2022-01-24_CC_AgendaPacket1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the
posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda
packet for receive and file.
5.PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent
calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items
not on the agenda.
6.CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request
removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions.
6.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 24, 2022
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
7:00 PM
All Councilmembers will participate in-person wearing masks per Los Angeles County Health
Department's Health Officer Order effective Saturday, July 17, 2021. The meeting agenda is available
on the City’s website. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the City’s website. Both the
agenda and the live-streamed video can be found here:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Members of the public may submit written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office
at cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must
provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want
to be published.
Recordings to City Council meetings can be found here:
https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/government/agenda/index.php
Next Resolution No. 1288 Next Ordinance No. 374
1
MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
6.B.APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING
OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
6.C.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: JANUARY 10, 2022.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
6.D.PAYMENT OF BILLS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
6.E.REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2021.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
6.F.CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 - REVISED
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
6.G.REPUBLIC SERVICES' 2022 CLEAN-UP SCHEDULE.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
6.H.A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE)
PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
8.COMMISSION ITEMS
9.PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.OLD BUSINESS
10.A.REVIEW ADDENDUM TO THE PENINSULA ENHANCED WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP); DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE
ADDENDUM TO THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD; AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE SEPULVEDA CANYON MONITORING
DATA TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD SEPARATELY.
CL_AGN_22.01.24_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
CL_MIN_220110_CC_F.pdf
Council Report 01-24-2022_signed.pdf
CL_AGN_220124_Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
CL_AGN_2022_Council_MeetingDates_R.pdf
VC_REP_220124_RH_FallCleanup2022.pdf
VC_REP_220124_RH_SpringCleanup2022.pdf
ResolutionNo1286_CalRecycleGrant_F.pdf
2
R E C O M M E ND AT IO N : Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
submittal of the 2021 Palos Verdes Peninsula EWMP Addendum to the LA Water
Board. Additionally, staff recommends that a summary of the flow monitoring data
and rainfall data collected through the FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022 be prepared
to be submitted separately to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
as evidence of its retention of the 85th percentile, 24-hour rainfall runoff.
10.B.DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST
RELATING TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EMERGENCY POWER PROJECT AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff.
10.C.CONSIDER HIRING A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO INVENTORY THE CITY
HALL CAMPUS IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS.
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and Consider.
11.NEW BUSINESS
11.A.BID PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN REPAIR AT
1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH
RECOMMENDATION: Direct City Attorney to draft a professional services contract
and authorize the City manager to execute.
11.B.CONSIDER APPLYING FOR THE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROGRAM
REC OMM ENDATIO N : Direct staff to file an application for the SB 1383 Local
Assistance Grant Program and prepare a resolution in support of the application.
12.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
12.A.REPORT BY THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE ON THE JANUARY 20, 2022
COMMITTEE MEETING AND APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO
HIRE WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report, consider Committee's recommendations and provide direction to staff.
Addendum_PVP_EWMP_RH(2022-01-04).pdf
PVP_EWMP_Sec_3.5.2(2022-01-04).pdf
Palos Verdes Peninsula EWMP Letter 2021 Update.pdf
PVP EWMP 2021 Update Without Appendices.pdf
Rolling Hill Maintenance Buildings One Two- SFR V3_Review.pdf
Landscape Architecture RFP- Final Draft-V10 Letterhead FINAL.pdf
Rolling Hills Contract 11.10.21 for irrigation.pdf
City of Rolling Hills SD Repair.pdf
CL_AGN_220124_CC_RH_StormDrain_EmergencyRepair_Resolution.pdf
SB 1383 Grant Program Appl Guidelines and Instructions.pdf
CL_AGN_220120_FF_Agenda.pdf
Wildland Resource Management-Proposal to City of Rolling Hills UPDATED.pdf
3
13.MATTERS FROM STAFF
13.A.COMMUNITY RECOGNITION LUNCHEON FOR RETIRING SHERIFF DEPUTIES
REECE SOUZA AND TAMI BOUSE FROM THE LOMITA STATION.
R ECOMM ENDATION: Discuss and consider approval for hosting a community
luncheon on Wednesday, February 9, 2022.
13.B.FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT ENFORCEMENT CASES QUARTERLY REPORT FOR
THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2021. (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
14.CLOSED SESSION
14.A.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957.6 Â CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
RECOMMENDATION: None.
15.ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,
Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
PVPLC Reducing Fuel Load Project Update -2021.pdf
4th_Quarter_Report_All_Closed_Cases_from_10.1.21-12.31.21.pdf
4th_Quarterly_Report_All_Open_Cases_from_10.1.21-12.31.21.v2.pdf
4t_Quarter-_All_Open_Cases_Comprehensive_Report_from_January_2018_-
_December_2021.pdf
Notice:
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City
Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting
due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and
attendance at this meeting.
4
Agenda Item No.: 6.A
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2022
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_22.01.24_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
5
Administrative Report
6.A., File # 943 Meeting Date: 01/24/2022
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE
APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 24,
2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below.
Legislative Body City Council
Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City Hall Window
Meeting Date & Time JANUARY 24, 2022 7:00pm Open Session
As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was
posted at the date displayed below.
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Date: January 21, 2022
6
Agenda Item No.: 6.B
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE
FURTHER READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
ATTACHMENTS:
7
Agenda Item No.: 6.C
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: JANUARY 10,
2022.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220110_CC_F.pdf
8
Minutes 1
City Council Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022
MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Bea
Dieringer presiding virtually via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Mayor Dieringer
Councilmembers Absent: Pieper
Staff Present: Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Jane Abzug, City Attorney
Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager
John Signo, Planning and Community Services Director
Ashford Ball, Senior Management Analyst
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Wilson
4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS
James Aichele spoke on Sewer Connections
Bill Roger expressed desire to speak on Fire Fuel and was directed to wait until the item.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2022
5.B. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING
OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
5.C. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: DECEMBER 14, 2021
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
5.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
5.E. REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2021
5.F. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MIRSCH
5.G. CITY COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
9
Minutes 2
City Council Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022
5.H. ANNUAL VENDOR LIST FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022
5.I. ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 372 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING CHAPTERS 16.50 (SB 9
URBAN LOT SPLITS) AND 17.45 (SB 9 TWO-UNIT PROJECTS) TO THE ROLLING
HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 373 - AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER
15.04 (BUILDING CODE) TO ADOPT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE CODE BY
REFERENCE AND MAKE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO. FOR SECOND
READING AND ADOPTION.
5.J. RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE TO THE DESIGN OF THE 8" SEWER MAIN
ALONG ROLLING HILLS ROAD
5.K. RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON THE CREST ROAD EAST UTILITY
UNDERGROUNDING GRANT PROJECT
5.L. FILING OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS GRANT PROJECT
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to approve items 5A through
5L, excluding item 5F. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
6. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
5.F. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022
Motion by Councilmember Wilson, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to accept the calendar with the
addition of Tuesday, December 13th. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
7. COMMISSION ITEMS - NONE
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.A. 6TH CYCLE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Public Hearing was opened.
Testimony was taken.
Public Hearing was closed.
10
Minutes 3
City Council Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to approve the submission as
is for comments from HCD. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
Mayor Dieringer requested to move Item 11.A. up to allow for residents in attendance to provide
public comment. Without objection, so ordered.
11. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
11.A. REPORT BY THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2021
COMMITTEE MEETING; APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO
HOLD A SECOND COMMUNAL BIN EVENT PROPOSED FOR JANUARY 24, 2022
THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2022; AND APPROVE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
Councilmember Mirsch left the dais at 7:57pm and returned at 8:01pm
Public Comment : Bill Rogers, Michael S choettle, Roger Hawkins, Michael Monsalve, Abas Goodarzi
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve the next communal
bin event and locations. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to continue any decision related
to hiring Wildland Resource Management until the January 24th Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
Mayor Dieringer resumed the regular agenda order.
9. OLD BUSINESS
9.A. RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SEWER
CONNECTIONS ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (WILLIAMSBURG AND
MIDDLERIDGE LANE) AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
11
Minutes 4
City Council Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022
Public Comment: Alfred Visco
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to receive and file and direct
staff to bring item to the Strategic Planning session for further discussion related to capital
improvements. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
9.B. RECEIVE AND FILE FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT FROM HQE SYSTEMS (SIREN
STUDY) AND DIRECT STAFF CONDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY.
Public Comment: Alfred Visco, James Aichele, Michael Monsalve
Motion by Councilmember Wilson, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file and
postpone community survey. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
10. NEW BUSINESS
10.A. DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST
RELATING TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EMERGENCY POWER PROJECT AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
Mayor Dieringer requested to continue Item 10.A. to the January 24th Council meeting since
Councilmember Pieper was absent and is the current liaison to the Rolling Hills Community
Association. Without objection, so ordered.
10.B. CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO TEMPORARILY STAFF THE
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to direct staff to engage
professional services and approve second amendment to the contract with Michael Baker International.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
10.C. CONSIDER HIRING A PENINSULA CITIES JOINT HOUSING/LOCAL CONTROL
LOBBYIST.
12
Minutes 5
City Council Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022
Councilmember Mirsch left the dais at 9:17pm and returned at 9:20pm
Public Comment: Alfred Visco
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to not hire a housing and local
control lobbyist . Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black
NOES: Mayor Dieringer
ABSENT: Pieper
11. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
11.B. REVIEW THE ADOPTED COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM AND CONSIDER
ADJUSTMENTS PER LATEST CHANGES TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HEALTH ORDERS (MAYOR PRO TEM BLACK).
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Wilson that the city maintain a COVID
policy in accordance with updated, and continually updated, LA County Department of Public Health
orders, and accept amendment by the City Attorney to authorize the City Manager, in consultation with
the City Attorney’s office, to update the policy in compliance with LA County Health Orders in the event
there is not a City Council meeting. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
11.C. DISCUSS PROPOSED CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC)
DECISION REVISING NET ENERGY METERING TARIFF AND SUBTARIFFS
(MAYOR DIERINGER).
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Mayor Dieringer to support the SBCCOG’s efforts to
defeat this proposed ruling and a separate motion directing the Mayor, with the City Manager and City
Attorney’s assistance to compose a letter in opposition of the proposed ruling from the City of Rolling
Hills. Motions failed with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Mirsch, Wilson
ABSENT: Pieper
12. MATTERS FROM STAFF
13
Minutes 6
City Council Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022
12.A. PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING
AND RECOVER (CAL-RECYCLE) BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING CITY
PAYMENT PROGRAM.
Motion by Councilmember Wilson, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve participation in the
program and direct City Attorney to draft a multi-year resolution authorizing submittal of application for
the January 24, 2022 City Council Meeting and apply for various areas of application within the funding
agreement. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Pieper
Councilmember Wilson requested that future agenda packets include color exhibits. The council
concurred.
City Manager Jeng updated the council about sinkholes and collapsed stormwater drain along
Middleridge Lane South as well as the County’s inability to address the repairs as a part of the City’s
General Services contract. As a result, the city may need to execute an emergency contract of repair
and return with data once a contractor has been engaged.
11. CLOSED SESSION - NONE
12. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, January 24,
2022 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at: https://www.rolling-
hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
Approved,
________________________________
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
14
Agenda Item No.: 6.D
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MAIDA ALCANTARA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:PAYMENT OF BILLS
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Council Report 01-24-2022_signed.pdf
15
Check No.Check Date Payee Descritption Amount
027345 1/12/2022 Barry J. Miller, FAICP December 2021 Svcs - RH 6th Cycle Hsng Element 1,575.00
027346 1/12/2022 Bennett Landscape January 2022 Landscape services 660.00
027347 1/12/2022 Best Best & Krieger LLP December 2021 Code Enforce, General Svcs, Undgrd proj, & COV 6,708.00
027347 1/12/2022 Best Best & Krieger LLP December 2021 Professional Services Land Use 2,673.30
027347 1/12/2022 Best Best & Krieger LLP December 2021 Services View Presentation 152.00
CHECK TOTAL 9,533.30
027348 1/12/2022 John L. Hunter & Assoc., Inc.December 2021 Machado Lake & Santa Monica 615.00
027348 1/12/2022 John L. Hunter & Assoc., Inc.November 2021 Machado Lake & Santa Monica 402.50
027348 1/12/2022 John L. Hunter & Assoc., Inc.October 2021 Machado Lake & Santa Monica 2,256.25
CHECK TOTAL 3,273.75
027349 1/12/2022 Jimenez Consulting Solutions, LLC Professional Services - December 1-15, 2021 350.00
027349 1/12/2022 Jimenez Consulting Solutions, LLC Professional Services - October 16-31, 2021 175.00
027349 1/12/2022 Jimenez Consulting Solutions, LLC Professional Services - September 16-30, 2021 525.00
CHECK TOTAL 1,050.00
027350 1/12/2022 Micahel Baker International December 2021 Profess Svcs Proj# 176077 3,750.00
027351 1/12/2022 McGowan Consulting November & December 2021 Consult Svcs-Municipal Stormwater 13,777.30
027352 1/12/2022 MV CHENG AND ASSOCIATES December 2021 Monthly Accounting Services 10,880.00
027353 1/12/2022 City of Rolling Hills Estates 2022 Annual fee Encroachment fee for Public ROW 100.00
027354 1/12/2022 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC December 2021 Services RH Safety Element update 4,261.00
027355 1/12/2022 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents - 306580 Deferred Compensation PR Ending 01-11-2022 1,441.37
027356 1/12/2022 Willdan Inc.September 2021 TE Services 1,636.00
027357 1/12/2022 Worldwise Productions Rolling Hills Canyon Management Videos- Retainer 12,475.00
ACH22_006 1/13/2022 CalPERS CALPERS RETIREMENT 01 11 2022 3,282.10
PR LINK 1/14/2022 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR#1 Payroll Processing Fee 12/29/2021 to 01/11/2022 68.31
PR LINK 1/14/2022 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR#1 Pay Period - PR#1 12/29/2021 to 01/11/2022 19,559.01
027358 1/19/2022 Abila February 2022 Accounting Software 202.59
027359 1/19/2022 Chambers Group Profess Svcs Housing & Safety Element 10,452.22
027360 1/19/2022 Daily Breeze December Advertising Legal CLS 975.84
027361 1/19/2022 Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc.Monthly Maintenance 12-11-21 to 01-10-22 350.30
027362 1/19/2022 LA County Sheriff's Department December 2021 Law Enforcement Services 30,597.68
027362 1/19/2022 LA County Sheriff's Department Traffic Enforcement Special Event 12/10/2021 to 12/17/2021 764.21
CHECK TOTAL 31,361.89
027363 1/19/2022 ELAN Cardmember Services December Credit Card Expenses 4,757.77
027364 1/19/2022 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY Fuel Load Phase 1, 2, 3, Annual Mowing, Acacia Removal 119,800.00
ACH22_005 1/12/2022 Pitney Bowes January 2022 Postage Prepaid 1,000.00
Report Total 256,222.75
256,222.75 for the payment of above items.
Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ACH22-056 & ACH22-057, AP22-055 & AP22-056
Check Run 01-12-2022 through 01-24-2022
I, Elaine Jeng, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is
available in the General Fund a balance of
1/20/2022
16
Agenda Item No.: 6.E
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CONNIE VIRAMONTES , ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR
DECEMBER 2021.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220124_Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
17
Franchise?Y
Mth/Yr Overall Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion %
Jan-21 Trash 235.42 36.03 199.39 15.30%
Greenwaste 49.43 49.43 - 100.00%
Jan-21 Total 284.85 85.46 199.39 30.00%
Feb-21 Trash 206.11 18.38 187.73 8.92%
Greenwaste 62.07 62.07 - 100.00%
Feb-21 Total 268.18 80.45 187.73 30.00%
Mar-21 Trash 231.10 7.19 223.91 3.11%
Recycle 3.64 0.91 2.73 24.95%
Greenwaste 89.04 89.04 - 100.00%
Mar-21 Total 323.78 97.14 226.64 30.00%
Apr-21 Trash 239.29 34.90 204.39 14.58%
Greenwaste 52.70 52.70 - 100.00%
Apr-21 Total 291.99 87.60 204.39 30.00%
May-21 Trash 147.58 - 147.58 0.00%
Greenwaste 125.97 125.97 - 100.00%
May-21 Total 273.55 125.97 147.58 46.05%
Jun-21 Trash 193.00 - 193.00 0.00%
Greenwaste 111.34 111.34 - 100.00%
Jun-21 Total 304.34 111.34 193.00 36.58%
Jul-21 Trash 207.99 - 207.99 0.00%
Greenwaste 96.98 96.98 - 100.00%
Jul-21 Total 304.97 96.98 207.99 31.80%
Aug-21 Trash 203.81 - 203.81 0.00%
Greenwaste 103.02 103.02 - 100.00%
Aug-21 Total 306.83 103.02 203.81 33.58%
Sep-21 Trash 171.31 - 171.31 0.00%
Greenwaste 107.29 107.29 - 100.00%
Sep-21 Total 278.60 107.29 171.31 38.51%
Oct-21 Trash 180.87 - 180.87 0.00%
Greenwaste 127.16 127.16 - 100.00%
Oct-21 Total 308.03 127.16 180.87 41.28%
Nov-21 Trash 181.99 - 181.99 0.00%
Greenwaste 132.85 132.85 - 100.00%
Nov-21 Total 314.84 132.85 181.99 42.20%
Dec-21 Trash 162.22 - 162.22 0.00%
Greenwaste 100.62 100.62 - 100.00%
Dec-21 Total 262.84 100.62 162.22 38.28%
Grand Total 3,522.80 1,255.88 2,266.92 35.65%
1255.88
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE
2021
Contract Requires 30% Household -
Page 1 of 2
18
Agenda Item No.: 6.F
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 -
REVISED
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the January 10, 2022 City Council Meeting, a motion was made to revise the 2022 Calendar to add
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 as a tentative meeting placeholder in the event a December meeting was
necessary. Attached is the revised calendar.
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_2022_Council_MeetingDates_R.pdf
19
2022 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays
Unless otherwise noted, meetings in conflict with a holiday will be cancelled.
Unless otherwise noted, meetings in
conflict with a holiday will be cancelled.DRAFT 01/03/22
Scheduled Date Holiday Conflict Holiday Date Re-scheduled Date/TimeJanuary 10, 2022January 24, 2022February 14, 2022February 28, 2022March 14, 2022March 28, 2022April 11, 2022April 25, 2022May 9, 2022May 23, 2022June 13, 2022June 27, 2022July 11, 2022July 25, 2022August 8, 2022August 22, 2022September 12, 2022September 26, 2022October 10, 2022October 24, 2022November 14, 2022November 28, 2022December 12, 2022 Holiday Open House N/A N/ADecember 13, 2022 Tentative N/A N/A
2022 Holidays Observed (City Hall Closed)Other Holidays:January 1, 2022 New Year's Day (observed)March 28 - April 1, 2022 PVPUSD Spring BreakJanuary 17, 2022 Martin Luther King Jr. Day April 15 - April 23, 2022 PassoverFebruary 21, 2022 President's Day September 25 - 27, 2022 Rosh HashanahMay 30, 2022 Memorial Day October 4 - 5, 2022 Yom KippurJuly 4, 2022 Independence DaySeptember 5, 2022 Labor DayNovember 11, 2022 Veterans Day November 24-25, 2022 Thanksgiving HolidayDecember 24, 2022 Christmas Eve (Observed) December 25, 2022 Christmas Day
20
Agenda Item No.: 6.G
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REPUBLIC SERVICES' 2022 CLEAN-UP SCHEDULE.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Republic Services' annual clean-up proposal.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed clean-up events were coordinated with the Rolling Hills Community Association. The
2022 events are scheduled as follows:
Spring
• Green Waste – Wednesday, March 16, 2022
• Bulk Items – Wednesday, March 23, 2022
• Document Shredding & Electronic Waste Recycling – Saturday, March 26, 2022
Fall
• Green Waste – Wednesday, October 19, 2022
• Bulk Items – Wednesday, October 26, 2022
• Document Shredding & Electronic Waste Recycling – Saturday, October 29, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:
The twice a year clean up events are included in the franchise agreement between the City and Republic
Services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
VC_REP_220124_RH_FallCleanup2022.pdf
21
VC_REP_220124_RH_SpringCleanup2022.pdf
22
Rolling Hills Fall Cleanup Events 2022
• Green Waste – Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Larger quantities of green waste will be collected from your designated collection
location. Place the green waste in an area that is clearly visible to our drivers. Bundling
makes for easier collection. Bundles should be no more than 4 feet long. No container,
bag or bundle should weigh more than 60 pounds.
• Bulk Items – Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Bulk items, such as furniture, appliances and rolled rugs, will be picked up from your
designated collection location. Please place items in an area that is easily visible to our
drivers. Set items out the night before collection or by 6 a.m. on the collection day.
• Document Shredding & Electronic Waste Recycling – Saturday, October 29,
2022
Between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., drop off confidential documents for secure shredding and
electronic waste, such as computers, televisions, smartphones and similar items, for
recycling at City Hall. This will be a contactless, drive-through drop off event.
23
Rolling Hills Spring Cleanup Events 2022
• Green Waste – Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Larger quantities of green waste will be collected from your designated collection
location. Place the green waste in an area that is clearly visible to our drivers. Bundling
makes for easier collection. Bundles should be no more than 4 feet long. No container,
bag or bundle should weigh more than 60 pounds.
• Bulk Items – Wednesday, March 23, 2022
Bulk items, such as furniture, appliances and rolled rugs, will be picked up from your
designated collection location. Please place items in an area that is easily visible to our
drivers. Set items out the night before collection or by 6 a.m. on the collection day.
• Document Shredding & Electronic Waste Recycling – Saturday, March 26, 2022
Between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., drop off confidential documents for secure shredding and
electronic waste, such as computers, televisions, smartphones and similar items, for
recycling at City Hall. This will be a contactless, drive-through drop off event.
24
Agenda Item No.: 6.H
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND
RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED
AUTHORIZATIONS
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the January 10, 2022 City Council Meeting, Council approved participation in the annual Beverage
Container Recycling City/County Payment Program, directed the City Attorney to draft multi-year
resolution authorizing submittal of application for the January 24, 2022 City Council meeting, and
requested that the Staff apply for a variety of applicable fund uses.
The City of Rolling Hills is eligible for a $5,000 grant award upon completion of the funding
application which was submitted on January 18, 2022. CalRecycle granted the city an extension of 12
days to submit an executed resolution and acceped a draft resolution with the funding application
submission. The attached resolution authorizes submittal of an application and is necessary for
completion.
The Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program has an Expenditure Period of two
years after awarding and will not close until April 2024. The Program has a variety of eligible activities
and options to allow jurisdictions to utilize the funds most appropriately.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The grant has no fiscal impact to the general fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
25
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1286_CalRecycleGrant_F.pdf
26
1
RESOLUTION NO. 1286
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING
SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES
RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
(CALRECYCLE) PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND
RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. Public Resources Code Sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) to administer various payment programs to
make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and
B. In furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures
governing the administration of the payment programs; and
C. CalRecycle’s procedures for administering payment programs require, among other
things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the
administration of the payment program; and
D. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills (“City”) desires to authorize the City
Manager or her designee to submit applications to CalRecycle for any payment program for which
it is eligible and execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payments thereunder.
Section 2. The City of Rolling Hills is authorized to submit applications to CalRecycle for
payment programs for which it is eligible.
Section 3. The City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute in the name of the City
of Rolling Hills all documents necessary to implement and secure payments under the payment
programs for which it is eligible.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council,
and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the
book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 2022.
