrated that the usable area for fresh water occurrence could possibly be extended south of Lincoln Boulevard to an east-west line perhaps marked by 4th Street. If this modification were to be included, it would add approximately 700 acres (about 1.1 square miles) to the overall usable area of the subbasin (for a total of 8.2 sq mi).
o Saturated Thickness: A maximum thickness of the potentially water-bearing sediments is estimated to be approximately 460 ft in this subbasin. o Change in Storage: Due to a lack of available water level data, a ΔS value cannot be determined at this time for the Coastal subbasin. o Specific Yield: A range of average Sy values of 12 to 16% has been preliminarily assigned to the earth materials in this subbasin, based on our review of drill cuttings and geophysical logs from the recent drilling of Airport Well No. 1.

Currently, a change in groundwater storage cannot be calculated for the Coastal subbasin, as there are no long-term SWL or associated groundwater extraction data.

When several years of groundwater extraction data become available and can be reconciled with changes in SWLs, then the changes in groundwater in storage over a specific baseline period may be preliminarily estimated for this Coastal subbasin. An analysis of this remains for a future update of this current report.

PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE (PERENNIAL) YIELDS As previously mentioned, sustainable yield is essentially analogous to perennial yield, and it is a dynamic value, which can change under varying conditions of annual pumping and trends in natural recharge over time. Thus, if sufficient groundwater withdrawal data and SWL data are available, then the sustainable yield for each subbasin with requisite data can be determined in the following manner:
(1) Selecting a baseline hydrologic period.
(2) Determining the average annual volume of groundwater extracted by the City (and any known, privately-owned wells) during the baseline period. (3) Computing the difference between the volume of groundwater in storage at the beginning and at the end of the baseline period.
(4) Determining the average annual change of groundwater in storage from (3) above. (5) Computing the algebraic sum of the average annual change of groundwater in storage and the average volume of annual groundwater withdrawals by known water wells.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-50-
Table 4, “Updated Preliminary Calculations of Sustainable Yield, Three Santa Monica Subbasins,” provides the calculated values for sustainable yield, based on the available data for the entire 30-year baseline period. These data show that sustainable yield values determined based on the entire baseline period range from as low as 870 AFY for the Arcadia subbasin, to as high as 6,470 AFY for the Charnock subbasin (note that these values have been rounded to the nearest 10 AF).

A preliminary sustainable yield value for the Coastal subbasin can be roughly estimated, based on the results of pumping of the recently-constructed Airport Well No. 1 (April 2018). During its final pumping tests, this well was pumped at a rate of 300 gpm. If the well were to continue to produce at that rate on a year-round basis (i.e., a 100% operational pumping basis), the total production from that one well would amount to 483 AFY. Extrapolating this to two additional City wells that are in the planning stages for the Coastal subbasin, then the total that might be produced from all three wells could be on the order of 1,450 AFY. Currently, if the assumption is made that the Coastal subbasin were to be able to sustainably support the pumping of these three new wells, without adversely impacting local SWLs over time, then this value could potentially be used as the preliminary sustainable yield of this subbasin at this time. However, it is cautioned that due to the complete lack of supporting data (such as long-term changes in SWLs and, thus, a calculated value for the change in groundwater storage over a specific time period), then any future calculated sustainable yield value for the Coastal subbasin could be either higher or lower than this newly-estimated value. A possible range for the preliminary sustainable yield for the Coastal subbasin currently is 1,160 to 1,450 AFY.

DISCUSSION OF HISTORICAL VALUES BY OTHERS
Comparison of Sustainable Yield Values
Table 5, “Comparison of Calculated Sustainable Yield Values, Santa Monica Subbasins,” tabulates and compares the updated results of this study to the results of previous studies conducted by RCS (2013) and others. The table shows the comparison of the sustainable yields as follows:
o Arcadia subbasin: 870 to 920 AFY vs a previously-estimated value of 2,000 AFY by others.
o Charnock subbasin: 6,410 to 6,470 AFY vs the previously-determined values of 4,420 to 8,200 AFY by others.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-51-
o Olympic subbasin: 1,560 to 1,660 AFY, vs the previous value of 3,275 AFY estimated by others.
o Coastal subbasin: 1,160 to 1,450 AFY, vs the previous value of 4,225 AFY by others.