______________________________
BEA DIERINGER
MAYOR
27
2
ATTEST:
___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
28
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING
SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES
RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
(CALRECYCLE) PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND
RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of January
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
29
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REVIEW ADDENDUM TO THE PENINSULA ENHANCED WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP); DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE
ADDENDUM TO THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD; AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE SEPULVEDA
CANYON MONITORING DATA TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOS
ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SEPARATELY.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On June 28, 2021, City Council directed staff to prepare the necessary documents to submit to the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LA Water Board) for the City to join the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). Additionally, City Council directed
staff to investigate whether the design of the Torrance Airport Project could allow the flexibility for a
modular approach to provide the City more time to ascertain whether it needs to continue to participate
in that regional project to demonstrate compliance with water quality objectives for Machado Lake (i.e.,
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)). In the meantime, monitoring in Sepulveda Canyon is continuing
during the current rainy season, providing additional data to inform the City’s compliance strategy.
DISCUSSION:
An addendum to incorporate the City of Rolling Hills into the 2021 EWMP has been prepared for City
Council’s consideration and consists of two parts:
A detailed matrix of itemized changes to the 2021 EWMP, organized by EWMP section and
formatted in the strikeout/replacement format requested by Water Board staff; and
A new narrative subsection 3.5.2 devoted to 85th percentile, 24-hour retention areas with a
discussion of the Rolling Hills Nature-Based Runoff Retention Area.
These documents have been shared with the current EWMP participants and they have no objections to
30
the content or the City of Rolling Hills’ submittal of the documents to the Regional Board. The EWMP
participants have requested that when these documents are transmitted to the LA Water Board, a
statement is included in the transmittal requesting that consideration of this addendum not delay the LA
Water Board’s review and approval of the 2021 EWMP which is currently posted for public comment.
Monitoring has continued at the City’s Sepulveda Canyon monitoring site. Since monitoring began in
October 2020, only one major storm event, which occurred December 29-30, 2021, has produced flow
in Sepulveda Canyon, and that rain event generated much more rainfall than the 85th percentile, 24-hour
statistical rain event of 1 inch. The LA County rain gauge at the Rolling Hills Fire Station recorded
2.36 inches in 24 hours from 10 a.m. on December 29, 2021 through 10 a.m. on December 30, 2021,
and a total of more than 3 inches for that rain event which spanned approximately 31 hours. So far this
season the Rolling Hills Fire Station rain gauge has recorded 7.21 inches of rainfall since October 1,
2021. Thus, the Sepulveda Canyon flow data collected so far this year continues to support the City’s
assertion that the net effect of Rolling Hills’ planning and land development standards along with its
extensive network of natural canyon drainage systems effectively retains runoff from the 85th
percentile, 24-hour rain event within Rolling Hills as demonstrated through monitoring.
City staff has also followed the City Council’s direction to request a modular design approach for the
Torrance Airport Stormwater Basin Regional Project, however to date Torrance city staff has not been
receptive to such an idea and has instead requested that the City provide a formal letter requesting a
specific volume capture allocation prior to the initiation of designing the project. The City of Torrance
intends to award a design contract at its January 25, 2022 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The preparation of the EWMP addendum and the review of the Sepulveda Canyon monitoring data are
included in the contract with McGowan Consultant for FY 2021-2022. The Sepulveda Canyon
monitoring, and the review and analysis of the data is funded by local returns from Measure W, Safe
Clean Water program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the submittal of the 2021 Palos Verdes Peninsula
EWMP Addendum to the LA Water Board. Additionally, staff recommends that a summary of the flow
monitoring data and rainfall data collected through the FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022 be prepared to
be submitted separately to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board as evidence of its
retention of the 85th percentile, 24-hour rainfall runoff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Addendum_PVP_EWMP_RH(2022-01-04).pdf
PVP_EWMP_Sec_3.5.2(2022-01-04).pdf
Palos Verdes Peninsula EWMP Letter 2021 Update.pdf
PVP EWMP 2021 Update Without Appendices.pdf
31
1
Addendum Summarizing Modifications to PVP EWMP to Incorporate City of Rolling Hills
Section 1 Introduction and Background
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
1 1.1 1-1 2nd ¶
Append 2nd paragraph with the following sentence:
“The City of Rolling Hills has elected to join the Peninsula WMG and has been
incorporated into this revised EWMP.”
2 1.2 1-2 1st ¶
Modify 1st paragraph as follows:
“The geographic scope of the Peninsula EWMP (as shown in Figure 1-1) is comprised
of the incorporated Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates , Rolling Hills
and Rolling Hills Estates, and unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles and
LACFCD facilities (See Appendix 1.0 for a description of the LACFCD and its
responsibilities within the Peninsula WMG). The City of Rolling Hills is not
participating in the Peninsula EWMP; however, the city is participating in the
Peninsula WMG CIMP.”
3 1.2 1-2 2nd ¶
Modify sentences 4-6 as follows:
(4) “The SMB Watershed accounts for 63 58% (14.2 14.8 square miles) of the total
Peninsula WMG area, and includes portions of the cities of Palos Verdes Estates,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates.
(5) The Los Angeles Harbor Subwatershed accounts for 15 18% (3.4 4.5 square miles)
of the total Peninsula WMG area and includes portions of the cities of Rancho Palos
Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates.
(6) The Machado Lake Subwatershed accounts for 22 24% (4.9 6.2 square miles) of
the total Peninsula WMG area, and includes portions of the cities of Palos Verdes
Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates, and the
unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles.
32
2
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
4 Table 1-1 1-2
Include a new column for Rolling Hills in Table 1-1 and modify the table to
incorporate the following information:
Total area of City of Rolling Hills is 2.99 square miles which increases Total EWMP
Area to 25.6 square miles.
Land area of Rolling Hills within the three watersheds is: 0.64 sq. mi. in Santa Monica
Bay, 1.3 sq. mi. in Machado Lake, and 1.1 sq. mi. to Los Angeles Harbor.
5 Figure 1-1 1-3
(1) Add Rolling Hills to the Peninsula EWMP jurisdictional boundaries by applying
horizontal hash marks and include Rolling Hills in legend.
(2) Remove Rolling Hills label as “Not Part of Peninsula EWMP” and shade its
watershed management areas consistent with the other jurisdictional boundaries on
the map.
6 1.5 1-8 bulleted
list
In the list of sub-bullets, following the primary bullet that reads “Identify and
implement strategies, control measures, and BMPs that:”, insert an additional sub-
bullet as the 3rd sub-bullet to read:
“Cumulatively retain the runoff volume from the 85th%, 24-hour storm event for the
drainage area tributary to the applicable receiving water”
7 1.6 1-10 1st ¶ Append a clause to the end of the first sentence that reads: “for areas of the EWMP
not addressed through retention of the 85th%, 24-hr storm event”.
Section 2 Identification of Water Quality Priorities
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
1 2.2 2-6 2nd ¶
Revise the 1st sentence as follows:
“The Peninsula WMG, along with the City of Rolling Hills, implements the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP).”
33
3
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
2 2.2.1 2-7 1st ¶
Revise 3rd sentence as follows:
“The Portion of the Peninsula WMG with drainage tributary to Santa Monica Bay
consists of approximately 14.8 square miles, which is about 3.4 3.6% of the Santa
Monica Bay Watershed (414 sq. mi.).”
3 2.2.2 2-15 5th ¶
Revise 2nd sentence as follows:
“The portion of the Peninsula WMG which contributes runoff to Machado Lake
consists of approximately 56.2 square miles, which is about 272% of the Machado
Lake watershed drainage area (approximately 22.6 sq. mi. in total).”
4 2.2.3 2-22 2nd ¶
Revise sentence 3 as follows:
The portion of the Peninsula EWMP area which contributes runoff to Greater Los
Angeles Harbor consists of approximately 3.4 4.5 square miles, which is about 3 4.1%
of the Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area (approxima tely 109.4 sq.
mi. total) that drains to the Los Angeles Harbor.”
Section 3 Selection of Watershed Control Measures
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
1 Introduction 3-1 1st ¶ Insert additional item to bulleted list of objectives as follows:
“Retain the runoff volume of the 85th%, 24-hour storm event, where feasible.”
2 3.1.2 3-2 5th ¶
Modify the 2nd sentence in this paragraph as follows:
This section applies to all participating agencies where applicable, excluding the
LACFCD.
3 3.1.2.2 3-2 7th ¶
Modify the 2nd sentence as follows:
“There are currently no sites subject to the Industrial General Permit within the
jurisdictional authority of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed WMG nor any
commercial sites within the City of Rolling Hills.
34
4
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
4 3.5 3-9 1st ¶
Modify the 1st sentence as follows:
“Structural TCMs are Structural BMPs that, in combination with MCMs, are designed
with the objective to achieve interim and final water quality-based effluent
limitations and/or receiving water limitations and where feasible to achieve
retention of runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.”
5 3.5.1 3-9 4th ¶
Modify the 1st sentence as follows:
“Except for areas where runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour is retained, Tthe
performance of existing and planned BMPs in the Peninsula EWMP area is evaluated
through the RAA following provisions of the MS4 Permit, both in terms of volume
capture (based on BMP design criteria) and predicted effluent quality.”
6 Figure 3-1 3-10
(1) Remove Rolling Hills label, “City of Rolling Hills (Not Part of Peninsula EWMP)”.
(2) Shade Rolling Hills’ watershed management areas consistent with the other
jurisdictions’ watershed areas on the map, including blueline streams.
7 3.5.1.1.4 3-29 Add missing numeral 3 to correct error in number of subsection entitled “Potential
Regional BMPs”—this subsection should be numbered “3.5.1.1.4” not “5.1.1.4”
8 3.5.2 3-32 Insert new Section 3.5.2 entitled: “85th Percentile, 24-hour Runoff Retention Areas”
9 3.5.2 3-32 Insert the new narrative [see attached] into new section 3.5.2 with the subtitle:
“Rolling Hills’ Nature-Based Stormwater Runoff Retention Area”
10 Figure 3-12
After 1st ¶
of Section
3.5.2
Insert new Figure 3-12 identifying 85th%, 24-Hr Retention Areas Excluded from RAA
11 Figure 3-13
At end of
Section
3.5.2
Insert new Figure 3-13 with Google Earth aerial view of Rolling Hills showing Nature-
Based Stormwater Runoff Retention Area.
35
5
Section 4 Reasonable Assurance Analysis
No.
Subsection,
Table or
Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
1 4.1 4-1 1st ¶
To clarify that the RAA was performed only for areas where retention of the 85 th%
volume was not achieved, append to the end of the 1st sentence:
“for areas not addressed through retention of the 85%, 24-hr storm event”.
Section 5 Implementation Schedule
No Changes Necessary
Section 6 EWMP Implementation Costs and Financial Strategy
No. Subsection,
Table or Figure Page Paragraph Modification
1 Table 6-4 6-10 Last row Add Rolling Hills to list of city agencies in last row, first column by inserting:
“RH”.
Section 7 Legal Authority
No. Subsection,
Table or Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
1 Table 7-1 7-1 New row Update Table 7-1 to include a new row with the following information in each
column from left to right:
(1) “Rolling Hills”
(2) “Chapter 8.32 - Storm Water Management and Pollution Control”
(3)“https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeI
d=TIT8HESA_CH8.32STWAMAPOCO”
36
6
No. Subsection,
Table or Figure
Page Paragraph Modification
2 Table 7-1 7-1 New row As per the other entries in Table 7-1, include a second new row with the following
text from Rolling Hills municipal code:
“8.32.030 - Purpose and intent.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act, the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Municipal NPDES
Permit by:
1. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharge to the maximum extent
practicable;
2. Regulating illicit connections and illicit discharges and thereby reducing the level
of contamination of storm water and dry weather runoff into receiving waters;
and
3. Regulating non-storm water discharges to the storm sewer system.”
Section 8 Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
No Changes Necessary
Section 9 Adaptive Management Program
No Changes Necessary
Section 10 Reporting Program and Assessment
No Changes Necessary
Appendices
No. Appendix Page Modification
1 1.0 133 of PDF Revise Figure 1.A-2 to remove the words “not part of EWMP” below the Rolling Hills
label on map.
37
7
No. Appendix Page Modification
2 Table 3.1-1
In Appendix 3.1 3.1-2
Add column to Table 3.1-2 under the “Agency” section to include Rolling Hills and
include a “C” or “N/A” or “R” or leave blank for the following rows as indicated
below:
• LID and Green Streets Staff Training – “C”
• Restaurant Certification Program – “N/A”
• Downspout Disconnection Program – “C”
• Irrigation Reduction Incentives Program – “C”
• Targeted Outreach – “C”
• Horse Manure Management – “C”
• Enhanced Street Sweeping – “ N/A”
• Adopt Sewer System Management Plan – “N/A”
• Increased Street Sweeping Frequency or Routes – “N/A”
• Prepare guidance documents to aid in implementation of MS4 Permit MCMs – “ ”
(leave blank)
• Brake Pad Replacement Program – “R”
• Lead Reduction Program – “R”
• Zinc Reduction Program – “Watershed Group” as overall entry in this row
• Apply for Grant Funding for Stormwater Projects – “N/A”
• Water Efficient Landscaping – “C”
• Enhanced Irrigation Runoff Reduction Program – “C”
• Green Building Ordinance – “_” (leave blank)
• Adoption of LA County Fire Code – “C”
3 Table 3.1-1
in Appendix 3.1 3.1-2
Relocate the row for Targeted Control Measure “Downspout Disconnect Program”
to be under the subcategory of “Public Information and Participation” to be
consistent with the narrative describing this control measure in the narrative on
page Appendix 3.1-5 (correction to EWMP Update)
4 Table 3.1-1 in Appendix
3.1 3.1-2 Insert definition of “R” in bottom row which serves as legend as follows: “R –
Regulatory”
38
8
No. Appendix Page Modification
5 3.1 3.1-4
Modify last sentence on page under Enhanced Irrigation Runoff Reduction Program
section as follows: “The County of LA and the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho
Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates are currently implementing this
program.
6 4.1 Various Modify legends and labels in figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, and 14 to describe Rolling Hills
as 85%, 24-hr retention area rather than “not participating in EWMP”.
7 4.1 11
Modify the second sentence in numbered list item 2 to append with additional
clause as follows: “This list includes land owned and operated by Caltrans and the
85%, 24-hr storm runoff retention area in Rolling Hills”.
39
3.5.2 85th Percentile, 24-hour Runoff Retention Areas
As provided in Order R4-2021-0105 Part IX.A.4.k. Watershed Management Programs may
demonstrate that strategies, control measures, and BMPs cumulatively retain the runoff volume
from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event for the drainage area tributary to the applicable
receiving water and for such areas an RAA is not required. Furthermore, as provided in Order R4-
2021-0105 Part X.B.2.b.iii., a Permittee is deemed in compliance with final WQBELs and receiving
water limitations if it has retained all conditionally exempt, non-essential non-stormwater and
all stormwater runoff up to and including the volume equivalent to the 85th percentile, 24-hour
event for the drainage area tributary to the applicable receiving water provided the Permittee is
implementing all actions and schedules in an approved Watershed Manage ment Program.
Watershed areas that fully retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour runoff volume and were excluded
from the RAA analysis are shown in Figure 3.12 and described in the subsequent narrative.
Figure 3-12 85th Percentile, 24-Hour Runoff Retention Areas Excluded from RAA
40
Rolling Hills Nature-Based Runoff Retention Area
The City of Rolling Hills (Rolling Hills) is a small, entirely residential semi-rural community of
single-family homes with fewer than 2,000 residents in three square miles. By design, it is a model
of low-impact development utilizing nature-based solutions for management of stormwater. Its
zoning code includes strict standards for development ratios on each property and limits
disturbed area during development. A substantial area of land in Rolling Hills is constrained from
development due to steep hillsides and canyons; the use of these areas as wildlife habitats and
native vegetation is emphasized. Rolling Hills’ zoning code further promotes the preservation and
appreciation of open space by requiring easements for equestrian/hiking trails on all lots. There
are approximately 30 miles of unpaved equestrian/hiking trails throughout the city.1
Under Rolling Hills municipal code2, only 40% of the net area of a residential lot may be disturbed
during construction and the remaining area of the lot must remain in its natural , pre-
development state. Only 35% of the net lot area may be developed with impervious surfaces,
including structures, patios, and other paved areas. Given that the minimum lot size in Rolling
Hills is 1 acre, with many substantially larger lots, the limitation on lot coverage preserves
significant permeable areas throughout the city. Additionally, driveways may not cover more
than 20% of the area of the yard in which they are located, and uncovered motor courts/parking
pads may not cover more than 10% of the yard in which they are located.
Roads within the City have many green street features. They are designed as narrow, two-lane
undivided winding roads 20 to 25 feet wide with rolling to steep grades lined with significant
naturalized landscaping. There are no sidewalks or curb-and-gutter systems, and roads are not
designed to be stormwater conveyance systems.3
Stormwater run-off that is not contained on properties is conveyed through Rolling Hills via
natural, soft bottom, vegetated drainage courses/canyons (see Figure 3-13), providing
disconnection of impervious developed areas and ample opportunity for natural bioretention
and infiltration as described in Section 2.3.1: Pollutant Fate and Transport Mechanisms within
the Watershed. There is limited public infrastructure and no city-owned or maintained storm
drains, roads, sidewalks, or curb-and-gutter, though there are some limited, discontinuous
drainage improvements owned/operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
(LACFCD).
1 City of Rolling Hills 1990. General Plan – Land Use Element. June 25, 1990.
2 Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Title 17
https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO
3 City of Rolling Hills 1990. General Plan – Circulation Element. June 25, 1990.
41
The net effect of Rolling Hills’ planning and land development standards along with its extensive
network of natural canyon drainage systems is to promote retention and infiltration, creating a
system of nature-based solutions for stormwater management. Along with the Minimum Control
Measures, Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures, and Targeted Non-Structural Control Measures
described in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, this system of nature-based runoff retention measures
effectively retains runoff from the 85%, 24-hr rain event within Rolling Hills as demonstrated
through monitoring.
Figure 3-13 Rolling Hills Nature-Based Stormwater Runoff Retention Area
Google Earth
42
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Group
June 30, 2021 Transmitted electronically via
FTP site link: https://ftp.watersboards.ca.gov
Renee Purdy, Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
Attention: Ivar Ridgeway
Subject: Submittal of the Updated Palos Verdes Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management
Program
Dear Ms. Purdy,
The Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, and the County of
Los Angeles (Unincorporated County), along with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
(LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Peninsula WMG, are pleased to submit the updated Palos
Verdes Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management Program (Peninsula EWMP) including an
updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA). The updated Peninsula EWMP and RAA have been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 2012 LA MS4 Permit 1, the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board Guidelines for Conducting RAA (March 2014), and
consistent with State Water Board Order WQ 2020-0038 (2020 State Board Order).
The updated RAA was conducted using the newly released, LACFCD-developed Watershed
Management Modeling System 2.0 (WMMS 2.0), for general consistency with other RAA
modeling efforts across Los Angeles County. The default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model has been
calibrated by LACFCD on a regional basis using data through September 2018. The updated RAA
also incorporated Peninsula Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (Peninsula CIMP) water
quality and flow data collected through June 2020 (the latest complete Peninsula CIMP reporting
year data set subjected to QA/QC validation), and as appropriate, utilized this data to calibrate
and validate the revised RAA model to best reflect the baseline hydrology and water quality
conditions within the Palos Verdes Peninsula EWMP area. Detailed information on the model
calibration can be found in Section 5 of the Appendix 4.1 RAA Report.
Consistent with the 2020 State Board Order, the updated Peninsula EWMP and RAA:
Explains how information considered in the source assessment was used (EWMP Section
2 and Appendix 4.1 RAA Report).
1 Order No. R4-2012-0175, as amended by R4-2012-0175-A01, NPDES No. CAS004001
43
Identifies unavailable, needed information and the assumptions made to substitute for
that information along with commitment to acquire the information through the
Peninsula CIMP for incorporation in the next adaptive management milestone (EWMP
Appendix 4.1 RAA Report 7.1.3 Mercury and Arsenic).
Utilizes all relevant, available data 2 to update the EWMP and RAA, including updates to
the water body pollutant combination (WBPC) prioritization and source assessment,
TMDL milestone achievement, and RAA calibration and validation. Data not used in the
RAA has been identified, with explanation as to why this data was disregarded.
Models each WBPC and therefore does not utilize or necessitate justification of a limiting
pollutant approach. Table 4-2 in Section 4 of the Updated EWMP provides the results of
this analysis for each WBPC supported by the detailed RAA Report in Appendix 4.1.
Includes 24-hour management volumes as a clear metric for demonstrating progress in
attaining load reduction targets – Table 5-1 in Section 5 of the Updated EWMP provides
the implementation schedule for demonstrating progress in attaining these volumetric
reductions by subwatershed and analysis region. Water body/pollutant milestones are
also included in this table.
Considers ongoing CIMP monitoring data which is sufficient to evaluate attainment of
milestones.
Modifications to Peninsula EWMP including Special Study for Mass-Based Compliance for
Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL
The 2020 State Water Board Order (p. 29) recognizes that “Additional fine-tuning to develop
more tailored pollutant levels and control plans…will often require updates to regional water
quality control plans” and that “water body-specific special studies can provide adequate
protections for beneficial uses at reduced compliance costs to local jurisdictions”. Furthermore,
Part C.3.b of Attachment N to the 2012 LA MS4 Permit pertaining to the Machado Lake Nutrient
TMDL states, “Permittees may be deemed in compliance with water quality-based effluent
limitations by demonstrating reduction of total nitrogen and total phosphorous on an annual
mass basis measured at the storm drain outfall of the Permittee’s drainage area where approved
by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer based on the results of a special study by the
Permittee.”
The County of Los Angeles previously completed a special study to establish annual mass-based
WQBELs for total nitrogen and total phosphorus under the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL for its
unincorporated areas, including those within the Peninsula EWMP area, which was developed
following approval of the Special Study Workplan by the Los Angeles Water Quality Control
2 “Available data” includes all data collected through June 30, 2020 by the Peninsula WMG. This date marks the
end of the 2019-2020 reporting year of CIMP monitoring results, which includes data that has been analyzed and
verified according to the Peninsula CIMP QAPP standard for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC).
Monitoring data collected after this time has not yet been verified for QA/QC in accordance with this protocol, and
so has not been used in the updated RAA and EWMP, but will be used in the next update.
44
Regional Board 3. The updated Peninsula EWMP RAA establishes mass-based loading estimates
and WLAs for the entire Peninsula EWMP area, consistent with and following the same approach
established in the approved Los Angeles County Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Special Study4.
The updated RAA utilizes a mass-based approach to assess the annual average loading estimates
and the waste load allocations (WLAs) for constituents of concern associated with the Machado
Lake Nutrient TMDL.5 The implemented approach utilizes both monitoring data and modeling
results to estimate the dry and wet weather total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads to
Machado Lake during the average annual year. Consistent with the Los Angeles County Special
Study, water year 2010 was used as the critical year. The dry weather mass-based load estimate
was based on dry weather flow and water quality monitoring data collected through the
Peninsula CIMP from June 2016 to June 2020. The wet weather mass-based load estimate was
obtained using the calibrated WMMS 2.0 model, including the Peninsula CIMP data through June
2020. The mass-based WLAs for the pollutants of concern have been calculated as the interim
and final Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL WQBEL concentrations6 multiplied by the annual average
inflow volume to Machado Lake7 apportioned to the Peninsula EWMP area 8, the same method
as utilized in the approved Los Angeles County Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Special Study.
Utilizing this approach, the RAA demonstrates that annual mass-based loading for total nitrogen
from the Peninsula EWMP Area is less than the WLA for the critical condition, while annual mass-
based loading for total phosphorus from the area is slightly higher than the WLA. Appendix 4.1
of the EWMP provides the details of these RAA results and Chapter 3 of the EWMP describes the
projects that have been identified to reduce pollutant loads to achieve the WLAs.
Prior and Current Milestones and Associated Work
The updated EWMP demonstrates achievement of past and current milestones, consistent with
the requirements of the 2020 State Board Order. For the Santa Monica Bay subwatershed areas
of the Peninsula EWMP, attainment of the final receiving water limitations (RWLs) was
established in the previously approved EWMP and no additional milestones were due on or
before June 30, 2021. Monitoring data evaluated in this revision of the EWMP/RAA continues to
3 LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2010. Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL – Conditional
Approval of the Special Study Work Plan for the Unincorporated Areas of Los Angeles County within the Machado
Lake Watershed. May.
4 LACDPW (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works). 2011. Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Special Study:
Characterization of Water Quality Conditions in the Unincorporated Areas of Los Angeles County within the
Machado Lake Watershed Final Report. September.
5 The Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL allows permittees to assess compliance with TMDL WLAs on a mass basis for
total nitrogen and total phosphorous by submitting a special study to the LARWQCB.
6 Final: 1 mg/L for total nitrogen, 0.1 mg/L for total phosphorous. Interim: 2.45 mg/L for total nitrogen, 1.25 for
total phosphorus.
7 8.45 HM3/year (Lai, 2007).
8 22.0% of the total drainage area.
45
show that TMDL RWLs and/or water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are being met
for pollutants of concern in the Santa Monica Bay subwatershed of the Peninsula WMG.
For the Inner Harbor and Cabrillo Marina water bodies of the Los Angeles Harbor to which the
Peninsula EWMP areas are tributary, monitoring data demonstrates compliance with relevant
Greater Los Angeles Harbor Toxics TMDL interim WQBELs in the bed sediment over a three-year
averaging period consistent with TMDL provisions translated into Order No. R4-2012-0175
Attachment N, E.4.a.ii. This is addressed in Table 4-1 in Section 4 of the updated Peninsula EWMP
as well as Section 7.6 of the Appendix 4.1 RAA Report. Thus, applicable prior and current
milestones are being met within the Los Angeles Harbor subwatershed areas of the Peninsula
EWMP and no other work associated with prior or current milestones was due in the previously
approved Peninsula EWMP on or before June 30, 2021.
For the Machado Lake subwatershed areas of the Peninsula EWMP, the updated RAA
demonstrates that interim WQBELs for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus are being met in all
the analysis regions of the Machado Lake subwatershed as discussed in Section 4 of the EWMP
and in Section 7.6 of the Appendix 4.1 RAA Report. Final WQBELs are also being met in all analysis
regions within the Machado Lake subwatershed of the Peninsula EWMP for Total Nitrogen, Total
PCBs, Dieldrin and DDT (all congeners) as demonstrated in the RAA and shown by zero final target
load reductions in Table 11 of the Appendix 4.1 RAA Report. The final WQBELs for Total
Chlordane, DDE congeners and DDD congeners have not yet been attained within all analysis
regions of the Machado Lake subwatershed and additional load reductions are also necessary for
indicator bacteria in the Wilmington Drain analysis regions of the Machado Lake Subwatershed
to address the 303(d)listing. The updated RAA quantifies the additional capture volume
(expressed as 24-hour management volume) needed in each analysis region to satisfy the unmet
final target load reductions.
Some of the prior and current action-based milestones have been completed in the Machado
Lake subwatershed, including completion of two regional projects identified in the previously
approved EWMP. The two remaining regional projects identified in the previously approved
Peninsula EWMP have not been completed as planned since feasibility studies were conducted
and these projects were determined to be technically or environmentally infeasible. Alternative
projects in various stages of implementation (feasibility study, planning or design) have been
identified in the updated EWMP and incorporated into the RAA to address the remaining target
load reductions. Completion of the additional projects identified in Table 5-1 in Section 5 of the
Peninsula EWMP within five years of approval of the updated Peninsula EWMP will provide the
needed capture volumes and attain the final WQBELs for the remaining unmet final WQBELs for
Machado Lake as well as the RWLs for bacteria in Wilmington Drain. Timely requests for Time
Schedule Orders have been submitted by the Peninsula WMG for the Machado Lake Nutrients
and Pesticides & PCBs TMDLs to allow time for completion of these additional projects.
Thank you for consideration of our updated Peninsula EWMP and RAA. Please don’t hesitate to
contact me should Regional Board staff have any questions or require additional information.
46
47
PALOS VERDES
PENINSULA ENHANCED
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Submitted By:
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Watershed Management Group
Revised: June 30, 2021 APPENDICES NOT INCLUDED
IN THIS DOCUMENT
48
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
i | P a ge
Table of Contents
1.Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Peninsula Watershed ................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3. Water Quality Issues and the History of Water Quality Regulations ......................................... 1-4
1.3.1. Federal Law, State Law, and Regulatory Framework ......................................................... 1-4
1.3.2. California Environmental Quality Act ................................................................................. 1-5
1.4. Water Quality Requirements ..................................................................................................... 1-6
1.5. The Enhanced Watershed Management Program .................................................................... 1-7
1.5.1. Watershed Management Goals and Priorities ................................................................... 1-7
1.5.2. Water Quality Management Approach .............................................................................. 1-7
1.6. Reasonable Assurance Analysis and Watershed Control Measures ........................................ 1-10
1.7. Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................ 1-11
2.Identification of Water Quality Priorities ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.1. Water Quality Characterization and Prioritization .................................................................... 2-1
2.2. Receiving Water Characterization ............................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.1. Santa Monica Bay ............................................................................................................... 2-7
2.2.2. Machado Lake .................................................................................................................. 2-15
2.2.3. Greater Los Angeles Harbor ............................................................................................. 2-22
2.3. Source Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2-26
2.3.1. Watershed Sources of Priority Pollutants ........................................................................ 2-26
2.3.2. Characterization of Stormwater and Non-Stormwater Discharge Quality ...................... 2-41
3.Selection of Watershed Control Measures ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1. Minimum Control Measures ...................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.1. L.A. County Flood Control District Minimum Control Measures ....................................... 3-2
3.1.2. Assessment and Modification of Minimum Control Measures (Participating Agencies,
Excluding LACFCD).............................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3. Enhanced Fourth Term MS4 Permit Minimum Control Measures (Participating Agencies,
Excluding LACFCD).............................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.1.4. Fifth Term MS4 Permit Minimum Control Measures ........................................................ 3-4
3.2. Non-stormwater Discharge Measures ....................................................................................... 3-5
3.3. Targeted Control Measures ....................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3.1. Control Measures identified in TMDLs/Implementation Plans ......................................... 3-6
49
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
ii | P a ge
3.4. Nonstructural Targeted Control Measures ................................................................................ 3-8
3.5. Structural Targeted Control Measures ...................................................................................... 3-9
3.5.1. Performance Evaluation of Structural Control Measures .................................................. 3-9
4.Reasonable Assurance Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. RAA Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. Reasonable Assurance Analysis ................................................................................................. 4-2
5.Implementation Schedule .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2. Schedules ................................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1. Nonstructural Best Management Practices Schedule ....................................................... 5-3
5.2.2. Structural Best Management Practice Schedule ............................................................... 5-3
6.EWMP Implementation Costs and Financial Strategy ....................................................................... 6-1
6.1. EWMP Implementation Costs .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2. Summary of Costs ...................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3. Financial Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 6-5
6.3.1. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 6-5
6.3.2. Other Potential Funding Options ....................................................................................... 6-8
6.3.3. Prioritization ..................................................................................................................... 6-10
7.Legal Authority ................................................................................................................................... 7-1
8.Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 8-1
9.Adaptive Management Process ......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1. Modifications ............................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.1. Reporting ............................................................................................................................ 9-2
9.1.2. Implementation ................................................................................................................. 9-2
10.Reporting Program & Assessment ............................................................................................... 10-1
10.1. Annual Report ...................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2. Monitoring Report ............................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.1. Data Reporting ................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2.2. Chronic Toxicity Reporting ............................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.3. TMDL Reporting ............................................................................................................... 10-1
50
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
iii | P a ge
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Jurisdictional Areas within Each Peninsula EWMP Watershed ................................................ 1-2
Table 2-1: Peninsula EWMP Priority Pollutants ......................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2: Peninsula EWMP Area Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses Designated in the Basin Plan ......... 2-4
Table 2-3: TMDLs Applicable to the Peninsula EWMP ............................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-4: 303(d) Listed Pollutants in Peninsula EWMP Watersheds ........................................................ 2-6
Table 2-5: SMBBB TMDL Bacteria Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-7
Table 2-6: Allowable Exceedance Day(s) by Period and Monitoring Location .......................................... 2-8
Table 2-7: Number of Exceedance Days Above Allowable Receiving Water Limitations .......................... 2-9
Table 2-8: Number of Year-Round Rolling Six-Week Geomean Exceedances of RWLs ........................... 2-10
Table 2-9: Nutrient TMDL Numeric Targets and Load Allocations for Machado Lake ............................ 2-18
Table 2-10: Monthly Average TN and TP Concentration in Machado Lake ............................................. 2-19
Table 2-11: Machado Lake Toxics TMDL In-Lake Numeric Targets.......................................................... 2-21
Table 2-12: Greater Harbor Toxics TMDL Marine Sediment Targets ....................................................... 2-23
Table 2-13: Water Quality Exceedances in Greater Los Angeles Harbor Waters .................................... 2-24
Table 2-14: Potential Watershed Sources of Palos Verdes Peninsula Priority Pollutants ....................... 2-28
Table 2-15: Land Use Distribution within the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watersheds ................................ 2-29
Table 2-16: Automotive Sources of Metals in Stormwater ..................................................................... 2-34
Table 2-17: Santa Monica Bay DDT & PCBs 3-Yr. Rolling Avg. Outfall Data ............................................. 2-42
Table 2-18: Machado Lake Pesticides & PCBs 3-Yr. Rolling Avg. Concen. Storm-Borne in Sediment ..... 2-43
Table 3-1: Summary of Modeled Regional BMPs .................................................................................... 3-11
Table 4-1: Interim Wet Weather Target Load Reduction Summary .......................................................... 4-3
Table 4-2: Final Wet Weather Target Load Reduction Summary .............................................................. 4-4
Table 4-3: Peninsula EWMP RAA Summary ............................................................................................... 4-6
Table 5-1: Structural TCM Implementation Schedule................................................................................ 5-5
Table 6-1: WMMS 2.0 Cost Function ......................................................................................................... 6-2
Table 6-2: Range of Soft Costs for Regional Projects ................................................................................. 6-3
Table 6-3: Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Regional BMPs ............................................................. 6-4
Table 6-4: Funding Option Priorities ........................................................................................................ 6-10
Table 7-1: Water Quality Ordinance Language .......................................................................................... 7-1
51
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
iv | P a ge
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Peninsula EWMP Area and Existing Monitoring Locations ...................................................... 1-3
Figure 2-1: Santa Monica Bay Total Coliform Concentrations 2016-2020 .............................................. 2-11
Figure 2-2: Santa Monica Bay Fecal Coliform Concentrations 2016-2020 .............................................. 2-12
Figure 2-3: Santa Monica Bay Enterococci Concentrations 2016-2020 ................................................... 2-13
Figure 2-4: Storm Drains Entering Machado Lake ................................................................................... 2-17
Figure 2-5: Machado Lake Monitoring Stations ....................................................................................... 2-20
Figure 2-6: Greater LA Harbor Waters and Monitoring Stations ............................................................. 2-25
Figure 2-7: Total Nitrogen Concentrations in Peninsula Machado Lake Outfall flows ............................ 2-45
Figure 2-8: Total Phosphorus Outfall Concentration in Peninsula Machado Lake Outfall flows ............. 2-46
Figure 2-9: Total Coliform Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from SD1 and SD2 ..... 2-47
Figure 2-10: Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from SD1 and SD2 ... 2-48
Figure 2-11: Enterococci Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from SD1 and SD2 ....... 2-49
Figure 2-12: E-Coli Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from RHE City Hall2- .............. 2-50
Figure 3-1: Modeled Regional Projects .................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-2: Casaba Estates (formerly Butcher Ranch) Post-Development Design Conditions. ............... 3-13
Figure 3-3: San Ramon Canyon Project .................................................................................................... 3-14
Figure 3-4: Chandler Quarry Project Drainage Area Map ........................................................................ 3-16
Figure 3-5: Chandler Quarry Project Drainage and Water Quality Concept Plan .................................... 3-17
Figure 3-6: Chandler Quarry Project Infiltration System Concept Design ............................................... 3-18
Figure 3-7: Torrance Airport Drainage Area ............................................................................................ 3-20
Figure 3-8: Conceptual Layout of Torrance Airport Basin ....................................................................... 3-21
Figure 3-9: Geologic Hazards in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed ................................................ 3-24
Figure 3-10: Proposed Palos Verdes Landfill Regional BMP Drainage Area ............................................ 3-26
Figure 3-11: Proposed Eastview Park Infiltration Project Drainage Area ................................................ 3-28
Figure 5-1: 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Wilmington Drain WMA (WD-1, WD-Solano) 5-6
Figure 5-2: 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Machado Lake WMA (ML-1) .......................... 5-7
Figure 5-3: 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Los Angeles Harbor WMA .............................. 5-8
List of Appendices
Appendix 1.0 LA County Flood Control District Summary
Appendix 3.1 Nonstructural Targeted Control Measures
Appendix 3.2 Structural Best Management Practices
Appendix 4.1 Reasonable Assurance Analysis Report (2021)
Appendix 4.2 Requirements for Achieving Receiving Water Limits
APPENDICES NOT INCLUDED
IN THIS DOCUMENT
52
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-1 | Page
1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) regulates discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) through the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
Permit (MS4 Permit). The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving
waters in the Los Angeles County region by regulating municipal stormwater and non-stormwater
discharges from the permittees’ MS4s. The overarching goal of these requirements is to reduce the
discharge of pollutants from MS4s to the maximum extent practicable.1 The Permit allows permittees the
flexibility of developing an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) to implement the
requirements of the Permit. Implementation is to be achieved on a watershed basis through customized
strategies, control measures, and BMPs to ensure that discharges from the permittees’ MS4s:
i.Achieve applicable WQBELs,
ii.Do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations, and
iii.Do not include non-storm water discharges that are effectively prohibited.
Following the adoption of the 2012 MS4 Permit, the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rolling Hills Estates, along with the County of Los Angeles (Unincorporated County), and Los Angeles
County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Peninsula WMG, began to
collaborate on the initial development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) to
implement the requirements of the MS4 Permit on a watershed scale and address the water quality
priorities for the Palos Verdes Peninsula watersheds. The Peninsula WMG coordinated with other
agencies and watershed management groups in the initial development of the 2016 EWMP, including the
City of Los Angeles, the Dominguez Channel EWMP Group, and the Beach Cities EWMP Group. The initial
Peninsula EWMP was approved by the Regional Board in April 2016.
This revised EWMP reevaluates the Peninsula WMG’s water quality priorities identified during the initial
development of the 2016 EWMP in Section 2, presents an updated program of BMPs intended to achieve
these water quality priorities in Section 3The results of the revised EWMP are significantly different than
the initial EWMP due to availability of Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) monitoring
data and continuous flow monitoring data within the Peninsula WMG area used to calibrate the updated
Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) model. The updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) results
are summarized in Section 4 and the BMP implementation schedule is summarized in Section 5. The
financial strategy incorporating new sources of funding for implementation is detailed in Section 6, Section
7 provides the Legal Authority language, Section 8 refers to the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring
Program, Section 9 summarizes the Adaptive Management process, and Section 10 summarizes the
Reporting Program.
1 Reference: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal.shtml
53
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-2 | Page
1.2. PENINSULA WATERSHED
The geographic scope of the Peninsula EWMP (as shown in Figure 1-1) is comprised of the incorporated
Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and Rolling Hills Estates, and unincorporated areas of
the County of Los Angeles and LACFCD facilities (See Appendix 1.0 for a description of the LACFCD and its
responsibilities within the Peninsula WMG). The City of Rolling Hills is not participating in the Peninsula
EWMP; however, the city is participating in the Peninsula WMG CIMP.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula is situated in the southwestern portion of Los Angeles County atop the Palos
Verdes Hills, which are bounded to the north by the cities of Torrance and Lomita, to the east by the San
Pedro area of the City of Los Angeles, and to the south and west by the Pacific Ocean. The Peninsula WMG
area is divided into two HUC-12 equivalent watersheds: 1) Santa Monica Bay (SMB) Watershed and 2) the
Greater Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area, which is subdivided into two subwatersheds,
the Los Angeles Harbor Subwatershed and the Machado Lake Subwatershed. A change in drainage divides
the Peninsula WMG from the northeast to the southwest with the westerly and southwesterly portion
draining into Santa Monica Bay and the northeasterly portion draining to Machado Lake and the Los
Angeles Harbor. The SMB Watershed accounts for 63% (14.2 square miles) of the total Peninsula WMG
area, and includes portions of the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Rolling Hills
Estates. The Los Angeles Harbor Subwatershed accounts for 15% (3.4 square miles) of the total Peninsula
WMG area and includes portions of the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates. The
Machado Lake Subwatershed accounts for 22% (4.9 square miles) of the total Peninsula WMG area, and
includes portions of the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and the
unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Drainage from the Peninsula WMG agencies is
conveyed via natural soft bottom canyons in conjunction with structured storm drain systems. Table 1-1
provides the Peninsula EWMP area identified by watershed and agency, and Figure 1-1 provides a map of
the Peninsula EWMP watershed and jurisdictional boundaries, including existing water quality monitoring
sites in the Peninsula EWMP area.
Table 1-1: Jurisdictional Areas within Each Peninsula EWMP Watershed
Permittee Rancho Palos
Verdes
Palos Verdes
Estates
Rolling Hills
Estates
County of Los
Angeles
Total
Land Area within Santa Monica
Bay Watershed
(Square Miles)
9.35 4.35 0.46 0 14.2
Land Area within Machado Lake
Subwatershed
(Square Miles)
1.07 0.39 2.78 0.7 4.9
Land Area within Los Angeles
Los Angeles Harbor
Subwatershed
(Square Miles)
3.02 0 0.34 0 3.4
Total EWMP Area 13.5 4.8 3.6 0.7 22.6
54
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-3 | Page
Figure 1-1: Peninsula EWMP Area and Existing Monitoring Locations
Peninsula-RW1
Peninsula-RW2
SMB 7-1
SMB 7-2
SMB 7-3 SMB 7-4 SMB 7-5
Receiving Water Site
Outfall Site
TMDL Site
55
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-4 | Page
1.3. WATER QUALITY ISSUES AND THE HISTORY OF WATER QUALITY
REGULATIONS
1.3.1. FEDERAL LAW, STATE LAW, AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the
waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for all inland surface waters, estuaries, and
coastal waters. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ultimately responsible for
implementation of the CWA and its associated regulations. In 1972 the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) was created through Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The NPDES
prohibits discharges of pollutants from any point source, including the MS4 system, into the nation's
waters except as allowed under an NPDES permit. The MS4 system includes curbs and gutters, man-made
channels, catch basins and storm drains.
The CWA allowed the federal EPA to authorize the NPDES Permit Program to state governments, enabling
states to perform many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the NPDES
Program. California, like other states, implements the CWA by promulgating its own water quality
protection laws and regulations. As long as this authority provides equivalent protections as the federal
CWA, EPA can delegate CWA responsibilities to the state while retaining oversight responsibilities. In some
cases, California has established requirements that are more stringent than federal requirements.
The 1970, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act granted the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) broad powers to protect water quality. The SWRCB chartered nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) with regulatory responsibility for developing and enforcing
water quality objectives and implementation plans to best protect the beneficial uses of local
waterbodies. To protect clean water at the local level, municipalities in Los Angeles County and the County
of Los Angeles unincorporated areas are required to obtain a discharge permit from the Regional Board
to discharge stormwater through the MS4 into Waters of the United States, hence the MS4 Permit. The
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is the governing regulatory agency for
water quality within the Peninsula WMG area.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to regularly identify waterbodies not meeting water quality
objectives. These waters are often referred to as "303(d) listed" or "impaired" waters. Development and
approval of the 303(d) list is a lengthy state and federal process. A list is not effective until the USEPA
approves the list. The current 303(d) list for California was approved by USEPA on April 6th, 2018. Changes
from the previous 303(d) list include removal of sediment toxicity for the Santa Monica Bay
Offshore/Nearshore, and revising the list of Category 2 Water Body Pollutant Combinations by adding
arsenic and mercury impairments for the Santa Monica Bay Offshore/Nearshore.
Waterbodies that are listed on the 303(d) list typically require development of a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for the pollutant(s) impairing the use of water. A TMDL establishes the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. Depending on the nature
of the pollutant, TMDL implementation requires limits on the contributions of pollutants from point
sources (waste load allocation), nonpoint sources (load allocation), or both.
Adoption of a TMDL requires an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan (known as the Basin Plan)
for the Los Angeles Region. The Regional Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water
quality and protect the beneficial uses of regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates
beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be
56
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-5 | Page
attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's
antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region.
The Basin Plan is reviewed and updated as necessary (Regional Board 1994, as amended). Following
adoption by the Regional Board, the Basin Plan and subsequent amendments are subject to approval by
the State Board, the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The MS4 Permit includes effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, minimum control
measures (MCMs), and TMDL provisions, and outlines the process for developing watershed management
programs, including the EWMP. Development of an EWMP is one of the options outlined in the MS4
Permit to address effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, and TMDLs. The EWMP must also
incorporate MCMs, which are programs required to be implemented to address water quality issues.
1.3.2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The stormwater structural controls that will be implemented as a result the EWMP may require
discretionary approval subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
LACFCD has prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact report (PEIR) for all EWMP groups in which
they are a part. This PEIR covers CEQA requirements for the EWMPs as a whole. The Peninsula WMG
intends to comply with CEQA when implementing structural BMPs contained in this updated EWMP.
Public agencies responsible for carrying out or approving stormwater structural controls are identified as
the lead agency. The environmental review required imposes both procedural and substantive
requirements. At a minimum, the lead agency will adhere to the consultation and public notice
requirements set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, make determinations whether the proposed stormwater
structural control is a “project”, and if so, conduct an initial review of the project and its environmental
effects. The lead agency will identify and document the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project in accordance with CEQA, (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.).
Certain classes of projects have been determined not to have significant effect on the environment and
are exempt from the provisions of CEQA by statute or category. When a public agency decides that a
project is exempt from CEQA, and the public agency approves or determines to carry out the project, the
agency may file a Notice of Exemption. For projects deemed not exempt, the lead agency will prepare an
Initial Study and decide whether a Negative Declaration is applicable for the project, or depending on the
potential effects, a further, and more substantial review may be conducted in the form of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A project may not be approved as submitted if feasible alternatives
or Mitigation Measures are not able to substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the
project. Moreover, environmental review must include provisions for wide public involvement, formal
and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues, and when deciding
the matter, the lead agency must consider all comments it receives (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21091(d)(1); 14
CCR § 15074(b)). The lead agency will use the EIR in determining the environmental effects of the
proposed storm water project, and whether or not to approve the proposed project. If the proposed
project is approved, all conditions and mitigations made in the adopted EIR will become part of any
subsequent actions taken by the lead agency. The CEQA process will also be used by permitting agencies,
funding agencies and the public to support proposed project decisions.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) comes into play less often than CEQA, but may be included
for storm water projects involving federal funding. A joint NEPA and CEQA review process is encouraged
to improve coordination and avoid redundancies. Like CEQA, the NEPA process provides opportunities to
address issues related to proposed projects early in the planning stages. NEPA was codified under Title 42
of the United States Code sections 4331 et seq. (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
57
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-6 | Page
1.4. WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The Regional Board designates "beneficial uses" for waterbodies in the watersheds that it governs and
adopts water quality objectives to protect these uses through the Basin Planning process2. In some cases,
EPA may also promulgate objectives where it makes a finding that the state's objectives are not protective
enough to protect the beneficial use. The nature of the objectives is directly related to the type of
beneficial use. For example, the freshwater warm habitat beneficial use protects aquatic organisms
resident in warm-water streams. The associated water quality objectives are for those constituents known
to affect both the growth and reproduction of aquatic life. These objectives range from physical
characteristics such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH to potential toxic constituents including
metals and organics. In California, the objectives for metals and a number of organic compounds have
been established by the federal EPA rather than the state (California Toxics Rule, 2000). The EPA
promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other water quality standards
provisions based on the determination that the numeric criteria were necessary (since the state had been
without numeric water quality criteria for many priority toxic pollutants as required by the CWA) to
protect human health and the environment. These Federal criteria are legally applicable in the state for
inland surface waters, enclosed bays and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the CWA. The
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for
Ocean Waters in Calfiornia, California Ocean Plan in 1972 and adopted the most recent amended Ocean
Plan on February 4, 2019. The Ocean Plan also establishes water quality objectives and a program of
implementation to protect beneficial uses at all MS4 discharge points within Los Angeles County coastal
watersheds. See Chapter 2 for more details.