As noted above, sustainable yield values for the Crestal subbasin could not be determined in this current study because of the lack of available data. A previous estimate by others for the Crestal subbasin was 2,000 AFY.

Arcadia Subbasin
In 1992, Kennedy Jenks Consultants (KJC, June 1992) prepared a groundwater management plan for the City for its Charnock and Coastal subbasins. In that study, KJC derived a sustainable yield value for a region that currently encompasses most/all the Arcadia, Coastal and Olympic subbasins. In that groundwater management plan, KJC performed a statistical evaluation of sustainable yield values. This was essentially the first type of “modeling” study conducted for the SMGB and for the Charnock and Coastal subbasins. However, it should be noted here that the “Charnock basin,” as defined by KJC, also consisted of the present Arcadia and Olympic subbasins, whereas their Coastal subbasin boundaries are like the current ones.

In its model, changes in water levels were compared to groundwater withdrawal volumes by KJC to determine the sustainable yield of the SMGB and its subbasins. KJC’s stated assumptions were that under constant withdrawal rates, if water levels remain at a relatively constant depth, then the pumping can be assumed to be within the sustainable yield limits of the subbasin. Conversely, if water levels continued to decline under constant withdrawal rates, then the sustainable yield of that subbasin was being exceeded.

KJC’s statistical evaluation involved plotting water levels versus groundwater withdrawal rates and fitting a least-squares line (i.e., linear regression curve) through the plotted points. There were a few types of statistical methods used:
o Water level elevations vs groundwater withdrawal volumes (in AFY). o Annual withdrawals (in AF) and water level elevations vs date (years). o Average annual water level elevations and pumping rates (in AF) vs date (years).

In addition, KJC also performed a groundwater basin budget evaluation, which consisted of examining subsurface groundwater inflows and outflows, amounts of water imported into the SMGB, groundwater recharges and discharges, determining groundwater flow directions and

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-52-
gradients (using the USGS MODFLOW computer modeling program), and groundwater in storage.

Using the above analyses/estimation techniques for KJC’s combined Charnock and Coastal subbasins, KJC determined the following:
o A sustainable yield value of between 5,500 and 7,000 AFY for the Charnock subbasin (now the present Arcadia, Olympic and Charnock subbasins) via their statistical analysis of the data. Using their groundwater basin budget estimation, a range of 1,190 to 9,940 AFY, and a “probable yield” of 4,420 AFY were suggested by KJC.
o No sustainable yield for the Coastal subbasin was calculated by KJC because of a lack of data, and because the then-named “Potrero Canyon fault” (i.e., Brentwood fault on Figure 3B) and the Santa Monica fault were considered to create a disruption in groundwater flow patterns.

In late-1991 (contemporaneous with and based on the ongoing KJC study at that time), the City, in an internal memorandum (August 23, 1991), assigned a value of 9,500 AFY for an entire area termed therein as the “Santa Monica subbasin” (i.e., the combined Arcadia and Olympic subbasins). Thus, the previous preliminary value of 2,000 AFY estimated by RCS (March 27, 2013) was based on a split of the difference between the 1991/1992 value for the “Santa Monica subbasin” and the 1992 KJC value for only the Coastal subbasin. However, based on this current study by RCS, a value of 870 to 920 AFY has been calculated to be the current sustainable yield of the Arcadia subbasin.

Charnock Subbasin
The City (August 23, 1991) assigned a value of 6,000 AFY for the Charnock subbasin, based on the results of the KJC study at that time. RCS review of the KJC (June 1992) report indicates KJC provided a range of 6,000 to 6,500 AFY for this subbasin (June 1992, pg. 7-11). Thus, the City appears to have assigned the lower value for sustainable yield for the KJC-noted range.

However, Komex H2O Science, Inc, (Komex, August 2001) provided a more recent estimate for the “safe yield” of the Charnock subbasin using the following two methods:
o A “Direct Correlation” approach, which estimated changes in groundwater elevations with changes in groundwater production. In this method, observed changes in average groundwater elevations were plotted against average annual production amounts. A linear regression curve was then applied to the plot. Points that fall on this line were considered to correspond to a no net inflow or a no net outflow, whereas points below the curve indicated average net inflow was lower than the average production; points above the curve indicated that average net inflow was

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-53-
higher than the production. Using this method, Komex arrived at a value of 9,244 AFY for net inflow of the Charnock subbasin.
o In addition, a three-dimensional numerical model of the Charnock subbasin was prepared, using software based on the USGS MODFLOW program. Their model was also based on withdrawal data for the 1931 through 1950 periods. The average annual production during that period was listed at 9,077 AFY, with a peak production of 12,500 AFY in 1941. Based on their numerical model, Komex calculated a sustainable yield value of 8,200 AFY for the Charnock subbasin using this approach, as seen on Table 5.