2 See Regional Board’s Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, accessed May 07, 2021.
58
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-7 | Page
1.5. THE ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1.5.1. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PRIORITIES
Addressing MS4 discharges on a watershed scale allows permittees to meet the requirements of the
Permit and address water quality priorities in an integrated and collaborative way. The conditions of the
receiving waters drive management actions, which in turn focus on the measures to address pollutant
contributions to and from the MS4.
The ultimate goals of the EWMP is to ensure that discharges from the MS4:
1. Achieve applicable Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) that implement TMDLs,
2. Do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations,
3. Non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 are not a source of pollutants to receiving waters.
1.5.2. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Development of an EWMP is one of the options outlined in the MS4 Permit held by Permittees to address
effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, and TMDLs. The EWMP includes an evaluation of existing
water quality conditions, including characterization of storm water and non-storm water discharges from
the MS4 and receiving water quality to support identification and prioritization/sequencing of
management actions. At a minimum, water quality priorities within each Watershed Management Area
must include achieving applicable water quality-based effluent limitations and/or established receiving
water limitations.
The MS4 permit requires that this EWMP identify strategies, control measures, and BMPs to implement
on a watershed scale, with the goal of creating an efficient program to focus collective resources on
meeting watershed priorities and effectively controlling the source of pollutants to and from the MS4.
See Chapter 2 of this EWMP for an evaluation of existing water quality conditions and classification of
waterbody pollutant combinations as Category 1 (Highest Priority), Category 2 (High Priority), and
Category 3 (Medium Priority).
This EWMP has incorporated State agency input from various sources on priority setting and
implementation issues. Specific priorities incorporated include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The EWMP is consistent with priorities listed in SB 985 and is in accordance with the Storm Water
Resource Plan Guidelines 3 for all categories with the exception of those which are more applicable to
the Peninsula Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan and the California Water Service Urban Water
Management Plan.
• The Peninsula WMG lies within the South Bay subregion of the LA IRWMP and will include its regional
projects in the LA IRWMP database.
• The Stormwater Strategic Initiative 4 identifies prioritization of projects to address issues facing the
storm water program. Efforts described within this EWMP have used the same priorities in mind,
3 Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines. State Water Resources Control Board. December 15, 2015.
4 Stormwater Strategic Initiative. State Water Resources Control Board. June 25, 2015.
59
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-8 | Page
including, but not limited to optimizing the use of stormwater as a resource and providing consistent
and widespread messaging to broaden the understanding of the value of stormwater.
• The Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water5 identifies four main goals, all of
which the EWMP has incorporated: 1) Change the Perspective that Storm Water is a Waste or Hazard,
and Treat it as a Valuable Water Resource; 2) Manage Storm Water to Preserve Watershed Processes
and Achieve Desired Water Quality and Environmental Outcomes; 3) Implement Efficient and
Effective Regulatory Programs; and 4) Collaborate in order to Solve Water Quality and Pollutant
Problems with an Array of Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Approaches
• The California Water Action Plan6 describes several actions to address the drought in California. The
actions which this EWMP has incorporated include: making conservation a California way of life;
increasing regional self-reliance and integrated water management across all levels of government;
protecting and restoring important ecosystems; managing and preparing for dry periods; expanding
water storage capacity and improving groundwater management; and providing safe water for all
communities.
• The EWMP has incorporated goals in line with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s
2019Strategic Plan7 and 2020 Vision for Sustainable Stormwater Management 8, including:
Collaboration – Advance collaboration to address water quality problems in California;
Education/Outreach – Advance the knowledge of stormwater quality professionals and increase
the awareness and knowledge of policy-makers and regulators in California regarding stormwater
issues;
Implementation Guidance – Advance the quality of implementation guidance for
environmentally beneficial and cost-effective adaptive management approaches to improving
stormwater quality in California that emphasize true source control and operational source
control over treatment;
Regulatory Review – Advance the development of consistent, proactive, and flexible stormwater
policy and regulations consistent with the maximum extent practicable (MEP) standard of
pollutant reduction through the incorporation of the latest scientific and economic information
to promote the protection of water quality of beneficial uses; and
Scientific Assessment – Advance the understanding of pollutants of concern and their sources,
fate, and transport, and the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) to control them.
In order to achieve the goals of the MS4 Permit, the approach of the EWMP is to:
• Prioritize water quality issues resulting from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the
MS4 to receiving waters,
• Identify and implement strategies, control measures, and BMPs that:
o Achieve applicable water quality-based effluent limitations9
o Prevent exceedances of receiving water limitation10
5 Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water. State Water Resources Control Board. December 11, 2015.
6 California Water Action Plan. California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). January 14, 2016.
7 CASQA Strategic Plan and Organizational Goals (April 2019) accessed May 26, 2021..
8 Vision for Sustainable Stormwater Management – October 2020. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). October
2020.
9 Pursuant to Part VI.E and Attachments L through R of the Permit pursuant to corresponding compliance schedules
10 Pursuant to Parts V.A and VI.E and Attachments L through R of the Permit
60
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-9 | Page
o Prevent non-stormwater discharges that are effectively prohibited 11
o Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable 12
• Execute an integrated monitoring program and assessment program13 to determine progress towards
achieving applicable limitations and/or action levels.
• Modify strategies, control measures, and BMPs as necessary based on analysis of monitoring data
collected pursuant to the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) to ensure that applicable water
quality-based effluent limitations and receiving water limitations and other milestones set forth in the
EWMP are achieved in the targeted timeframes.
The overall approach is adaptive, whereby BMPs will be implemented, their effectiveness monitored and
modifications to this EWMP will be made as needed. These modifications will maintain consistency with
the assumptions and requirements of applicable TMDL Waste Load Allocations.
11 Pursuant to Part III.A of the Permit
12 Pursuant to Part IV.A.1 of the Permit
13 Pursuant to Attachment E – MRP, Part IV of the Permit
61
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-10 | Page
1.6. REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS AND WATERSHED CONTROL
MEASURES
As part of the initial EWMP development, a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) was conducted on a
watershed level, to determine through quantitative analysis or modeling, the target load reductions (TLRs)
necessary for each of the Peninsula EWMP priority pollutants in order to achieve water quality objectives.
As a part of the Peninsula EWMP’s adaptive management process, the Peninsula WMG is required to
submita a revised EWMP to the Regional Board, including an updated RAA, by June 30, 2021.
Building upon the original EWMP, the Revised RAA has been updated to include recent CIMP monitoring
data, project planning and implementation, and modeling advances over the past five years. The updated
wet weather RAA was conducted using the Watershed Management Modeling System 2.0 (WMMS 2.0),
the latest modeling tool developed by LACFCD, to determine a cost-effective implementation strategy to
meet applicable water quality priorities. For dry weather, a revised semi-quantitative approach was
implemented to update the dry weather portion of the revised RAA.
A suite of Watershed Control Measures (i.e. BMPs) to be implemented to achieve the necessary TLRs is
described in Chapter 3 of this revised EWMP.. Watershed Control Measures are subdivided into 1)
Minimum Control Measures, 2) Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures 3) TMDL Control Measures and 4)
other control measures. A schedule has also been developed in Chapter 5 for the strategies, control
measures and BMPs to be implemented by each individual Permittee within its jurisdiction and for those
that will be implemented by multiple Permittees on a watershed scale. The schedules will measure
progress on a semi-regular basis during permit term(s) and incorporate:
1) Deadlines occurring within the permit term for all applicable interim and/or final water quality-based
effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations to implement TMDLs,
2) Interim deadlines and numeric milestones within the permit term for any applicable final water quality-
based effluent limitation and/or receiving water limitation to implement TMDLs, where deadlines within
the permit term were not otherwise specified, and
3) Watershed priorities related to addressing exceedances of receiving water limitations.
62
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
1-11 | Page
1.7. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
An adaptive management process will continue to be implemented to further refine and adapt the EWMP
to become more effective, based on, but not limited to the following:
1. Progress toward achieving the outcome of improved water quality in MS4 discharges and receiving
waters through implementation of the watershed control measures,
2. Progress toward achieving interim and/or final water quality-based effluent limitations and/or
receiving water limitations, or other numeric milestones where specified, according to established
compliance schedules,
3. Achievement of interim milestones;
4. Reopening of TMDLs and new 303(d) listings;
5. Re-evaluation of the highest water quality priorities identified for the Watershed Management Area
based on more recent water quality data for discharges from the MS4 and the receiving water(s) and
a reassessment of sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges,
6. Availability of new information and data from sources other than the Permittees’ monitoring
program(s) within the Watershed Management Area that informs the effectiveness of the actions
implemented by the Permittees,
7. Regional Water Board recommendations; and
8. Recommendations for modifications to the EWMP solicited through a public participation process.
Based on the results of the adaptive management process, modifications necessary to improve the
effectiveness of the EWMP will be reported in the Annual Report, and as part of the Report of Waste
Discharge (ROWD). Any necessary modifications to the EWMP will be implemented upon acceptance by
the Regional Water Board Executive Officer within 60 days of submittal if the Regional Water Board
Executive Officer expresses no objections.
63
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-1 | Page
2. IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES
This updated Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) re-evaluates water quality priorities
identified for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Management Group (Peninsula WMG) during the
initial development of the EWMP. Water quality priorities have been revised based on updated
information and recent water quality data collected in the receiving water and re-assessment of sources
of pollutants in the watershed based on discharge water quality data collected from Peninsula WMG
outfalls since the initial development of the EWMP.
During the initial development of the EWMP, an evaluation of existing water quality conditions per section
VI.C.5.a of the MS4 Permit was conducted in order to evaluate and prioritize water quality issues. Available
data from applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), the State’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies,
and available monitoring data collected between 2003-2015 were analyzed. For this update, recent
information as well as four years of receiving water and outfall water quality monitoring data collected
between 2016 and 2020 under the Palos Verdes Peninsula Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
(Peninsula CIMP) have been assessed as summarized below in Section 2.2 Receiving Water
Characterization and Section 2.3 Source Assessment.
2.1. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION AND PRIORITIZATION
The updated receiving water characterization in Section 2.2 has been used to identify pollutants of
concern for the Peninsula WMG and to classify them into the following three waterbody-pollutant
combination categories:
CATEGORY 1: Waterbody-pollutant combinations for which water quality-based effluent limitations
and/or receiving water limitations are established pursuant to a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as
identified in Part VI.E TMDL Provisions and Attachments L through R of the MS4 Permit.
CATEGORY 2: Pollutants for which data indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water
according to the State Board’s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) List (State Listing Policy) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or
contributing to the impairment but for which a TMDL has not been established.
CATEGORY 3: Pollutants for which there are insufficient data to indicate water quality impairment in
the receiving water according to the State’s Listing Policy but for which data indicating exceedances
of applicable receiving water limitations may be occurring and for which MS4 discharges may be
causing or contributing to the exceedance.
This categorization forms the basis for prioritizing pollutants to be addressed by the EWMP. All of the
identified Peninsula WMG’s pollutants of concern fall into either Category 1 or 2 classification. There are
no Category 3 pollutants identified based on the receiving water characterization. Table 2-1 summarizes
the priority pollutant categorization for the Peninsula EWMP. As shown, Category 1 and Category 2
pollutants are considered with Highest and High Priority, respectively, in identifying control measures to
be implemented in each watershed. Highest priority pollutants include those with water quality-based
effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations established pursuant to a TMDL. High priority
pollutants include those for which data indicate impairment of receiving water limitations and for which
the source assessment detailed in Section 2.3 has identified MS4 discharges as a potential source.
64
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-2 | Page
Table 2-1: Peninsula EWMP Priority Pollutants
Category Priority Pollutant
Waterbody Santa Monica Bay Santa Monica Bay Beaches Machado Lake Wilmington Drain Inner Los Angeles Harbor Cabrillo Marina 1 Highest
Chlordane (water, sediment, fish tissue) x
Copper (water and sediment) x x
DDT (water, sediment, fish tissue) x x x x x
Dieldrin (water, sediment, fish tissue) x
Indicator Bacteria x
Lead (water and sediment) x x
Total Nitrogen x
Total PAHs x x
PCBs (water, sediment, fish tissue) x x x x x
Total Phosphorus x
Trash x x
Zinc (water and sediment) x x
2 High
Arsenic x
Indicator Bacteria x
Mercury x
65
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-3 | Page
2.2. RECEIVING WATER CHARACTERIZATION
The Peninsula WMG area encompasses portions of the drainage area tributary to three receiving
waterbodies: the Santa Monica Bay, Machado Lake (which includes Wilmington Drain), and the Greater
Los Angeles Harbor. Existing water quality is characterized for each of these receiving waters using the
following information:
● Water Quality Control Plans
o Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan)14
o California Ocean Plan15
● Applicable TMDLs
o Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry and Wet Weather TMDLs
o Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris TMDL
o Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL
o Machado Lake Trash TMDL
o Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL
o Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL
o Long Beach and Greater Los Angeles Harbor Toxics TMDL 16
● California Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Quality Assessment Integrated Reports
o 2014/2016 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies
o 2018 draft 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies
● Monitoring Data and Reports
o PVP CIMP Water Quality Data
o Machado Lake Water Quality Monitoring Data collected by City of Los Angeles
o Greater Los Angeles Harbor Waters Coordinated Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
Water Quality Monitoring Data collected by the Greater Harbor Waters Regional
Monitoring Coalition
The sections below provide more details on the updated information utilized to evaluate existing water
quality for the Peninsula WMG’s three receiving waters: Santa Monica Bay, Machado Lake and Greater
Los Angeles Harbor waters.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANS
The Peninsula WMG watersheds are subject to both the Basin Plan and California Ocean Plan, which set
water quality objectives and implementation provisions to protect the quality of surface and marine
14 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties. Last accessed online on March 26, 2021.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.html
15 State Water Resources Control Board, 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters in California, California Ocean Plan
effective February 4, 2019.
16 As recognized by the footnote in Attachment K-4 of the MS4 Permit, the Peninsula WMG members have entered into an
Amended Consent Decree with the United States and the State of California, including the Regional Board, pursuant to which the
Regional Board has released the Peninsula WMG members from responsibility for Toxic pollutants in the Dominguez Channel and
the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. Accordingly, no inference should be drawn from the submission of this EWMP
Work Plan or from any action or implementation taken pursuant to it that the Peninsula WMG has waived any rights under the
Amended Consent Decree.
66
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-4 | Page
waters, respectively, and to ensure that the beneficial uses of these waters are maintained. For this EWMP
update, the most recent versions of the Basin Plan and Ocean Plan available as of the preparation of this
document were consulted to determine beneficial uses and water quality objectives applicable to the
Peninsula WMG. The beneficial uses of the Peninsula WMG’s receiving waters as designated in the Basin
Plan are summarized in Table 2-2, and the beneficial use acronyms used in the table are defined as follows:
MUN – Municipal and Domestic Supply
IND – Industrial Service Supply
GWR – Groundwater Recharge
NAV – Navigation
COMM – Commercial and Sport Fishing
REC1 – Water Contact Recreation
REC2 – Non-Contact Water Recreation
WARM – Warm Freshwater Habitat
MAR – Marine Habitat
WILD – Wildlife Habitat
BIOL – Preservation of Biological Habitats
RARE – Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
aquatic habitat
MIGR – Migration of Aquatic Organisms
SPWN – Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early
Development
SHELL – Shellfish Harvesting
WET – Wetland Habitat
Table 2-2: Peninsula EWMP Area Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses Designated in the Basin Plan
Water Body MUN IND GWR NAV COMM REC1 REC2 WARM MAR WILD BIOL RARE MIGR SPWN SHELL WETb Los Angeles County Coastal Nearshore Zone^ E E E E E E E E Ee Ef Ef Ear
Los Angeles County Coastal Offshore Zone E E E E E E E Ee Ef Ef E
Machado Lake P* E E E E E E
Coastal Streams of Palos Verdes P* I I I I E E
Canyon Streams of Palos Verdes P* I I I I E E
Point Vicente Beach E E E E E E P E
Los Angeles Harbor – Other Inner Areas E E E P E E Ee P
Los Angeles Harbor – Marinas (Cabrillo) E E E E E E E P
E: Existing beneficial use; P: Potential beneficial use; I: Intermittent beneficial use
* Asterisked MUN designations are designated under SB 88-63 and RB 89-03. Some designations may be considered for
exemption at a later date.
b Water bodies designated as WET may have wetlands habitat associated with only a portion of the water body. Any regulatory
action would require a detailed analysis of the area.
^ Nearshore is defined as the zone bounded by the shoreline and a line 1000 feet from the shoreline or the 30-foot depth
contours, whichever is further from the shoreline. Longshore extent is from Rincon Creek to the San Gabriel River Estuary.
e One or more rare species utilizes all ocean, bays, estuaries, and coastal wetlands for foraging and/or nesting.
f Aquatic organisms utilize all bays, estuaries, lagoons, and coastal wetlands, to a certain extent, for spawning and early
development. This may include migration into areas which are heavily influenced by freshwater inputs.
arAreas exhibiting large shellfish populations include Malibu, Point Dume, Point Fermin, White Point and Zuma Beach.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLS) AND 303(D) LISTINGS
Waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not meet water quality standards consistent with beneficial
uses are considered impaired and placed on the State Water Resources Control Board’s 303(d) list of
impaired waters which includes identification of the specific pollutant(s) causing the impairment, i.e.,
waterbody/pollutant combinations. TMDLs are required to be developed for pollutants that are causing
impairment for each listed waterbody or waterbody segment. Where appropriate, TMDLs assign waste
load allocations (WLAs) to MS4 dischargers to ensure that the total amount of a particular pollutant
entering a receiving waterbody from the MS4 will not cause the water quality objectives in that water
body to be exceeded and thereby impair its beneficial uses. Table 2-3 shows existing TMDLs applicable to
the Peninsula WMG that were evaluated to identify Category 1 water body pollutant combinations.
67
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-5 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-3: TMDLs Applicable to the Peninsula
EWMP TMDL Water Body Segments
Addressed by TMDL
Pollutants
Addressed by
TMDL
Regional Board Resolution Number Effective Date
Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Wet
and Dry Weather TMDLs
Santa Monica Bay
Beaches
Indicator Bacteria
(Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Enterococcus)
2002-022 (Wet TMDL) &
2002-004 (Dry TMDL);
Amended by R12-007
July 15, 2003;
R12-007 effective July 2,
2014
Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and
Offshore Debris TMDL Santa Monica Bay Trash R10-010
Amended by R19-004
March 20, 2012
R19-004 effective date
pending
Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL
Santa Monica Bay
Santa Monica Bay
Beaches
DDT
PCBs Established by USEPA March 26, 2012
Machado Lake Trash Machado Lake Trash 2007-006
Amended by R19-14
March 6, 2008
R19-14 effective date
pending
Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs
(Toxics) TMDL Machado Lake
Chlordane
Dieldrin
PCBs
DDT
R10-008 March 20, 2012
Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Machado Lake
Algae
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Ammonia
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved Oxygen
Odor
2008-006 March 11, 2009
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters
Toxic Pollutants TMDL
Inner Harbor
Cabrillo Marina
DDT
PCBs
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PAHs
R11-008 March 23, 2012
68
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-6 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
The State’s 2014/2016 and draft 2018 303(d) lists have been reviewed to identify waterbody impairments
applicable to the Peninsula WMG that are not yet being addressed by a TMDL. Table 2-4 below
summarizes the waterbody pollutant combinations identified on these 303(d) lists that are the basis for
Peninsula EWMP Category 2 water body pollutant combinations.
Table 2-4: 303(d) Listed Pollutants in Peninsula EWMP Watersheds
Impaired Waterbody Segment Pollutant Causing Impairment
Santa Monica Bay Arsenic
Santa Monica Bay Mercury
Wilmington Drain Coliform Bacteria
WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA
The Peninsula WMG, along with the City of Rolling Hills, implements the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP). The data collected by the CIMP are used to assess
water quality priorities and effectiveness of EWMP projects and programs. The CIMP established two (2)
new near-shore monitoring locations in the Santa Monica Bay (approximately 1000 feet offshore) for
collection of receiving water monitoring data during three (3) wet weather events and two (2) dry weather
events per year. The CIMP also includes weekly indicator bacteria monitoring conducted in accordance
with the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL at five (5) historical Santa Monica Bay shoreline
locations.
In addition, some CIMP receiving water data evaluated in this water quality prioritization has been
collected by other agencies or groups including:
●Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL
data collected under the Coordinated Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Plan (CCMRP)
implemented by the Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC) for the Greater Harbor Waters, and
●Machado Lake in-lake water quality, sediment and fish tissue data collected by the City of Los Angeles
under the Machado Nutrient and Pesticides and PCBs TMDLs.
The following sections are organized by watershed and include a characterization of each receiving water
body based on applicable TMDLs, 303(d) listings and recently collected water quality data.
69
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-7 | Page
2.2.1. SANTA MONICA BAY
The Palos Verdes Peninsula is known for its steep cliffs and rocky intertidal coastal habitat and tidepools.
Sandy beaches on the Peninsula are few and small, most with difficult access. The portion of the Peninsula
WMG with drainage tributary to Santa Monica Bay consists of approximately 14 square miles, which is
about 3.4% of the Santa Monica Bay Watershed (414 sq. mi.).
INDICATOR BACTERIA
The Santa Monica Bay Beaches (SMB Beaches) were first designated as impaired due to fecal indicator
bacteria on the State’s 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Regional Board subsequently issued the
SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDLs (SMBBB TMDLs) for wet and dry weather conditions, which became
effective on July 15, 2003 and were subsequently amended on July 2, 2014. All of the Peninsula shoreline
monitoring sites have been delisted from the 2014/16 and draft 2018 303(d) lists in accordance with the
State Water Resources Control Board’s delisting criteria, however the SMBBB TMDLs continue to remain
in effect.
The SMBBB TMDLs include single-sample and six-week rolling geometric mean numeric objectives for
total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus densities measured in most probable number per 100
milliliters (MPN/100mL). The TMDLs set waste load allocations (WLAs) based on the single sample
objectives as an allowable number of days on which the single sample bacteria objectives could be
exceeded at shoreline monitoring sites along the Santa Monica Bay (allowable exceedance days). The
TMDLs divide the calendar year into three separate periods, each with specified numbers of allowable
single-sample exceedance days:
●Summer dry-weather (April 1 – October 31),
●Winter dry weather (November 1 – March 31), and
●Wet weather (Year-round)
The six-week rolling geometric mean applies year-round during all weather conditions.
Table 2-5 shows the single sample and geometric mean bacteria objectives for the three types of indicator
bacteria and Table 2-6 presents the allowable number of exceedance days at each monitoring location
along the Peninsula WMG’s shoreline.
Table 2-5: SMBBB TMDL Bacteria Objectives
Constituent Six-Week Rolling Geometric Mean Single Sample
Total Coliform* 1,000 MPN/100 mL 10,000 MPN/100 mL
Fecal Coliform 200 MPN/100 mL 400 MPN/100 mL
Enterococcus 35 MPN/100 mL 104 MPN/100 mL
*Total Coliform density shall not exceed a daily maximum of 1,000/100 mL if the ratio of total to fecal
coliform exceeds 0.1
70
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-8 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-6: Allowable Exceedance Day(s) by Period and Monitoring
Location Shoreline Monitoring Location Period
Winter Dry Weather (b) Summer Dry Weather (c) Wet Weather (d)
(e)
SMB 7-1 (Malaga Cove) 1 0 2
SMB 7-2 (Bluff Cove) 1 0 0
SMB 7-3 (Long Point) 1 0 1
SMB 7-4 (Abalone Cove) 0 0 1
SMB 7-5 (Portuguese Bend Cove) 1 0 1
(a) Allowable Exceedance days based on weekly sampling;
(b) Final period beginning July 15, 2009;
(c) Final period beginning July 15, 2006;
(d) Wet weather days include days with rain events of ≥ 0.1 inches of precipitation and the three days following the end of
the rain event;
(e) Final period beginning July 15, 2021
To meet the monitoring requirements of these TMDLs, a SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDLs Coordinated
Shoreline Monitoring Plan was developed by a committee of responsible agencies including
representatives from the Peninsula WMG. The five shoreline monitoring sites established for the
Peninsula WMG area (SMB 7-1 through 7-5) are shown on Figure 1-1. These five shoreline monitoring
sites historically demonstrated fewer exceedance days than the reference beach (Leo Carrillo) used in the
TMDL and were therefore considered anti-degradation sites which were required to maintain their
existing high quality. The five Peninsula shoreline monitoring sites have historically and continue to be
sampled for indicator bacteria along the Palos Verdes Peninsula shoreline on a weekly basis. The data
summarized in Table 2-7 and Table 2-8 indicate that exceedances of the single sample and rolling six-week
geometric mean receiving water limitations are infrequent at these shoreline monitoring sites and even
during the 2016-17 rainy season, which exceeded the number of wet days for the critical 90th percentile
wet year, there were very few exceedances.
71
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-9 | Page
Table 2-7: Number of Exceedance Days Above Allowable Receiving Water Limitations
Station ID SMB 7-1 SMB 7-2 SMB 7-3 SMB 7-4 SMB 7-5
Season* Dry
Summer
Dry
Winter
Wet
Weather
Dry
Summer
Dry
Winter
Wet
Weather
Dry
Summer
Dry
Winter
Wet
Weather
Dry
Summer
Dry
Winter
Wet
Weather
Dry
Summer
Dry
Winter
Wet
Weather
Reporting
Year
Number of Exceedances of Annual Allowable Exceedance Days
2019-20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
2018-19+ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
2017-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016-17* 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
+ From 11/19/18 through 1/14/19 enterococcus samples were run with 0:0 dilution rather than standard 1:10 dilution in an attempt to lower the detection limits for enterococcus following
changeover in laboratories and method of analysis from EPA 1600 membrane filtration to IDEXX Enterolert® which may have resulted in increase in false positive exceedances.
* The number of wet days during the 2016-17 rainy season exceeded the number of wet days during the critical 90th percentile rain year
72
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-10 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-8: Number of Year-Round Rolling Six-Week Geomean Exceedances of Receiving Water Limitations
Station ID SMB 7-1 SMB 7-2 SMB 7-3 SMB 7-4 SMB 7-5
Reporting
Year
Number of Rolling Six-Week Geomean Exceedances
2019-20 1 0 0 0 0
2018-19 + 2 0 0 0 1
2017-18 0 0 0 0 0
2016-17* 2 0 0 1 0
+ From 11/19/18 through 1/14/19 enterococcus samples were run with 0:0 dilution rather than standard 1:10 dilution in an attempt to lower the detection limits for
enterococcus using IDEXX Enterolert® analytical method which may have resulted in an increase in false positive results and geomean exceedances
* The number of wet days during the 2016-17 rainy season exceeded the number of wet days during the critical 90th percentile rain year
73
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-11 | Page
In addition, two nearshore receiving water monitoring stations located approximately 1,000 feet offshore
in the Santa Monica Bay are being used to assess the effects of stormwater discharges on Santa Monica
Bay receiving water quality. Each of these stations is situated directly in line with one of the two (2) CIMP
outfall monitoring locations and wet weather nearshore receiving water sampling occurs in the Santa
Monica Bay as soon as safety allows following outfall sampling. Four complete years of wet and dry-
weather data from these receiving water sites have been collected beginning with reporting year 2016-
17.Out of the forty (40) samples collected offshore in the Santa Monica Bay during this four-year period,
only three (3) samples, or 7.5% of samples, exhibited elevated indicator bacteria results above Ocean Plan
objectives. Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3 show fecal indicator bacteria concentrations observed in
receiving water samples collected under the PVP CIMP between 2016 and 2020. The horizontal line in
each graph represents the Ocean Plan target for each respective species. As can be seen in these graphs,
indicator bacteria concentrations in the Santa Monica Bay receiving water are consistently well below the
2012 Ocean Plan targets17.
17 While these graphs compare data to the 2012 Ocean Plan, bacteria targets in the most recent (2019) Ocean Plan are consistent
with the 2012 Ocean Plan.
Figure 2-1: Santa Monica Bay Total Coliform Concentrations 2016-2020
74
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-12 | Page
Figure 2-2: Santa Monica Bay Fecal Coliform Concentrations 2016-2020
75
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-13 | Page
PCBS AND DDTS
The Palos Verdes Shelf portion of Santa Monica Bay is an active EPA Superfund site that is subject to
Superfund Remedial Action Objectives which include institutional controls, natural recovery, capping, and
monitored attenuation, and are expected to result in improved water quality. 18 From 1947 to 1971 large
quantities of DDT were discharged from the Montrose Chemical plant in Los Angeles to the Los Angeles
County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) which discharges to the Palos Verdes Shelf. PCBs also
entered the JWPCP from several industrial sources in the Los Angeles area. These DDT and PCBs discharges
passed through the JWPCP and were deposited on the Palos Verdes Shelf. There have also been reports
of recently discovered illegal offshore dumping of waste barrels containing DDT acid sludge between
Catalina Island and the Palos Verdes coast19. There is also concern that the rate of erosion on the
southwest portion of the Palos Verdes Shelf could bring previously buried deposits to the surface.
18 USEPA: Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL
19https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/#nt=1col-7030col1-mainnt=00000173-4a29-
dafc-a977-dabb7b330001-liA9promoSmall-1col-7030col1-main
Figure 2-3: Santa Monica Bay Enterococci Concentrations 2016-2020
76
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-14 | Page
Concentrations of DDT and PCBs deposited in the surface sediments of the Santa Monica Bay have
decreased substantially since the early 1970s and during this time period the benthic communities in the
Palos Verdes shelf and Santa Monica Bay have improved substantially to the point where impairments to
benthic communities are not seen; however, DDT and PCBs are still present at levels of concern for
bioaccumulation and human health 20. This contamination of DDT and PCBs in the sediments of Santa
Monica Bay, largely centered on the Palos Verdes shelf, has led to a large number of fish advisories for
much of Santa Monica Bay and a commercial fishing ban in the area around the Palos Verdes Shelf. As a
result, the US EPA issued the Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL in 2012 and the TMDL objectives
were established to meet fish concentrations for human consumption.
Four complete years of nearshore receiving water quality data have been collected under the PVP CIMP
in the Santa Monica Bay and analyzed for total DDT and PCBs. Of these dry and wet-weather samples
collected over the past four years, only one (1) out of forty (40) samples or 2.5% resulted in detection of
4,4’- DDT at a concentration between the method detection limit and the reporting limit. This sample was
collected during a summer dry weather sampling event in the fourth year of CIMP monitoring. None of
the forty (40) receiving water samples collected over the past four years have resulted in detections of
Total PCBs above the Ocean Plan objective for total PCBs.
TRASH
The Santa Monica Bay nearshore beneficial uses are impaired by the accumulation of suspended and
settleable debris. In 2008 and 2009, Regional Board staff conducted site visits along beaches in the
southern and northern parts of the Santa Monica Bay to document the trash problem, though no beaches
along the Peninsula WMG area were included in these site visits. Common items found on every beach
evaluated included: plastic bags, candy wrappers, cigarette butts, styrofoam, beverage containers, straws,
and paper. To address this impairment, the Regional Board issued the Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and
Offshore Marine Debris TMDL (SMB Marine Debris TMDL), which went into effect on Mar 20, 2012. The
SMB Marine Debris TMDL established a numeric target of zero trash and zero plastic pellets in the Santa
Monica Bay based on the narrative water quality objectives in both the Basin Plan and the Ocean Plan.
ARSENIC & MERCURY
The Santa Monica Bay is listed on the State’s 2014/16 and draft 2018 303(d) Lists as being impaired by
arsenic and mercury based on sediment and fish tissue data collected under the Hyperion Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit no. CA0109991 between January 2006 and June 2010. Nineteen (19) of 19 fish tissue
samples collected in the Santa Monica Bay exceeded the USEPA Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis 21 for arsenic in fish
tissue of 0.0034 ppm. Two (2) of thirty-two (32) sediment samples exceeded the Basin Plan narrative
objective for mercury based on the effects range median for saline waters (predictive of sediment toxicity)
20 USEPA: Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL
21 USEPA. Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish
Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. EPA 823-B-00-007 (November 2000).
77
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-15 | Page
for mercury of 0.71 mg/Kg dry weight 22. In addition, two (2) of nineteen (19) fish tissue samples exceeded
the OEHHA fish contaminant goal of 0.22ppm 23.
TOXICITY
The Santa Monica Bay Offshore/Nearshore water body was removed from the 2014/16 and draft 2018
303(d) lists for sediment toxicity at the recommendation of USEPA, indicating that Peninsula shoreline
waters are no longer considered to be impaired for sediment toxicity.
Some intermittent water column toxicity has been observed in the nearshore receiving water quality
monitoring data collected under the PVP CIMP. One (1) out of twenty-four (24) wet weather nearshore
receiving water samples collected under the PVP CIMP over the past four years has indicated toxicity,
however the toxic effect was not sufficiently elevated to require the performance of a toxicity
identification evaluation (TIE) and subsequent follow up wet-weather sampling showed no further toxic
effects during wet weather.
During the third and fourth years of PVP CIMP dry weather monitoring, three (3) of four (4) dry weather
receiving water samples collected in the Santa Monica Bay at receiving water site RW-1 off Malaga Cove
in Palos Verdes Estates indicated low-level persistent toxicity. A TIE was performed on the initial receiving
water sample showing toxicity collected at RW-1. The result of this TIE was inconclusive, though divalent
cationic metals were suggested as the potential constituents causing the observed effects during that dry
weather receiving water monitoring event. Follow up sampling at an ‘upstream’ shoreline monitoring
found no toxicity present closer to the shoreline nor were metals observed above Ocean Plan limits in
either the nearshore or shoreline receiving water sites. Based on monitoring data collected to date, there
is no evidence that MS4 discharges have caused or contributed to these intermittent nearshore toxicity
results nor has a cause of the toxicity been identified.
2.2.2. MACHADO LAKE
Machado Lake is located in the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park, which is a 231-acre Los Angeles City Park
serving the Wilmington and Harbor City communities. Machado Lake was created by damming one of the
last wetland systems in Los Angeles in 1971. The lake was intended for boating and fishing but over the
years water quality generally declined, boating was stopped, and signs were posted warning of the risk of
eating fish from the lake.
The Peninsula WMG areas do not drain directly into Machado Lake. The portion of the Peninsula WMG
which contributes runoff to Machado Lake consists of approximately 5 square miles, which is about 22%
of the Machado Lake watershed drainage area (approximately 22.6 sq. mi. in total). Drainage from the
Peninsula WMG areas exits the Palos Verdes Peninsula in an easterly or northeasterly direction where it
22 Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of
chemical concentrations in marine and estuary sediments. Environmental Management. 19, (1): 81-97
(1995).
23 Klasing, S. and Brodberg, R. Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in
California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene. Pesticide and Environmental
Toxicology Branch Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency. (June 2008).
78
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-16 | Page
is comingled with drainage from the cities of Torrance and Lomita prior to flowing into three of the four
major drainage systems entering Machado Lake: Wilmington Drain, Project 77 and Project 510 (Figure 2-
4). As shown in Table 2-3, Machado Lake is impaired for organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, nutrients, and
trash. Over 80% of the Peninsula WMG’s Machado Lake watershed drains to Machado Lake through
Wilmington Drain. Wilmington Drain is listed on the State’s 303(d) List for indicator bacteria.
Machado Lake underwent renovations as part of the City of Los Angeles’s Machado Lake Ecosystem
Rehabilitation Project funded by Prop O which was completed in 2017. The primary goal of the
Rehabilitation Project was to improve water quality in Machado Lake while also enhancing natural habitat
and recreational features of the park. The project consisted of in-lake improvements that included
dredging approximately 239,000 cubic yards of lake sediment and capping the lake bottom with an
AquaBlok bio-layer cap, constructing an oxygenation system, and rehabilitating the dam structure at the
south end of the lake. Storm drain facility improvements included installing five (5) Continuous Deflection
Separation (CDS) systems at the major storm drain inlets to treat storm water before it enters the lake.
The vegetation, habitat, and park improvements included invasive plant removal, replanting of native
species, and installation of fencing and walkways. The project has been undergoing an optimization
period since the project was completed, and the City of Los Angeles began conducting receiving water
monitoring in Machado Lake on September 11, 2017. The Machado Lake Ecosystem and Rehabilitation
Project optimization period is expected to last between three to five years to allow for control measures
such as vegetation for water quality treatment to be fully established. As part of the City of Los Angeles’
Machado Lake Ecosystem and Rehabilitation Project, planning efforts are underway to pump treated
water from Terminal Island’s Advanced Water Purification Plant to Machado Lake to offset impacts of
evapotranspiration. This is expected to lower pollutant concentrations to below the required levels for
Machado Lake TMDLs.
79
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-17 | Page
Figure 2-4: Storm Drains Entering Machado Lake
80
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-18 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
NUTRIENTS
Machado Lake is identified on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to eutrophic conditions,
algae, ammonia, and odors. Eutrophication is defined by increased nutrient loading to a waterbody and
the resulting increased growth of biota, phytoplankton and other aquatic plants. To address these
impairments, the Regional Board issued the Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors
(Nutrient) TMDL, which became effective March 11, 2009. The chemical pollutants that most stimulate
excessive aquatic vegetative growth and stimulate eutrophication are nitrogen and phosphorus, thus
numeric receiving water limitations were set for these constituents in the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL.
Table 2-9 presents numeric targets and interim and final load and waste load allocations for Machado
Lake.
Table 2-9: Nutrient TMDL Numeric Targets and Load Allocations for Machado Lake
Date Numeric Target WLAs and LAs
(Monthly Average
Concentration)
March 11, 2009
(1st Interim)
- Total Phosphorus
1.25 mg/L
Total Nitrogen
3.5 mg/L
March 11, 2014
(2nd Interim)
- Total Phosphorus
1.25 mg/L
Total Nitrogen
2.45 mg/L
September 11, 2018
(Final)
Total Phosphorus
0.1 mg/L (monthly average)
Total Nitrogen
1.0 mg/L (monthly average)
Ammonia
5.95 mg/L (hourly average)
2.15 mg/L (30-day average)
Dissolved Oxygen*
5 mg/L (single sample minimum)
*Measured at 0.3-m above the
sediment)
Chlorophyll-a
20 μg/L (monthly average)
Total Phosphorus
0.1 mg/L
Total Nitrogen
1.0 mg/L
Just over two years of in-lake water quality data have been collected by City of Los Angeles following
completion of the Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project24. Nutrient data is collected via grab
sampling from two in-lake monitoring stations: ML-1 and ML-2 (Figure 2-5), and a thirty-day rolling
average in-lake concentration is calculated on a monthly basis for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus.
Table 2-10 below shows monthly average Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus concentrations calculated
for Machado Lake. With the exception of Total Nitrogen monthly average concentration in January and
April 2020, all in-lake monthly average concentrations of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous have been
higher than applicable receiving water limitations established in the TMDL.
24 Water quality monitoring data collection began September 2017, following completion of the Machado Lake Ecosystem
Rehabilitation Project, and was available through June 2020 at the time of this update.
81
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-19 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-10: Monthly Average TN and TP Concentration in Machado
Lake Month/Year
Total Nitrogen Monthly
Average (mg/L,
calculated)
Total Phosphorus
Monthly Average (mg/L,
calculated)
September 2017 - 0.2
October 2017 - 0.18
November 2017 1.70 0.17
December 2017 1.35 0.14
January 2018 1.24 0.27
February 2018 - 0.28
March 2018 1.14 0.42
April 2018 1.98 0.29
May 2018 3.65 0.38
June 2018 2.70 0.27
July 2018 2.88 0.38
August 2018 4.43 0.54
September 2018 2.30 0.27
October 2018 2.78 0.32
November 2018 3.10 0.33
December 2018 1.58 0.32
January 2019 1.56 0.38
February 2019 1.14 0.28
March 2019 - 0.28
April 2019 - 0.30
May 2019 1.45 0.31
June 2019 1.38 0.33
July 2019 1.8 0.3
August 2019 2.2 0.3
September 2019 2.2 0.3
October 2019 2.3 0.3
November 2019 2 0.2
December 2019 1.4 0.4
January 2020 0.8 0.28
February 2020 1.3 0.28
March 2020 1.2 0.21
April 2020 1 0.19
May 2020 1.5 0.21
June 2020 1.6 0.26
82
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-20 | Page
Figure 2-5: Machado Lake Monitoring Stations
83
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-21 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
O RGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBS
Machado Lake is identified on the State’s 303(d) List of impaired water bodies as impaired due to
Chlordane, Dieldrin, Chem A, DDT and PCBs in fish tissue 25. The Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL
(Machado Lake Toxics TMDL) was issued by the Regional Board to address these impairments and became
effective March 20, 2012. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides belong to a
broad group of synthetic chlorinated hydrocarbons. PCBs include up to 209 different chlorinated chemical
compounds which are called congeners. Chlordane, Dieldrin and DDT are organochlorine pesticides that
were widely used until the late 1970s and 1980s. Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs are highly lipophilic
and will accumulate in the fatty tissues of exposed wildlife and bioaccumulate as they move through the
food chain. Chem A (abbreviation for chemical group A) is a suite of bio-accumulative pesticides that
includes chlordane and dieldrin. The 1998 303(d) listing (and subsequent listings) for Chem A was
predominately based on fish tissue concentrations of chlordane and dieldrin while the other Chem A
pollutants have not been detected in tissue in over 25 years. Therefore, the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL
addresses the Chem A listing by establishing water quality, sediment and fish tissue targets for chlordane
and dieldrin.
The Machado Lake Pesticide and PCBs TMDLs established numeric targets for pesticides and PCBs in
water, sediment, and fish tissue to protect aquatic life, fishing, and other recreational uses in the lake.
The California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria for human health (including protection for consumption of
organisms) are the numeric targets for the water column, while the sediment numeric targets are based
on the freshwater Threshold Effect Concentration guidelines compiled by NOAA, and the fish tissue
targets are based on OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goals. Table 2-11 presents these water column, sediment,
and fish tissue numeric targets for the Machado Lake organochlorine pesticides and PCBs.
Table 2-11: Machado Lake Toxics TMDL In-Lake Numeric Targets
Pollutant Water Column Target
(ng/L)
Sediment Target
(ng/kg dry weight)
Fish Tissue Target
(ng/g wet weight)
Total PCBs 0.17 59.8 3.6
DDT (all congeners) 0.59* 4.16 No target
DDE (all congeners) 0.59* 3.16 No target
DDD (all congeners) 0.84 4.88 No target
Total DDT -- 5.28 21.0
Chlordane 0.59 3.24 5.6
Dieldrin 0.14 1.9 0.46
*Water column targets for 4,4’ DDT, 4,4’ DDE and 4,4’ DDD only
Since September 2017, following completion of the Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project,
water quality, sediment and fish tissue samples have been collected by City of Los Angeles in Machado
Lake. Sediment grab samples collected in October 2017 showed non-detects for all constituents listed in
Table 2-11. Results of in-lake water column monitoring conducted via grab sampling in March 2018
showed one exceedance of the CTR criteria for protection of human health for Total Chlordane (the
calculated for Total Chlordane of 2ng/L was the result of the gamma-Chlordane analysis). Fish tissue grab
and composite samples collected in May 2019 showed multiple exceedances of the OEHHA fish tissue
targets for Total Chlordane and Total PCBs.
25 Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL
84
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-22 | Page
TRASH
Machado Lake is identified on the State’s 303(d) List of impaired water bodies due to trash 26.
Consequently, the Regional Board issued the Machado Lake Trash TMDL, which became effective March
6, 2008. Existing beneficial uses impaired by trash in Machado Lake are Water Contact Recreation (REC-
1), Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD),
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE), and Wetland Habitat (WET). Common items that have
been observed in Machado Lake include styrofoam cups, styrofoam food containers, glass and plastic
bottles, paper cartons, packaging materials, plastic bags, and cans. Heavier debris can be transported
during storms as well. The numeric target for this TMDL is zero trash in Machado Lake and on the
shoreline. The TMDL assigns limits on point sources of trash, such as discharges from the MS4, and
nonpoint sources of trash, such as direct discharges from areas of Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park
adjacent to the lake such as parking lots, recreational, and picnic areas. Dischargers can comply with
WLAs through structural trash capture devices installed in the storm drain system or through
nonstructural source control BMPs.
2.2.3. GREATER LOS ANGELES HARBOR
The Peninsula WMG areas do not drain directly into the Greater Los Angeles Harbor. Drainage from the
Peninsula EWMP area exits the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates in an easterly or
southeasterly direction via storm drains and becomes comingled with MS4 discharges from the City of LA.
The portion of the Peninsula EWMP area which contributes runoff to Greater Los Angeles Harbor consists
of approximately 3.4 square miles, which is about 3.1% of the Dominguez Channel Watershed
Management Area (approximately 109.4 sq. mi. total) that drains to the Los Angeles Harbor 27. Specific Los
Angeles Harbor water segments to which the Peninsula WMG contributes runoff include the Inner Harbor
and Cabrillo Marina (Figure 2-6). These segments are listed on the State’s 303(d) list as impaired by
copper, lead, zinc, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) compounds, DDT and PCBs. These
impairments exist in the water, sediments and fish tissue within the Los Angeles Harbor waters. Fish
consumption advisories also currently exist for DDT and PCBs in certain fish species in all of the Los Angeles
Harbor waters.
The Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL
(Harbor Toxics TMDL) was issued by the Regional Board to address the constituents causing water quality
impairment and became effective on March 23, 2012. The applicable water quality objectives for this
TMDL are narrative objectives for Chemical Constituents, Bioaccumulation, Pesticides, and Toxicity in the
Basin Plan and the numeric water quality criteria promulgated in 40 CFR section 131.38 (the California
Toxics Rule (CTR)). In addition, marine sediment targets were determined for the Dominguez Channel and
Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters using the narrative standards of the Basin Plan, State
Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries – Part 1 Sediment Quality (SQO Part 1) and
the sediment quality guidelines recommended by the State Listing Policy 28.
The following Table 2-12 provides the marine sediment targets for the Dominguez Channel and Greater
Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor waters applicable to the Peninsula WMG priority pollutants.
26 Machado Lake Trash TMDL
27 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL
28 Long, ER, LJ Field and DD MacDonald. 1998. Predicting Toxicity in Marine Sediments with Numerical Sediment Quality
Guidelines, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:4, 714-727. MacDonald, DD, CG Ingersoll and TA Berger. 2000. Development and
evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:20-31.