It is important to note that Komex also conducted “overdraft” modeling scenarios to determine the amount of groundwater that could be extracted from this subbasin. Key points of the Komex modeling of the Charnock subbasin included:
o A “baseline” production capacity for the subbasin of approximately 8,200 AFY could be maintained whereby water levels in the Silverado aquifer could be lowered to an elevation of 120 ft below mean sea level (msl). This represents a water level depth of approximately 217 ft bgs, based on an average ground surface elevation of 97 ft above msl for the Charnock wellfield. The RCS-calculated water level decline was 98 ft during our baseline period, whereas the Komex decline was 142 ft; thus, this partially accounts for the difference in the two sustainable yield calculations. o Komex noted that water levels could be drawn down to an elevation of 200 ft below msl (or 297 ft below msl), which is roughly the equivalent to 50% of the thickness of the Silverado aquifer in this subbasin. After this, there would be a rapid water level decline and depletion of the groundwater resource. Komex considered this to be the “critical water level elevation.”
o Komex cited that the Charnock subbasin had a large storage capacity, using an assigned specific yield value of 12% and a surface area of 4,200 acres for this subbasin. Based on this, they also concluded that “…short-term fluctuations in recharge that occur over a few to several years are damped out and do not appear to affect the overall production capabilities or the average safe yield of the Sub-Basin.” Based on their simulations, Komex provided a “best estimate” of the average “safe yield” of 8,200 AFY, with an “overdraft” protection of 10,500 AFY for the Charnock subbasin. This latter “overdraft” protection value could be maintained for at least five years“…without lowering water levels in the subbasin “beyond reasonable levels.” However, the actual depth (or elevation) of a “reasonable” water level was not identified in their report. It should be noted that their modeling was based on prior groundwater withdrawal values and SWL depths for the 1931 through 1950- time period (Komex, 2001, p. 3). Notably, such “early” SWL data for the region are rare, and the Komex study period is much earlier that that being used by RCS for this updated report.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (6828 : Water/Wastewater Rate Study Session (60 mins)) Updated Preliminary Study of the
Sustainable Yield of the Groundwater Subbasins
Within the Santa Monica Basin
-54-
In March 2013, RCS, using a pumpage approach, estimated a preliminary sustainable yield of the Charnock subbasin to conform to the Komex 2001 estimate of 8,200 AFY. Based on this approach, the range of the estimated sustainable yields for the Charnock subbasin (derived by RCS) is 6,410 AFY to an upper value of 8,080 AFY; this latter value is based on the earlier Komex-derived value (refer to Table 6, “Potential Sustainable Yield Values, Santa Monica Subbasins”).

As previously noted herein, the privately-owned third party well is known to have historically constructed 10 wells at its own Charnock wellfield. None of these are currently in operation, and only two of those wells still exist; the remaining eight third party wells have reportedly been destroyed. Groundwater withdrawals from this third party-owned wellfield have been included in our calculation of the updated sustainable yield of this subbasin, but only through 1996, because production from their last two active wells was terminated at the end of 1996 due to known MTBE contamination at the City’s Charnock wellfield, which lies to the northeast. Thus, the period of groundwater withdrawals by this private company from the Charnock subbasin unfortunately includes only the first few years of the 30-year baseline study period used herein.

The City is interested in acquiring the former third party Well No.10 and rehabilitating it for use as a municipal-supply well for the City. Historically, this well was reportedly able to produce between 800 to 1,000 gpm.

Olympic Subbasin
A previously estimated value by RCS (March 27, 2013) of 3,275 AFY had been assigned to this subbasin. This estimate was based in part on the City’s Internal Memorandum (April 1991) and KJC’s value (June 1992) for the Charnock subbasin. As shown on Table 6, the current (updated) value by RCS of 2,360 to 3,145 AFY was estimated based on observed changes in measured groundwater levels, recent data obtained during the drilling and construction of the new SM-8, average groundwater extraction values over the hydrologic baseline period, and aquifer recharge plans proposed by the City.