85
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-23 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-12: Greater Harbor Toxics TMDL Marine Sediment
Targets Pollutant Marine Sediment Target
Copper 34 mg/kg
Lead 46.7 mg/kg
Zinc 150 mg/kg
Total PCBs 22.7 ug/kg
Total PAHs 4,022 ug/kg
Total DDT 1.58 ug/kg
The Harbor Toxics TMDL requires monitoring by the responsible parties under the Coordinated
Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Plan29. The Coordinated Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
program includes sampling for both water quality and sediment quality within 12 distinct water quality
groups, each water quality group representing a water body within the greater harbor waters, as well as
fish tissue sampling at four different locations (Figure 2-6).
In 2019, an assessment of bed sediment quality over a three-year averaging period in comparison with
interim TMDL objectives provided in Attachment N Part E.2.a. of the LA MS4 Permit was performed under
the Coordinated Compliance Monitoring Program. Most water bodies within the Greater Los Angeles
Harbor were found to have met the interim three-year average concentration-based sediment objectives
including the two water bodies to which stormwater from the Peninsula WMG is tributary: Inner Los
Angeles Harbor and Cabrillo Marina. Thus, there appears to have been no degradation in sediment quality
in these three water bodies since adoption of the TMDL. In evaluating progress toward attainment of the
final objectives, sediment quality in the Los Angeles Harbor was assessed using California’s Sediment
Quality Objectives (SQO) for aquatic life benthic community based on multiple lines of evidence: sediment
chemistry, sediment toxicity, and benthic community condition. Per this methodology, the qualitative
sediment conditions of Unimpacted or Likely Unimpacted are protective of the benthic community. Based
on the analysis incorporating monitoring events in 2013, 2016, and 2018, the Inner Los Angeles Harbor,
including Cabrillo Marina, was determined to be Not Protective.
As shown in Table 2-13 receiving water data collected over the past four years in the two Greater Los
Angeles Harbor water bodies to which the Peninsula WMG is tributary indicates that the CTR criteria for
the protection of aquatic life is consistently exceeded for dissolved copper in the Cabrillo Marina while
there have been some exceedances of the CTR criteria for dissolved copper as well total DDx in the Los
Angeles Outer Harbor.
29 Anchor QEA. Coordinated Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Greater Harbor Waters Regional Monitoring
Coalition. August 2019.
86
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-24 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-13: Water Quality Exceedances in Greater Los Angeles Harbor Waters to which Peninsula
WMG is Tributary
Total Water Quality Exceedances of CTR Aquatic Life Criteria/Total Samples Collected Between 2016 and 2020
Constituent Los Angeles Inner Harbor Cabrillo Marina
Copper (Dissolved) 8/51 8/10
Lead (Dissolved) 0/51 0
Zinc (Dissolved) 0/51 0
4.4’ - DDT 0/51 0
Total DDx 7/51 1/10
Total PCBs 3/51 0
87
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-25 | Page
Figure 2-6: Greater LA Harbor Waters and Monitoring Stations
88
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-26 | Page
2.3. SOURCE ASSESSMENT
The focus of this Source Assessment is on watershed sources contributing to the presence of pollutants
in stormwater discharges conveyed through the MS4.
A source assessment was conducted with the initial development of the EWMP to identify potential
sources in discharges to the MS4 and from the MS4 to receiving waters and other potential stressors
related to MS4 discharges causing or contributing to the WBPCs classified as Category 1, 2, or 3 as outlined
in MS4 Permit section VI.C.5.a.iii. Per the MS4 Permit, the following available data and documents were
considered in the identification of known and suspected sources of the Peninsula WMG’s priority
pollutants:
● Findings from the Peninsula WMG’s Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Programs
● Findings from the Peninsula WMG’s Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Programs
● Findings from the Peninsula WMG’s Development Construction Programs
● Findings from the Peninsula WMG’s Public Agency Activities Programs
● TMDL Implementation Plans
● TMDL Source Investigations
● Findings from MS4 Permittees’ monitoring programs
● Watershed model results
● Other pertinent data, information, or studies related to pollutant sources and conditions that
contribute to the highest water quality priorities
● Locations of the Peninsula Agencies’ MS4s as shown in Figure 1-1, including, at a minimum, all
major outfalls and major structural controls for stormwater and non-stormwater that discharge
to receiving waters
● Other known and suspected sources of pollutants in non-stormwater or stormwater discharges
from the MS4 to receiving waters within the EWMP area
This source assessment has been updated based on outfall monitoring data collected via the Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) as well as updated information on potential watershed sources of
priority pollutants.
2.3.1. WATERSHED SOURCES OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
There are two general categories of stormwater pollutant sources, point sources and non-point sources.
Non-point sources, by definition, include pollutants that reach receiving waters via routes other than a
defined conveyance/point source and are not regulated by the MS4 Permit nor included in the reasonable
assurance analysis. An example of such a non-point source could be trash deposited on the beach by
recreational use which is then transported into the receiving water by wind or tide action. Point source
discharges are regulated through NPDES permits and include stormwater and urban runoff (also referred
to as non-stormwater discharges) through the MS4. Stormwater runoff in the watershed is regulated
through one of several types of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits,
including MS4 permits, a statewide MS4 permit for Caltrans; a statewide Construction General Permit
89
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-27 | Page
(CGP) for construction sites disturbing 1 acre or more of land; and a statewide Industrial General Permit
(IGP).
This section will first consider historical and current land uses in the Peninsula WMG watersheds, identify
key pollutant fate and transport mechanisms characteristic of the watersheds, and then consider relevant
point and non-point sources of priority pollutants that may be present in the watersheds based on land
uses. This source assessment will help to shape appropriate pollutant control measures in subsequent
chapters of this EWMP.
Potential sources of the priority pollutants in the watershed along with important fate and transport
mechanisms are summarized in Table 2-14.
90
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-28 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 2-14: Potential Watershed Sources of Palos Verdes Peninsula Priority
Pollutants
Potential Source Pollutants OC Pesticides PAHs Bacteria Nutrients Metals TSS/Turbidity Trash WATERSHED SOURCES
Residential land areas ● ● ● ● ●
Agricultural activities (e.g., animal husbandry) ● ● ●
Construction activities ● ● ●
Landscaping, gardening ●
Pet waste ● ●
Wildlife ●
Native geology ●
Land surface erosion ● ●
Commercial activity ● ●
Car washing ●
Transportation sources (e.g., brake and tire wear) ● ●
Pavement erosion ● ●
Sanitary sewer, septic systems, RV waste ●
FATE AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
Atmospheric Deposition ●
Wildfires ●
Resuspension in soil particles ●
Land surface erosion ●
91
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-29 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Watershed Land Uses
Understanding historical and current land uses in the watershed helps to identify potential sources of
priority pollutants in stormwater runoff. Following the arrival of Europeans to the Los Angeles Basin, the
lands of the Palos Verdes Peninsula were first used for cattle ranching and then later for dry farming of
barley, hay, grain and garbanzo beans.30 Residential development on the Palos Verdes Peninsula began
in 1913 when J.P. Morgan purchased 16,000 acres of ranch land, however major development was
delayed until after World War I and thereafter growth of residential development proceeded at a modest
pace until the 1950s when growth accelerated and then grew explosively during the 1960s. 31
Today the Palos Verdes Peninsula is effectively built-out and is dominated by single-family residential
(55.6%) and open space (32.8%) land uses, limited multi-family residential (2.8%) and commercial areas
(2.2%), and does not include any industrial land uses. There are also locations where horse uses exist in
designated semi-rural residential areas of the Peninsula. There are no IGP facilities within the PVP EWMP
area. Construction sites are by nature transitory pollutant sources and are subject to oversight by MS4
agencies through their issuance of building permits – the impact of construction sources of pollutants are
indirectly incorporated into the CIMP monitoring data and therefore captured in the reasonable assurance
modeling. Caltrans’ MS4 permit incorporates TMDL WLAs and as such it is assumed that Caltrans land uses
will meet their WLAs individually and such areas have been excluded from the reasonable assurance
modeling exercise.
A breakdown of land uses by watershed is shown in Table 2-15. Drainage within the Peninsula WMG area
is conveyed via natural, soft-bottom canyons and engineered storm drain networks.
Table 2-15: Land Use Distribution within the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watersheds
Watershed COM EDU OS OTHER OTHER (R) PUB MFR SFR
Dominguez Channel: Machado
Lake & Harbor Watersheds
3.10% 5.00% 18.40% 3.90% 1.40% 0.40% 2.90% 64.80%
Santa Monica Bay 1.60% 3.30% 41.20% 0.30% 0.00% 0.50% 2.70% 50.20%
Total 2.20% 3.90% 32.80% 1.60% 0.50% 0.40% 2.80% 55.60%
COM: Commercial
EDU: Educational facility
OS: Open space (i.e., park, recreational facility (i.e., stable, golf course), preserved land, and vacant)
Other: Churches, cemetery
Other (R): Covered Reservoir
PUB: Public facility (i.e., fire, police, city hall)
MFR: Multi-family residential
SFR: Single-family residential
Note: A total of 0.2% are zoned as roads and are not included in this table.
30 Gales, Donald M. 1988. Handbook of Wildflowers, Weeds, Wildlife, and Weather of the South Bay and Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Third Edition.
31 Gales 1988.
92
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-30 | Page
POLLUTANT FATE AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS WITHIN THE WATERSHED
Pollutant fate and transport mechanisms should also be considered in source characterization to the
extent they contribute or reduce pollutant loading to receiving waters.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Roadways with curb and gutter are considered part of the MS4 system and as such serve to transport
pollutants from the watershed to receiving waters. However, transportation activities on the roadways
also generate pollutant. Pollutants originate from cars, roadway degradation, and landscaping along the
roadways. Typical contaminants associated with these include sediment, heavy metals, oils and grease,
debris, fertilizers, and pesticides, among others 32. The use and wear of cars is one of the most prevalent
sources of roadway pollutants. Vehicle brake pads constitute the single largest source of copper 33. Tires
and engine parts are also a source of metals pollutants—tire wear accounts for over 50 percent of the
total cadmium and zinc loads in urban runoff 34. Roadways can also be a source of nutrients from
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and from fertilizers and pesticides used during parkway landscaping
activities.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Atmospheric (or air) deposition is the transfer of pollutants from air to land. Pollutants in the atmosphere
deposit onto solid surfaces and are then washed off by rain, becoming entrained in the stormwater runoff
that reaches receiving waters. Atmospheric deposition of pollutants to developed and undeveloped
surfaces in the watershed can be a major source of pollutants, especially in major metropolitan areas.
Typical pollutants associated with atmospheric deposition are metals, PAHs, PCBs, and nitrogen. These
pollutants enter the atmosphere from point sources (i.e., an industrial facility emitting metals and PAHs
into the air) and mobile sources such as trucks and automobiles.
WILDFIRES
The Palos Verdes Peninsula is in a very high fire hazard severity zone and, when they occur, wildfires can
mobilize pollutants and thereby increase stormwater pollutant loading due to several factors including:
increased runoff associated with soil hydrophobicity which results from fire, increased mobility of
contaminants from soil, release of previously bound contaminants in vegetation, and higher erosion rates.
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in stormwater runoff often increase by orders of magnitude
in post-fire systems thereby increasing the transport of particulate bound pollutants. Combustion of
plants and natural materials has also been reported to release metals which are then mobilized by
storms.35
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) conducted a study comparing post-fire
stormwater runoff data from five wildfires in natural open space between 2003 and 2009 in comparison
32 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2003. Discharge characterization study report. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
33 TDC Environmental 2004, Copper Sources in Urban and Shoreline Activities. San Francisco, CA.
34 Davis A.P., M. Shokouhian, and S. Ni. 2001. Loading estimates of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from
specific sources. Chemosphere.
35 Burke, M.P., T.S. Hogue, A. Kinoshita, J. Barco, C. Wessel, E.D. Stein 2013. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
185:10131–10145. Pre- and post-fire pollutant loads in an urban fringe watershed in Southern California.
93
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-31 | Page
with stormwater runoff data from sixteen unburned natural areas and six developed areas. The study
found average copper, lead and zinc fluxes were hundreds of times higher from burned areas than
unburned areas.36 Even more striking, the flux of PAHs from natural burned areas was four times greater
than from adjacent unburned urban areas. Ash fallout on unburned watersheds produced three times
greater flux of PAHs and metals. Prior to the wildfires, most of the burned areas were dominated by sage
scrub [similar to natural plant communities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula], or chaparral plant
communities. It is also notable that the study did not address potential toxic effects from flame retardants
commonly used in combatting wildfires.37
SCCWRP conducted a more recent study of the 2009 Station Fire which consumed 660 square kilometers
of the Angeles National Forest. Much of the area had not burned in over 60 years which meant there was
a potentially large store of anthropogenic lead contamination resident in vegetation and soil due to air
deposition during the time that lead additives were still used in gasoline. Stormwater quality sampling
was conducted from four storm events post-fire at two-hour intervals for a total of 54 grab samples. These
results were compared with 131 grab samples from four storm events during the storm year preceding
the Station Fire. Post-fire peak stormwater flows during two of the storm events post-fire were 15 and 17
times the largest storm during the preceding pre-fire year and yet these post-fire peak flows were
produced with only 80% and 65% of the pre-fire storm precipitation depth. The sediment volume
delivered during the post-fire storm year was ten times the total volume deposited in the preceding fifteen
years at Devil’s Gate Reservoir. Mean seasonal total suspended solids concentration in stormwater
increased 100-fold following the fire. Median concentrations of lead increased by more than 100 times
the magnitude post-fire, while median concentrations of zinc increased by 10 times, and copper by 9
times. Although the burned watershed monitored in this study was largely undeveloped, the
concentrations of metals measured were in the range of concentrations typically measured from highway
drainage, industrial areas and mining operations.38
NATURAL CANYON DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
On the Palos Verdes Peninsula the improved MS4 is interconnected with natural canyon drainage courses
that naturally detain and retain runoff, effectively serving as nature-based stormwater retention systems.
Intense rain events can cause erosion in the natural canyons and increase transport of sediments and
mobilize storm-borne sediment pollutants; for this reason, it is important to protect these canyons from
hydromodification. Overall, these natural canyon drainage courses serve to attenuate pollutants and
reduce stormwater pollutant loading to receiving waters. The reasonable assurance model has been
calibrated against storm flow data from the CIMP monitoring to more accurately reflect the storm runoff
reduction provided by these natural canyon systems.
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES
Organochlorine pesticides (OC pesticides) are a large group of legacy pesticides, including chlordane,
dieldrin, and DDT, that were previously used widely throughout the United States. Even though they have
been banned from use for many years, they are slow to degrade and continue to persist in the
36 SCCWRP 2012. ED Stein, JS Brown, TS Hogue, MP Burke, A Kinoshita. pp. 11-28 in: Stephen Weisberg and Karlene Miller (eds.),
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 2012 Annual Report. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.
Costa Mesa, CA.
37 SCCWRP 2012.
38 Burke et al. 2013.
94
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-32 | Page
environment. Because of their chemical and physical properties these pollutants tend to partition and
bind preferentially to the surfaces of soil particles. When transported in stormwater-borne sediment to
local receiving waters, OC pesticides have been shown to accumulate in the fatty tissue of fish and wildlife
and bio-magnify in the food-web. Soils historically treated with DDT and chlordane continue to be a source
of pollutants in the storm-borne sediment discharges from the MS4 on the Palos Verdes Peninsula as
evidenced by the recent CIMP monitoring results discussed in the next section.
DDT
The history of DDT use was summarized in the staff report to the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL as follows:
“DDT first became widely used as a pesticide in 1939; the use was focused on controlling
insects that transmit diseases such as malaria and typhus during World War II. DDT for
agricultural and commercial uses became widespread in the United States after 1945.
1959 was the peak of DDT use in the United States when approximately 80 million pounds
were applied. In California, DDT was used for the control of both agricultural and urban
pests like mosquitoes and cockroaches. In 1963, the California Department of Food and
Agriculture declared DDT a restricted material. The last year that substantial amounts of
DDT were applied in California was 1970 when 1.2 million pounds of DDT were applied
primarily to agricultural areas.”39
Considering the ubiquitous use of DDT from 1939 through 1970 and understanding the history of land use
and development on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, it is reasonable to expect that DDT was used in
residential applications and that DDT and its breakdown products, DDE and DDD may remain in soils within
the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
CHLORDANE
The history of chlordane use was summarized in the staff report to the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL as
follows:
“Chlordane was first registered and approved for both agricultural and non-agricultural
uses in the United States in 1948. Non-agricultural uses of chlordane included treating
pests in residential lawns and gardens as well as structural pests such as termites.
Chlordane was used on a variety of agricultural crops including corn, citrus, deciduous
fruits and nuts, and vegetables. In 1978, the U.S. EPA cancelled the use of chlordane on all
food crops and for applications to lawns and gardens, although it was still registered for
use in termite control. In 1988, the U.S. EPA cancelled all uses for chlordane.”40
Due to the widespread use of chlordane on residential lawns and gardens, it is reasonable to expect that
chlordane may remain in soils within the watershed.
DIELDRIN
The history of dieldrin use was summarized in the staff report to the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL as
follows:
39 Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL. Staff Report - September 2, 2010, page 13.
40 Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL. Staff Report - September 2, 2010, page 15
95
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-33 | Page
Dieldrin was widely used from 1950 – 1970 as a structural pesticide for the control of
termites and as an agricultural pesticide for cotton, corn, and citrus crops. The agricultural
use of dieldrin was banned by the US Department of Agriculture in 1970 and in 1987 all
uses of dieldrin were cancelled.41
Historical agricultural land uses on the Palos Verdes Peninsula are not known to include cotton, corn or
citrus crops. Since the use of dieldrin in residential areas was mainly as a structural termiticide and was
not widely applied in lawns and gardens, it is less likely that dieldrin will be present in soils. If present,
dieldrin would exhibit similar fate and transport properties as chlordane and DDT, i.e., it would partition
on storm-borne sediment. As discussed in the next section, to-date dieldrin has not been detected in
storm borne sediment of the CIMP outfall monitoring.
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that were commonly used
for various applications from approximately 1929 until 1979 when the U.S. banned PCB manufacturing,
processing, distribution, and use. PCBs may be present in products that were made before 1977 but are
still in use today, such as transformers, fluorescent lighting fixtures, household caulking, paints and
waxes42.
U.S. EPA identifies the following list of products and materials that if produced and installed prior to the
1979 ban may still contain PCBs:43
● Transformers and capacitors
● Electrical equipment including voltage regulators, switches, re-closers, bushings, and
electromagnets
● Oil used in motors and hydraulic systems
● Old electrical devices or appliances containing PCB capacitors
● Fluorescent light ballasts
● Cable insulation
● Thermal insulation material including fiberglass, felt, foam and cork
● Adhesives and tapes
● Oil-based paint
● Caulking
● Plastics
● Carbonless copy paper
● Floor finish
Considering the predominantly residential nature of development on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the
limited industrial sources, either current or in the past, presence of PCBs in exposure to stormwater is
most likely limited to external building materials such as caulk or paint or in utility transformers or
residuals in soils associated with spills from ruptured utility transformers.
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS)
41 Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL. Staff Report - September 2, 2010, page 15
42 USEPA: Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL
43 https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs#commercial
96
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-34 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of organic contaminants that are associated with the
release of petroleum products (petrogenic sources) or form from the incomplete combustion of
hydrocarbons (pyrogenic sources). PAHs are an environmental concern because they are toxic to aquatic
life and because several of the individual PAH compounds are suspected human carcinogens. Research
has shown that the dominant source of origin is pyrogenic (combustion of organic matter) in the Los
Angeles Region, and PAHs are often deposited through atmospheric deposition and delivered to
waterbodies in stormwater runoff 44. Other non-point sources may include leaking motor oil, tire wear and
vehicular exhaust.
METALS
General wear and tear of automotive parts can be a source of metals. For example, brake wear and tire
wear can release copper, lead, and zinc into the environment and contribute concentrations of metals to
roads and in turn stormwater runoff. Motor oil and automotive coolant spills are another potential source
of metals. One study found that cars are the leading source of metal loads in stormwater, producing over
50 percent of copper, cadmium, and zinc loads45.
Table 2-16: Automotive Sources of Metals in Stormwater46
Source Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Nickel Lead Zinc
Gasoline ● ● ● ●
Exhaust ● ●
Motor oil and grease ● ● ● ●
Antifreeze ● ● ● ● ● ●
Undercoating ● ●
Brake Linings ● ● ● ● ●
Tires ● ● ● ●
Asphalt ● ● ● ●
Concrete ● ● ●
Diesel Oil ● ● ● ●
Engine wear ● ● ● ●
Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides used for lawn and landscape maintenance can contain metals such
as cadmium, copper, mercury, zinc, lead, iron, and manganese47. Algaecides, wood preservatives,
galvanized metals, and paints when used in exposure to stormwater can also be a source of these metals.
ARSENIC
Arsenic is a natural component of the Earth's crust and low levels of the element are found in all
environmental media. Anthropogenic sources of arsenic include nonferrous metal mining and smelting,
pesticide application, coal and oil combustion, wood combustion, and waste incineration. Most
anthropogenic arsenic is emitted to the atmosphere through high temperature processes (e.g., coal and
44 Sabin, L.D., K.A. Maruya, W. Lao, D. Diehl, D. Tsukada, K.D. Stolzenbach, and K.C. Schiff 2009. Exchange of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons among the Atmosphere, Water, and Sediment in Coastal Embayments of Southern California, U.S.A. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 265-274.
45 Schueler, T., and H.K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City.
46 Nixon, H., and J.D. Saphores. 2007. Impacts of motor vehicle operation on water quality: Clean-up costs
and policies. Transportation Research Part D. Transport and Environment.
47 County of Los Angeles. 2010. Multi-pollutant TMDL Implementation Plan for the Unincorporated County Area of Los Angeles
River Watershed. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
97
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-35 | Page
oil combustion, smelting operations, and waste incineration) and occurs as fine particles which are
transported by wind and air currents until they are returned to earth by wet or dry deposition.48
Arsenic found in soil, either naturally occurring or from anthropogenic releases, forms insoluble
complexes with iron, aluminum, and magnesium oxides found in soil surfaces, and is relatively immobile.
However, under reducing conditions, arsenic can be released from the solid phase, resulting in soluble
mobile forms of arsenic, which may potentially leach into groundwater or result in runoff of arsenic into
surface waters. Arsenic is largely immobile in agricultural soils; therefore, it tends to concentrate and
remain in upper soil layers indefinitely. Terrestrial plants may accumulate arsenic by root uptake from the
soil or by absorption of airborne arsenic deposited on the leaves.49 Arsenic can also leach from wood
treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) is another
arsenic-containing waterborne preservative, though not as widely used as CCA.
Based on current and historical land use, potential sources of arsenic within the Palos Verdes Peninsula
watersheds may include air deposition and residuals in soils from pesticide application, with very minor
contributions from leaching of wood used in landscaping or exterior building materials exposed to
stormwater that have been treated with arsenate-type wood preservatives. Arsenic present in
stormwater discharges would be expected to be associated primarily with storm-borne sediments.
COPPER
Research beginning in the 1990s to address copper impairment of lower South San Francisco Bay has
provided a wealth of information on sources of copper releases to stormwater from urban and suburban
areas. A study prepared by TDC Environmental in 2004 of copper sources in urban and stormwater runoff
to San Francisco Bay identified vehicle brake pads, followed by atmospheric deposition, architectural
copper, industrial use, potable water discharged to storm drains, soil erosion and copper algaecides, in
order of significance.50 Other studies from other parts of the U.S. and internationally have also contributed
to the body of evidence for the importance of these sources in stormwater runoff from developed areas.
The relative importance of copper sources depends on land use within a watershed as well as proximity
to nearby air pollution sources.
Sources of copper in deposits from air pollution can be a result of combustion of vehicle or stationary
source fuels, including wood burning. TDC Environmental estimated comparable emission rates of copper
from industrial air emissions and emissions from fires (both residential wood burning and forest fires). Air
pollution may convey copper from local sources or air emission sources outside the immediate area that
are then deposited in a watershed, either via dry air deposition or wet air deposition during rainfall. In
2006 a study of atmospheric dry deposition of metals was conducted at six urban sites and one nonurban
site within the coastal region of the Los Angeles air basin. Mean flux of copper at the urban sites ranged
from 11 to 34 micrograms per square meter per day whereas the flux of copper at the non-urban Malibu
Creek Watershed site was 3.7 micrograms per square meter per day—the Malibu Creek watershed is
generally upwind of the Los Angeles metropolitan area which further removes it from urban influence. 51
48 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2-c6.pdf
49 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2-c6.pdf
50 TDC Environmental, 2004. Copper Sources in Urban Runoff and Shoreline Activities – Information Update. Prepared for the
Clean Estuary Partnership. November 2004.
51 Sabin, L.D., J.H. Lim, K.D. Stolzenbach and K.C. Schiff, 2006. Atmospheric Dry Deposition of Trace Metals in the Coastal Region
of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2006 Sep;25(9)2334-41.
98
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-36 | Page
Architectural copper if left uncoated will develop a patina of copper oxides which are water soluble. The
amount of copper washed off architectural features is proportional to the surface area, so copper roofs
provide the greatest surface area, with gutters and flashing providing a lesser surface area.52
Trace levels of copper may occur naturally in soils or be present because of application of copper-
containing pesticides. The TDC Environmental study estimated an average value of 38.57 mg Cu/kg soil
based on data from the State Water Resources Control Board’s construction stormwater database for the
San Francisco Bay area. Copper-containing pesticides are widely used to control fungi, mildew, algae and
roots. Common applications include control of roots in sewers, controlling algae in swimming pools and
ponds, and preventing rot and mildew on wood, roofing and other outdoor surfaces. Copper is also used
in lawn and garden fungicides.53
Copper in the potable water supply may arise from the raw water supply, from algaecides used to control
algae in reservoirs, or by dissolution from copper pipes.54 Potable water may flow into the storm drain
system due to runoff from outdoor irrigation, hydrant flushing, and other sources of outdoor water use
such as car washing or patio cleaning.
Antifouling hull paints or coatings are applied to marine vessels to prevent the attachment and growth of
“fouling organisms” such as barnacles, oysters, mussels, shipworms, or algae that attach to boat hulls.
Copper has been a standard biocide in anti-fouling hull paints for many decades, and copper- based
antifouling hull paints are currently the most commonly used antifouling coating. Copper in hull paint can
slowly leach into the water column and be released from the hull as particles that fall to the bed
sediments, causing impairment55. There are no marinas or boat maintenance facilities within the
Peninsula WMG watersheds, however it is noteworthy that Cabrillo Marina in Los Angeles Harbor exhibits
ongoing elevated dissolved copper concentrations as discussed in Section 2.2.3.
Based on the preceding discussion of major sources of copper and understanding of current and past land
uses on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, potential sources of copper in stormwater discharges from the
watershed may include releases from vehicle brake pads, use of algaecides in pools or fountains, pesticide
application in landscapes, and air deposition.
LEAD SOURCES
Potential sources of lead to the watershed may include historical and current air deposition of lead from
leaded gasoline used historically in automobiles and currently in general aviation fuel, lead wheel weights
on vehicles, and lead in paint on buildings constructed prior to 1977. Beginning in November 1973 U.S.
EPA began requiring the phase out of lead in all grades of gasoline—at the time the average lead content
in gasoline was 2-3 grams per gallon amounting to 200,000 tons of lead emissions per year in the U.S. By
1995 leaded fuel accounted for only 0.6 percent of total gasoline sales and less than 2,000 tons of lead
emissions per year. Effective January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act banned the sale of leaded fuel in on-road
vehicles.56 The nearby Torrance Airport located just north of the Palos Verdes Peninsula is a general
52 TDC Environmental 2004.
53 TDC Environmental 2004.
54 TDC Environmental 2004.
55 Metz, V. and Gregg, J. Boat Hull Coating Selection and Hull Cleaning for Water Pollution Prevention: Water Quality Factsheet
for Marina Operators and Boaters. Water Quality Program, California Coastal Commission. (2017).
56 https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/epa-takes-final-step-phaseout-leaded-gasoline.html
99
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-37 | Page
aviation airfield and a potential source of air deposition of lead within the Palos Verdes Peninsula
watershed due to the use of leaded avgas fuel in piston engine aircraft.
A 2009 study by Sabin found that the mean flux of lead due to air deposition at urban sites in the Los
Angeles basin ranged from 8.3 to 29 micrograms per square meter per day, whereas the flux at the non-
urban site in Malibu Creek Watershed was 1.4 micrograms per square meter per day. A significant drop in
concentration of lead was observed in the study by Sabin when compared with the study done 15 years
earlier in 1987—this was attributed to the elimination of lead from gasoline in the late 1980s.57 Aviation
gasoline for piston airplanes, known as avgas, still includes lead additives and is widely used for general
aviation aircraft thus continuing to be a source of lead in air deposition. Jet aircraft and turbine-powered
propeller aircraft do not use avgas. Efforts to develop an operationally safe and suitable replacement for
the leaded additive in avgas have been underway for over a decade. 58
According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), prior to 2010 approximately
1.6 million pounds of lead wheel weights fell from vehicles each year onto roadways. Roadway traffic
pulverizes lead wheel weights into dust which then contaminates the air and washes into storm drains.
As of January 1, 2010, California law prohibits the manufacture, sale or installation of wheel weights
containing more than 0.1% lead.59
In 1977 the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission effectively banned lead in paint in residential
properties and buildings by limiting the allowable concentration to 0.06 percent.60 Deteriorating or
improperly abated lead paint in older buildings can endanger human health, especially that of children,
and may cause release of lead to the environment, including stormwater.
MERCURY
According to USEPA, on a global level, gold mining is the largest source of anthropogenic mercury
emissions, followed by stationary combustion of coal, non-ferrous metals production and cement
production.61 No gold mining or non-ferrous metals industrial sources are known to have existed on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula with the exception of a former cement mixing facility located on the site of the
former Chandler sand and gravel quarry. Thus, the predominant sources of mercury that might be
encountered on the Palos Verdes Peninsula are mercury deposited as a result of air deposition or
improper disposal of mercury-containing consumer products. USEPA maintains a website with
information on products that contain mercury.62
ZINC
A study was commissioned by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) to identify major
and minor sources of zinc as a water pollutant and to assist MS4 Permittees in focusing source control
measures in a cost-effective manner. The two major sources of zinc in urban runoff identified by the study
were outdoor surfaces treated with zinc (especially galvanized steel surfaces) and tire wear debris. Other
local sources depending on land use may include zinc-containing paint, recycled tire shred and crumb
products, industrial air emissions, zinc-rich soils, and mining. Minor sources of zinc in urban runoff include
57 Sabin et al. 2006.
58 Federal Aviation Administration 2013. Fact Sheet – Leaded Aviation Fuel and the Environment. June 19, 2013.
59 http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/ToxicsInProducts/leadwheelweights.cfm
60 https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/1977/cpsc-announces-final-ban-on-lead-containing-paint
61 https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/mercury-emissions-global-context#types
62 https://www.epa.gov/mercury/resources-mercury-science-and-research
100
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-38 | Page
vehicle brake pads, wheel weights, vehicle exhaust, zinc-preserved wood, and certain types of roofing and
siding materials. 63
Galvanized steel has long been used as a cost-effective material for outdoor applications such as: roofing,
gutters, flashing, drainage pipe, and chain-link fencing. Zinc sheet has drawn recent interest in the design
community for its appearance and longevity as a building roofing material and use as siding for
commercial and institutional buildings. A body of literature since the late 1980s has documented relatively
high concentrations of zinc in runoff from outdoor zinc surfaces, and consistent with this occurrence, zinc
concentrations are typically highest in urban runoff from industrial land uses. The amount of zinc washed
off outdoor surfaces is directly proportional to the exposed surface area. Other factors include the quality
of zinc material and the presence of temporary or permanent coatings over the zinc surface. Galvanized
wire fencing has surprisingly large surface area, for example a 6-foot-high industrial gauge (6-gauge) chain
link fence has a surface area of 2.2 square meters per meter of length.64 The presence of coatings over
the zinc surface reduces or substantially eliminates exposure to weather depending on the permanence
of the coating—temporary passivation coatings reduce zinc losses for several years but eventually wash
away, whereas painted zinc surfaces nearly eliminate zinc in runoff. Location is also important because
when large zinc surfaces like galvanized chain-link fencing are sited over permeable surfaces in the
landscaped buffers between properties, infiltration of runoff into a soil drip zone substantially reduces
zinc levels in runoff.65
Nearly all rubber products, including tires, contain zinc oxide which is used to accelerate the vulcanization
process. “According to the International Zinc Association, zinc oxide improves tire wear abrasion
performance, protects against ultraviolet radiation, reduces thermal effects caused by internal friction,
helps bond rubber to metal (such as the steel cord of tires), reduces rubber shrinkage during curing, and
helps keep product molds clean.”66 In the U.S., the main outdoor use for rubber is in vehicle tires.
Tires also comprise the majority of California’s rubber waste and through strong efforts by CalRecycle,
about half of waste tire material is reused within the state. Reuse applications for waste tires that have
the potential to disperse zinc into the environment include combustion as tire-derived fuel, tire retreads,
and tire shred and crumb products such as those used in artificial turf infill and rubberized asphalt.67 There
are no facilities permitted to use tire-derived fuel for combustion within the Los Angeles area.68
Tire wear from on-road vehicles is expected to be the predominant source of zinc within the watershed.
To the extent that rubberized asphalt paving is used for road resurfacing within the watershed, there may
be contributions of zinc from this use as well. There is limited information currently available on the
significance of rubberized asphalt as a source of zinc in stormwater runoff.
Air deposition of zinc can also be important. The 2006 study by Sabin found that the mean flux of zinc due
to air deposition at urban sites in the Los Angeles basin ranged from 69 to 228 micrograms per square
63 TDC Environmental, 2015. Zinc Sources in California Urban Runoff prepared for California Stormwater Quality Association. April
2015.
64 Golding 2006. A Survey of Zinc Concentrations in Industrial Stormwater Runoff. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Environmental Assessment Program. Publication No. 06-03-009.
65 Blok 2005. Blok, J. (2005). "Environmental Exposure of Road Borders to Zinc." The Science of the Total Environment 348(1-3):
173-190.
66 TDC Environmental, 2015.
67 TDC Environmental, 2015.
68 California Air Resources Board, 2015. 2015 Report on Air Emissions from Facilities Burning Waste Tires in California. June 2015.
101
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-39 | Page
meter per day whereas zinc flux at the non-urban Malibu Creek Watershed site was 15 micrograms per
square meter per day.69
Typical California soils have a mean zinc concentration of 149 mg/kg, with few soil types exceeding 200
mg/kg. However, a few soil formations (e.g., the Bedford Canyon formation and fresh carbon-rich portions
of the Monterey formation) have much higher zinc levels in excess of 300 mg/kg. High-zinc soils may
increase zinc levels in urban runoff and creeks where these soils are exposed.70 Since the marine sediment
target for zinc in the Harbor Toxics TMDL is set at 150 mg/kg in sediment, discharge of suspended
sediment associated with soils exhibiting zinc concentrations only slightly above the mean soil
concentration in California could cause exceedance of the target even without loading from additional
sources.
BACTERIA
Sources of indicator bacteria potentially present in the Peninsula WMG’s watersheds based on land uses
include both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources such as:
● Animal wastes – horses, dogs, cats, etc.
● Gardening activities - application of animal manure that has not been fully composted to gardens
and landscapes are a source of bacteria
● Organic food waste from commercial activities when dumpsters are left uncovered in exposure
to stormwater, or subject to scattering by vectors such as seagulls, pigeons, rats, and racoons
● Illegal dumping from recreational vehicle/vessel holding tanks among others, can be a source of
elevated levels of total coliform bacteria
● Sanitary sewer overflows, leaks and/or illicit connections of sanitary lines to the storm drain
system
● Illegal connections and discharges are also possible sources of bacteria in stormwater discharge
● Open defecation associated with recreational activities or people without housing
● Non-anthropogenic sources of indicator bacteria include – soils, decaying vegetation, wildlife such
as birds, opossums, raccoons, etc.
Sanitary sewer systems and septic systems are potential sources of contaminants. Cracks in aging sewer
laterals and mainlines, root intrusion and fats/oils/grease clogs can contribute to sanitary sewer leaks and
overflows. When sanitary sewers overflow or leak, they can release raw sewage into the environment.
Raw sewage contains high concentrations of indicator bacteria and nutrients and may also contain other
pollutants such as suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, oil and grease.
N UTRIENTS
Possible sources of nutrients include runoff from residential and commercial areas associated with
landscaping activities and use of fertilizer for lawns and gardens, including organic fertilizer such as
compost or manure. Maintenance activities such as washing cars, parking lots and driveways can
69 Sabin et al. 2006.
70 TDC Environmental, 2015.
102
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-40 | Page
contribute nutrients to the watershed since some detergents contain phosphorus. Other sources of
nutrients include food wastes and domestic animal wastes in exposure to stormwater, or occasional sewer
overflows. Key sources of nutrients identified in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Nutrient Implementation
Plan 71 were fertilizer applied to turf and landscapes, horse manure, and dry air deposition of nitrogen:
● Manure - Within the portion of the Palos Verdes Peninsula that drains to Machado Lake
equestrian activities and horse keeping are common. Horse manure can be a source of nutrients
in runoff. The average 1,000-pound animal produces over 102 pounds of total nitrogen and 18.8
pounds of total phosphorous per year 72. Information from the Model Equestrian Center Project
provides support for the understanding that equestrian centers are a source of nutrients in
stormwater runoff.
● Numerous reports document the linkages between excess nutrients in local water bodies and the
augmentation of naturally occurring soil nutrients with nitrogen and phosphorus applied in
commercial fertilizers, whether organic or synthetic. The desire for green turf and the use of
tropical or exotic plants may lead to the overuse or the misapplication of nitrogen and phosphorus
fertilizers. Because single-family residences are the predominant land use within the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, the application of fertilizer to residential landscapes and to a lesser extent commercial
landscapes, ball fields and parks are potential sources of nutrients. The excess nutrients
accumulated in the soils can be transported to waterways through excessive irrigation or
stormwater runoff.
● Air deposition of nitrogen due to air pollution, particularly onto impervious surfaces where it can
be readily washed into storm drains is a known source of nitrogen, the predominate species being
NHO3 (nitric acid), NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) and NH3 (ammonia)73.
TRASH
Statewide and local studies have documented the presence of trash in state waters and the accumulation
of land-based trash in the ocean. Trash discarded on land may be transported through storm drains to
waterways, shorelines, and the ocean. Street and storm drain trash studies conducted in regions across
California have provided insight into the composition and quantity of trash that flows from urban streets
into the storm drain system and out to adjacent waters.74 The major source of trash results from litter that
is intentionally or accidentally released/deposited onto roadways or other land uses in the watershed by
human activity or animal vectors. Transport mechanisms which cause the litter to reach the storm drain
system include wind action, dispersion by vectors and movement with surface runoff during storm events.
The Statewide Trash Amendments identify certain priority land uses that have been shown in multiple
studies to have high trash generation rates, specifically these include high-density residential land uses
with at least ten developed dwelling units per acre, industrial land uses, commercial land uses, mixed
urban land uses, and public transportation stations.75
71 Palos Verdes Peninsula Subwatershed Coordinated Implementation Plan in Compliance with the Machado Lake Eutrophic,
Algae, Ammonia and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL, March 11, 2011.
72 Wheeler and Zajaczkowski. Horse Stable Manure Management, Publication G-97. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences
Cooperative Extension, Agricultural and Biological Engineering
73 Palos Verdes Peninsula Subwatershed Coordinated Implementation Plan. 2011.
74 SWRCB Resolution 2015-0019. Amendment to the Water quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash
and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.
75 SWRCB Final Staff Report for Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash
and Part 1 Trash Provisions for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California.
103
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-41 | Page
2.3.2. CHARACTERIZATION OF STORMWATER AND NON-STORMWATER
DISCHARGE QUALITY
The Peninsula WMG began conducting outfall monitoring consistent with the CIMP beginning in 2016.
The outfall monitoring program includes:
Outfall Monitoring: Stormwater outfall water quality and flow monitoring is conducted at six (6)
locations during three (3) wet weather events per year. Two (2) of these outfall monitoring
locations (SD-1 and SD-2) are used to evaluate stormwater discharges from the Palos Verdes
Peninsula to the Santa Monica Bay. Four (4) outfall monitoring locations (Rolling Hills Estates
(RHE) City Hall, Lariat, Solano, and Valmonte) are used to evaluate stormwater discharges from
the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the Dominguez Channel Watershed, including the Wilmington
Drain, Machado Lake and the Greater Los Angeles Harbor surface waterbodies. The CIMP outfall
data also includes continuous flow monitoring and monthly grab samples for Total Nitrogen and
Total Phosphorus in two (2) of the afore mentioned outfall locations with baseline flows to
quantify discharges of nutrients from the Palos Verdes Peninsula to Machado Lake and assess
attainment of the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL targets.
Non-stormwater Outfall Monitoring: Periodic storm drain screening and monitoring is also
conducted to assess whether there are significant dry weather discharges from the storm drains
on the Palos Verdes Peninsula that need to be added to the monitoring program.
Since the initial development of the EWMP, four complete years of outfall monitoring data have been
collected and validated and are available for use in this characterization and, importantly, for calibration
of the model supporting the reasonable assurance analysis.
Trends in this data are summarized in the following subsection for purposes of updating the source
assessment for the following Peninsula WMG Category 1 and 2 priority pollutants: organochlorine
pesticides (chlordane, DDT and its breakdown products DDE and DDD, dieldrin), PCBs, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals (arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), fecal
indicator bacteria, and trash.
The following summarizes findings and trends in this stormwater discharge quality from the four
completed monitoring years between July 2016 and June 2020.
ORGANOCHLORINE PE STICIDES AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
Stormwater outfall monitoring for bioaccumulative organochlorine pesticides and PCBs is conducted by
filtering the sediment fraction from stormwater samples at each of the outfall monitoring sites (two
outfalls tributary to Santa Monica Bay and four outfalls tributary to Machado Lake). Sediment samples
filtered from each storm event are archived and composited by site for the entire storm year (at least
three sample events) to accumulate sufficient sample to analyze all the required organochlorine pesticides
as well as PCBs.
For the Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL, waste load allocations (WLAs) set by the USEPA to attain
fish tissue concentration limits for human consumption are based on the calculated three-year average
mass of DDT and PCBs discharged from the Santa Monica Bay watershed area of the Peninsula assigned
as a percentage of the total mass based WLA for the entire Santa Monica Bay Watershed. In order to
estimate stormwater loading of DDT and PCBs to the Santa Monica Bay during TMDL development, a study
104
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-42 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
by Curren et al. (2011) was used along with data collected by the City of Los Angeles between 2007 and
2010. Estimated stormwater loads from Santa Monica Bay watersheds were found to be lower than
TMDL calculated allowable waste loads necessary to achieve sediment targets; therefore, the WLAs in the
TMDL for DDT and PCBs are based on existing MS4 loading estimates, and MS4 dischargers are essentially
in an anti-degradation condition 76. Table 2-17 demonstrates that the rolling three-year average Santa
Monica Bay outfall monitoring results meet the assigned WLAs for both DDT and PCBs, consequently RAA
modeling is not necessary for this water body pollutant combination.
Table 2-17: Santa Monica Bay DDT & PCBs 3-Year Rolling Average Outfall Data
3-Year Period Monitoring Station DDT (g/year) PCBs (g/year)
Santa Monica Bay TMDL Annual Mass-Based WLA* 1.03 5.33
3-Year Averages
2016-17 thru 2018-19
Peninsula-SD1 0.0582 0.0677
Peninsula-SD2 0.0795 0.0634
2017-18 thru 2019-20
Peninsula-SD1 0.0570 0.0014
Peninsula-SD2 0.8836 0.2267
*The WLAs indicated in the TMDL are assigned to the entire Santa Monica Bay Watershed. The WLAs shown
here are calculated as a percentage of the TMDL WLAs based on the Peninsula EWMP area.
Note: Flow data for stormwater outfall event 1/19/17 is not available for SD-2 due to personnel error in
deploying equipment during the monitoring event and is therefore not included in this calculation
The Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs WLAs are set differently than for the Santa Monica Bay in that for
Machado Lake the WLAs are expressed as three-year average concentrations in the sediment fraction of
the discharge, rather than as total pollutant mass discharged. The organochlorine pesticide 4,4’-
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its breakdown products 4,4’-
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and 4,4’dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) are assigned
WLAs individually and grouped as Total DDT in the Machado Lake Toxics TMDL. Outfall monitoring data
from the Palos Verdes Peninsula generally supports the underlying assumption in the Machado Lake
Toxics TMDL that a three-year averaging period would provide a means to meet concentration-based
sediment targets for Dieldrin and PCBs since Dieldrin has not been observed to occur in sediment samples
above detection limits, and PCBs have only exceeded the 3-year average concentration in sediment at one
site for one 3-year period. By contrast, as shown in Table 2-18, the data for the DDT breakdown product
DDE and for Chlordane show that sediment discharges from all four monitored outfalls tributary to
Machado Lake exceed the rolling three-year WLA consistently for those constituents and yet for DDT itself,
the WLAs are met. This is evidence that DDT is degrading in the environment. This data also demonstrates
that residuals present in sediments on the Palos Verdes Peninsula from legacy use of DDT and Chlordane
are ubiquitous. The results vary widely from storm year to storm year, and it is unclear whether the
76 USEPA: Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL
105
Palos Verdes Peninsula
2-43 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
variability is related to timing of sample collection during the storm hydrograph, the intensity of particular
storm events, or a combination of these and other variables. Despite the variability in the data, DDE and
Total Chlordane concentrations in sediment discharges are consistently above the WLAs across all four
sites. This data has been combined with data collected for total suspended solids (TSS) in these samples
and incorporated into the reasonable assurance modeling for Machado Lake.
Table 2-18: Machado Lake Pesticides & PCBs 3-Year Rolling Average Concentrations in Storm-Borne Sediment
Constituent
Final
Machado
Lake
Pesticides
and PCBs
TMDL WLA
(µg/kg) *
3-Year Period
Average Rolling 3-year Monitoring Results by Outfall Location (µg/kg)
RHE City Hall RHE City Hall
Duplicate Valmonte Solano Lariat
Sum DDD 4.88
2016-17 thru 2018-19 21.77 8.5 1.99 3.26 1.73
2017-18 thru 2019-20 22.2 8.87 2.73 279.8 3.37
Sum DDE 3.16
2016-17 thru 2018-19 14.9 13.93 6.6 27.43 30.33
2017-18 thru 2019-20 17.23 16.93 10.00 100.4 36.3
Sum DDT 4.16
2016-17 thru 2018-19 0.98 1 0.58 1.33 0.2
2017-18 thru 2019-20 1.42 1.74 1.02 2.03 1.33
Total
Chlordane 3.24
2016-17 thru 2018-19 15.47 8.27 28.96 48.07 9.7
2017-18 thru 2019-20 16.81 9.47 30.46 110.41 14.93
Total PCB
Congeners 59.8
2016-17 thru 2018-19 7 12.53 0.97 81.68 1.29
2017-18 thru 2019-20 1.37 7.2 0.83 1.35 1.13
METALS
Total and dissolved metals have been monitored in stormwater discharges from the RHE City Hall outfall
site, which is representative of discharges to the Los Angeles Harbor since all of the typical land uses found
on the Palos Verdes Peninsula are included in the catchment tributary to the RHE City Hall MS4 Outfall
site. This data has been utilized in the reasonable assurance modeling for the Los Angeles Harbor to assess
the necessary load reductions for copper and zinc to meet the waste load allocations for the Los Angeles
Harbor water segments to which the Peninsula WMG is tributary.
Arsenic and mercury have been added to the outfall monitoring sites for the Santa Monica Bay in response
to recent 303(d) listings, however sufficient data are not yet available to support the reasonable assurance
modeling.
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS)
106
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-44 | Page
Total PAHs in discharges from the RHE City Hall outfall site representative of discharges to the Los Angeles
Harbor have been analyzed as the sum of acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Results for Total
PAHs measured in stormwater samples from this site have been used in the RAA modeling to assess load
reductions needed to meet the waste load allocations for the Los Angeles Harbor.
N UTRIENTS – DRY WEATHER
Monthly dry weather monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus has been conducted in storm
drain outfalls tributary to Machado Lake with presence of significant year-round baseline flows associated
with rising groundwater. In Figure 2-7 Total Nitrogen concentrations in these monthly year-round baseline
dry weather flows are compared with the water quality objective for Machado Lake of 1.0 mg/L over the
course of four complete reporting years. These results show periods when the Total Nitrogen results
remain near or below the water quality objective interspersed by periods when the Total Nitrogen results
are consistently above the water quality objective.
In Figure 2-8 Total Phosphorus concentrations in these monthly year-round baseline dry weather flows
are compared with the water quality objective for Machado Lake of 0.1 mg/L over the course of four
complete reporting years. These results show periods when the Total Phosphorus results at the RHE City
Hall site remain near or below the water quality objective interspersed with short-term excursions above
the water quality objective. By contrast, at the Valmonte monitoring site the Total Phosphorus results are
consistently above the water quality objective.
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus monitoring also have been conducted at four storm drain outfalls
tributary to Machado Lake during wet weather along with wet weather flow monitoring. This stormwater
monitoring data along with the monthly dry weather data has been incorporated into the reasonable
assurance modeling to assess necessary load reductions needed to meet the overall nutrient WLAs for
Machado Lake.
107
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-45 | Page
Figure 2-7: Total Nitrogen Concentrations in Peninsula Machado Lake Outfall flows from 2016-2020
108
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-46 | Page
TRASH
Trash is not a pollutant amenable to reasonable assurance modeling. The Peninsula WMG agencies are
individually responsible for meeting WLAs for trash TMDLs and/or complying with the Statewide Trash
Provisions as appropriate, and for monitoring and reporting consistent with their approved plans.
FECAL INDICATOR BACTERIA
As shown in Figure 2-9, Figure 2-10, and Figure 2-11 fecal indicator bacteria densities of Total Coliforms,
Fecal Coliforms and Enterococci in stormwater discharged from the Peninsula MS4 outfalls to Santa
Monica Bay (SD-1 and SD-2 ) do exceed the single-sample water quality based effluent limitations
(WQBELs) during wet weather and these results are typical of MS4 discharges. There does not appear to
be an increasing or decreasing trend in these wet weather indicator bacteria densities over the four years
of CIMP monitoring nor has there been degradation of recreational water quality of the Santa Monica Bay
shoreline or nearshore waters off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as discussed in Section 2.2.1. Given that the
Figure 2-8: Total Phosphorus Outfall Concentrations in Peninsula Machado Lake Outfall flows 2016-2020
109
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-47 | Page
Palos Verdes Peninsula beaches for which monitoring data exists have been removed from the 303(d) list
for indicator bacteria impairments and the fact that there is no apparent degradation of recreational
water quality, reasonable assurance modeling is not necessary for indicator bacteria in the Santa Monica
Bay.
As shown in Figure 2-12, E. Coli indicator bacteria densities in stormwater discharged from the RHE City
Hall MS4 outfall to Wilmington Drain consistently exceed the single sample receiving water limit of 576
mpn/100 mL for fresh waters designated for limited water contact recreation. These indicator bacteria
densities have remained relatively constant during the four years of CIMP monitoring. This stormwater
outfall monitoring data has been incorporated into the reasonable assurance modeling to assess
necessary load reductions to address the 303(d) listing for Wilmington Drain.
Figure 2-9: Total Coliform Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from SD1 and SD2 (2016-2020)
110
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-48 | Page
Figure 2-10: Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from SD1 and SD2 (2016-2020)
111
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-49 | Page
Figure 2-11: Enterococci Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from SD1 and SD2 (2016-2020)
112
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
2-50 | Page
Figure 2-12: E-Coli Concentrations in Peninsula Stormwater Discharges from RHE City Hall (2016-2020)
113
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-1 | Page
3.SELECTION OF WATERSHED CONTROL MEASURES
This chapter identifies Watershed Control Measures (WCMs) to be implemented through the Participating
Agencies’ jurisdictional stormwater management programs, and collectively on a watershed scale. The
WCMs are structural and/or nonstructural controls designed with the following objectives:
●Prevent or eliminate non-stormwater discharges to the MS4 that are a source of pollutants from the
MS4 to receiving waters.
●Implement pollutant controls necessary to achieve all applicable interim and final water quality-based
effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations pursuant to corresponding compliance
schedules.
●Ensure that discharges from the MS4 do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water
limitations.
The goal is to create an efficient program that focuses individual and collective agency resources on water
quality priorities (WQPs). The WCMs are categorized as:
●Minimum Control Measures (MCMs),
●Non-stormwater Discharge (NSWD) Measures, and
●Targeted Control Measures (TCMs), which are designed to achieve applicable water quality-based
effluent limitations and receiving water limitations.
Each WCM category may be further categorized through type: structural or nonstructural, and structural
WCM may be categorized by status as well: existing, planned, proposed, or potential. Combined with
Chapter 4 (RAA) and Chapter 5 (Compliance Schedules), the EWMP addresses the nature, scope, and
timing of implementation for each WCM and provides interim milestones for the WCMs to achieve TMDL
compliance. Also discussed are the responsibilities of each Permittee.
Since the Machado Lake TMDLs and the Los Angeles Harbor Toxics TMDL WLAs were calculated based on
the average annual water year, the revised RAA used the average water year (Water Year 2010) as the
critical condition to establish wet weather nutrient and organic pollutant target load reductions (TLRs) in
the Peninsula Machado Lake watershed management area (WMA)77, including the Wilmington Drain
WMA1 tributary to Machado Lake, and the Los Angeles Harbor WMA. Consistent with all existing Los
Angeles region freshwater bacteria TMDLs, the RAA used the 90th percentile water year (Water Year 2011)
as the critical condition to establish wet weather bacteria TLRs in the Wilmington Drain WMA to address
the 303(d) listing. Based on these critical conditions, the RAA estimated the following 24-hour stormwater
runoff management volumes needed to meet all the non-zero TLRs: 1.3 acre-ft for the Machado Lake
WMA, 0.5 for the Wilmington Drain – Solano WMA, 7.4 acre-ft for the Wilmington Drain WMA, 5.4 acre-
ft for Los Angeles Harbor – Inner Harbor WMA, and 1.5 acre-ft for the Los Angeles Harbor – Cabrillo Marina
WMA. These 24-hour management volumes are intended to be addressed through LID implementation,
existing/planned BMPs, and proposed green streets and regional BMPs as described in this chapter.
Please note that this estimate does not reflect an estimate of recharged groundwater but is simply an
estimate of the reduced amount of stormwater runoff leaving the Peninsula EWMP Area as a result of
BMP implementation as discussed herein.
77 Both Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain WMAs are subwatersheds to the HUC-12 Dominguez Channel Watershed.
114
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-2 | Page
3.1. MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES
The Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) are baseline WCMs required for all Permittees. The MCMs are
defined in the MS4 Permit (excluding modifications set forth in an approved EWMP) and are implemented
individually by each Permittee. The objectives of the MCMs are to 1) result in a significant reduction in
pollutants discharged into receiving waters and 2) satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR §122.26(d)(2)(iv).
The MCMs are separate from Targeted Control Measures, which are included in the EWMP to specifically
address WQPs.
The MS4 Permit allows the modification of certain MCMs programs, so long as the modified actions are
set forth in the approved EWMP and are consistent with 40 CFR §122.26(d)(2)(iv). The modifications are
based on an assessment to identify opportunities for focusing resources on WQPs. The term
“modifications” refers only to instances where language from the MS4 Permit MCM provisions is removed
and/or replaced. Any control measures that are enhancements of the existing programs (i.e. do not
conflict with the MS4 Permit MCM provisions) are included in the separate category of Targeted WCMs.
A summary of the assessment of each MCM program as well as a determination as to whether each
Participating Agency will implement the MCM provisions either 1) as stated in the corresponding section
of the MS4 Permit or 2) with modifications to focus resources on WQPs can be found in Section 3.1.2.
3.1.1. L.A. COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES
The LACFCD will implement the MCMs as defined in the MS4 Permit. See Appendix 1 for additional
information.
3.1.2. ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES
(PARTICIPATING AGENCIES, EXCLUDING LACFCD)
The following section is an assessment of the MS4 Permit MCMs, intended to identify opportunities for
modifying MCMs to focus resources on WQPs. This section applies to all participating agencies, excluding
the LACFCD.
3.1.2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The purpose of the MS4 Permit Development Construction Program is to track, inspect and enforce
implementation of BMPs on construction sites and to ensure that construction projects of one acre or
more have coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Permittees are not modifying this
Program and will implement it as defined in the MS4 Permit.
3.1.2.2 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL FACILITIES PROGRAM
The purpose of the MS4 Permit Industrial/Commercial Facility Program is to track, inspect, and enforce
implementation of BMPs at industrial and commercial facilities and to ensure coverage under the
Industrial General Permit where appropriate. There are currently no sites subject to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Watershed. The Permittees are not modifying this Program and will implement it as defined in
the MS4 Permit.
3.1.2.3 ILLICIT CONNECTION AND ILLICIT DISCHARGES ELIMINATION PROGRAM
115
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-3 | Page
The purpose of the MS4 Permit Illicit Connection and Illicit Discharge (IC/ID) Elimination Program is to
detect, investigate and eliminate IC/IDs to the MS4. The Permittees are not modifying this Program and
will implement it as defined in the MS4 Permit.
3.1.2.4 PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Following MS4 Permit provisions, Permittees cannot modify the Planning and Land Development Program
to be less strict than requirements in the MS4 Permit. The Permittees will implement the Program as
defined in the MS4 Permit.
3.1.2.5 PUBLIC AGENCY ACTIVITIES PROGRAM
The Public Agency Activities Program consists of several sub-programs. Many of the MS4 Permit provisions
within the sub-programs consist of baseline operation and maintenance (O&M) control measures that do
not appear to offer clear benefits from modification. The sub-programs that do suggest a prioritized
approach – such as street sweeping and catch basin cleaning frequencies – already provide this
opportunity (frequencies are based on an agency’s assessment of trash and debris generation). As such
the Cities are not modifying this Program and will implement it as defined in the MS4 Permit.
3.1.2.6 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
The MS4 Permit allows an agency to implement the requirements of the Public Information and
Participation Program (PIPP) 1) by participating in a County-wide effort, 2) by participating in a Watershed
Group effort, 3) individually within its jurisdiction or 4) through a combination of these approaches. The
Agencies will implement the PIPP following a combination of approaches.
In terms of Program modifications, the MS4 Permit provisions provide flexibility to focus efforts on WQPs
through the development of the Program. As such, the Cities will implement it as defined in the MS4
Permit. Modifications to elements of the PIPP MCM Program were made to address the Peninsula WMG
watershed priorities through activity-specific outreach programs targeted at the following residential
activities:
a) DIY auto activities
b) DIY home improvement activities
c) DIY landscaping and gardening activities
d) Pet owner activities
e) Rainwater Harvesting and Downspout Disconnection
Each Permittee will implement the Residential Outreach Program through a combination of individual,
watershed, and Countywide program efforts to implement Residential Outreach Program elements.
The Peninsula WMG implement a customized PIPP strategy, developed collaboratively with the Beach
Cities WMG, to better address watershed priorities, including; hosting Sustainable Gardening and
Landscaping and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) webpages with the South Bay Environmental
Services Center (SBESC) providing information regarding alternative pest controls and best management
practices for fertilizer use, developing a BMP tip card targeting mobile businesses that generate waste
water to mitigate non-stormwater discharges, developing a Small Site Construction brochure focused on
illicit discharge mitigation measures, developing a comprehensive Homeowner’s Guide to Rainwater
Harvesting to encourage the interception and collection of stormwater on residential properties,
116
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-4 | Page
maintaining pet waste collection and clean-up stations in municipal parks, developing horse keeping and
manure outreach material, facilitation the management of landscape for brush and fire control by
providing unlimited green waste collection to residents which minimizes potential leaching of phosphorus
from accumulated vegetation and helps to prevent brush fires which mitigates the release of toxic
pollutants, and promoting water conservation and stormwater pollution and prevention messages via
email blasts and the SBESC website.
3.1.2.7 PROGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT AND INTERAGENCY C OORDINATION
Following MS4 Permit provisions, Permittees cannot modify the Progressive Enforcement and Interagency
Coordination Program. The Permittees will implement the Program as defined in the MS4 Permit.
3.1.3. ENHANCED FOURTH TERM MS4 PERMIT MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES
(PARTICIPATING AGENCIES, EXCLUDING LACFCD)
The MS4 Permit describes baseline MCM provisions and program elements to be implemented within
each participating agency’s jurisdictional stormwater program. Previous iterations of the EWMP included
a review of the substantive enhancements and additions to the MCMs that occurred from the third term
MS4 Permit to the fourth term permit. The purpose of the review was to highlight new provisions that
would address WQPs. As these provisions are no longer new and have been in place for several years and
are reflected in the monitoring data supporting the RAA update, this review has been removed from the
EWMP.
3.1.4. FIFTH TERM MS4 PERMIT MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES
Previous iterations of the WMP included a review of the substantive enhancements and additions to the
MCMs that occurred from the Third Term MS4 Permit to the Fourth Term MS4 Permit. The purpose of the
review was to highlight new provisions that would address WQPs. The MCM Provisions of the 2020
Tentative Draft (Fifth Term) MS4 Permit do not include significant changes from the Fourth Term MS4
Permit MCMs. As such, a review of expected Fifth Term MS4 Permit MCM provisions is not included in
the WMP. Once the Fifth Term Permit is effective, the Permittees will implement its MCMs.
117
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-5 | Page
3.2. NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE MEASURES
The Participating Agencies will require dischargers that drain to their respective MS4s to implement the
Non-stormwater Discharge (NSWD) Measures. If the Participating Agencies identify non-stormwater
discharges from the MS4 as a source of pollutants that cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving
water limitations, the WCMs will be modified and implemented – subject to the adaptive management
process – to effectively eliminate the source of pollutants consistent with the MS4 Permit. In these
instances, potential WCMs may include prohibiting the non-stormwater discharge to the MS4, requiring
the responsible party to 1) incorporate additional BMPs to reduce pollutants in the non-stormwater
discharge or conveyed by the non-stormwater discharge or 2) divert to a sanitary sewer for treatment, or
strategies to require the non-stormwater discharge to be separately regulated under a general NPDES
permit.
118
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-6 | Page
3.3. TARGETED CONTROL MEASURES
Targeted Control Measures (TCMs) are additional control measures beyond the baseline MCMs and
NSWD measures of the MS4 Permit that are intended to target the Peninsula WMG’s WQPs based on
potential pollutant sources identified in the updated source assessment in Section 2.3. TCMs may be
divided into two categories: nonstructural and structural. The selection of structural and nonstructural
control measures to address WQPs within the Peninsula WMG is a vital component of the EWMP planning
process.
The Participating Agencies continue to implement structural and nonstructural control measures in the
watershed. There are many different types of structural and nonstructural control measures that provide
varying benefits from their implementation. The following sections and corresponding appendices
describe TCMs that may be implemented (where implementation is conditional upon factors such as site
constraints, governing body approval, etc.), as well types of structural BMPs available to the Peninsula
WMG.
3.3.1. CONTROL MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN TMDLS/IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
This section describes the nonstructural control measures that have been previously identified in TMDLs
and corresponding implementation plans and the status of their implementation. For those TMDLs that
do not sufficiently identify control measures, control measures are identified in the planned Targeted
Control Measures as described in the following sections in this chapter. For more information on the
TMDLs refer to Section 2: Water Quality Priorities.
3.3.1.1 SANTA MONICA BAY BEACHES BACTERIA TMDL
To meet the requirements of Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDL, a Coordinated Shoreline
Monitoring Plan (CSMP) was developed by a committee of responsible agencies, including representatives
from the Peninsula WMG. The Peninsula WMG monitoring sites historically experience fewer exceedance
days than the reference beach used in the TMDL and are therefore in an anti-degradation condition 78.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 2.2.1, all of the Peninsula shorelines monitoring sites have been
delisted from the 303(d) list in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s delisting
criteria. As a result, control measures in the approved Implementation Plan include continued
implementation of MCMs to protect or enhance existing water quality, and as-needed investigation if an
excessive number of exceedances occurs at a monitoring site. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, monitoring
results consistently demonstrate attainment of the dry and wet weather SMBBB TMDL receiving water
limitations, therefore a RAA modeling effort is not required for this water body pollutant combination.
Summer-dry and winter-dry weather data at the SMBBB TMDL compliance monitoring locations (CMLs)
collected up to TMDL Year 2015 were evaluated in the initial RAA to conclude that the dry weather water
quality was better than that of the referenced beach based on long-term average exceedance rates. For
the revised RAA, the summer-dry and winter dry- weather monitoring data collected between Year 2015
and 2019 have been evaluated to verify that the dry weather exceedance rates have not degraded from
historical levels and continue to meet their receiving water limitations.
3.3.1.2 SANTA MONICA BAY NEARSHORE AND O FFSHORE DEBRIS TMDL
78 The antidegradation policy applies to waters that are determined to have high water quality and requires that existing high
quality be maintained.
119
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-7 | Page
Compliance with the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL is based on installation of structural best
management practices such as full capture or partial capture systems, institutional controls, or any best
management practices, to attain a reduction in the amount of trash in the Santa Monica Bay. Through a
joint project among the PVP Agencies 1,112 catch basins have been retrofit with certified full capture
Connector Pipe Screens within the Santa Monica Bay watershed areas of the Peninsula WMG, funded in
part through a $600,000 Prop 84 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Grant. See Permittee’s
individual Annual Reports for status and information on compliance with the Santa Monica Bay Nearshore
and Offshore Debris TMDL.
3.3.1.3 SANTA MONICA BAY DDT &PCBS TMDL
Data summarized in Section 2.3.1 demonstrates that the rolling three-year average Santa Monica Bay
outfall monitoring results meet the assigned WLAs for both DDT and PCBs, consequently RAA modeling is
not necessary for this water body pollutant combination.
3.3.1.4 MACHADO LAKE T RASH TMDL
Compliance with the Machado Lake TMDL is based on installation of structural best management practices
such as full capture or partial capture systems, institutional controls, implementation of a Minimum
Frequency of Assessment and Collection (MFAC) program, or any best management practices, to attain a
reduction in the amount of trash in the Machado Lake Watershed. To date, over 2,000 full capture trash
devices have been installed in Peninsula WMG catch basins tributary to Machado Lake, partially funded
by Proposition 84 Stormwater Grant funding. These devices were installed in accordance with the
compliance schedule outlined in the TMDL. See Permittee’s individual Annual Report for status and
information on compliance with the Machado Lake Trash TMDL.
3.3.1.5 MACHADO LAKE N UTRIENTS TMDL AND MACHADO LAKE PESTICIDES & PCBS TMDL
To meet the requirements of the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL, the Peninsula WMG monitors the
Machado Lake outfalls on a monthly basis. To meet the requirements of the Machado Lake Pesticides &
PCBs TMDL, the Peninsula WMG collects sediment samples from the Machado Lake outfalls during every
wet weather event and compiles the samples for analysis. See data summarized in Chapter 2. The
Peninsula WMG developed a plan for achievement of compliance with the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL
in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Subwatershed Coordinated Implementation Plan (2011), which served as
guidelines for an adaptive implementation of source control programs and development of structural best
management practices.
Infiltration projects reducing nutrients, pesticides, and PCBs flow to Machado Lake, such as the Chandler
Ranch Project, have been constructed and the Peninsula WMG continues to pursue structural projects to
within the Peninsula Watershed and support project opportunities outside of the Peninsula Watershed
such as the Torrance Airport Stormwater Project.
For nutrients, pesticides, and PCBs source control programs, the Peninsula WMG in a collaborative effort
with the Beach Cities, developed Sustainable Gardening and Landscaping and Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) webpages, provided information regarding alternative pest controls and best
management practices for fertilizer use, a BMP tip card targeting mobile businesses that generate waste
water to mitigate non-stormwater discharges, developed a Small Site Construction brochure focused on
illicit discharge mitigation measures, developed a comprehensive Homeowner’s Guide to Rainwater
Harvesting to encourage the interception and collection of stormwater on residential properties, maintain
120
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-8 | Page
pet waste collection and clean-up stations in municipal parks, and developed horse keeping and manure
outreach material.
3.4. NONSTRUCTURAL TARGETED CONTROL MEASURES
Following MS4 Permit provisions, the Peninsula WMG has developed customized strategies, control
measures and O&M control measures to implement the EWMP. Addressing WQPs will be based on a
multi-faceted strategy initially focused on source control. If pollutants are not generated or released, they
will not be available for transport to the receiving waters. In addition, if soils can be stabilized, sediment
controlled, and dry-weather runoff and initial flushes of stormwater runoff eliminated or greatly reduced,
the major transportation mechanisms will be eliminated or greatly reduced, and fewer pollutants will
reach the receiving waters. Since there is a substantial body of research demonstrating that wildfires can
be a significant source of toxic pollutants in stormwater, prevention of wildfires is also an important
source control measure for preventing pollutant mobilization and transport of the Peninsula WMG, which
is identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. See detailed discussion in Section 2.3.1.
Many of the highest WQPs, such as copper, lead, and zinc, are released into the atmosphere, resulting in
widespread aerial deposition onto impervious surfaces in the Watershed. In addition, these pollutants are
discharged directly onto streets, highways, parking lots, and driveways from motor vehicle components
such as brakes, wheel weights, and tires. The Participating Agencies have concluded that the most cost-
effective and long-lasting way to address WQPs is to develop and support state-wide or regional measures
that will encourage or require, if necessary, product or material substitution at the manufacturing stage.
This can be a complex and time-consuming process, but the payoff in water quality improvement can be
tremendous.
The nonstructural TCMs supplement the MCM efforts with targeted source control measures such as
incentives for irrigation control and upgraded street sweeping equipment, designed with the objective of
achieving interim and final water quality-based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations.
Planned and potential nonstructural TCMs for each participating agency can be found in the Appendix 3.1.
121
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-9 | Page
3.5. STRUCTURAL TARGETED CONTROL MEASURES
Structural TCMs are Structural BMPs that, in combination with MCMs, are designed with the objective to
achieve interim and final water quality-based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations.
Structural TCMs are an important component of the Peninsula WMG’s load reduction strategy. These
BMPs are constructed to capture runoff and filter, infiltrate, or treat stormwater. If properly maintained,
these BMPs can have high pollutant removal efficiencies); however, they tend to be more expensive than
nonstructural BMPs. The two prevailing approaches for implementing Structural BMPs are regional and
distributed approaches. Both serve important purposes and should be considered in combination to
determine the best possible implementation strategy to meet the Peninsula WMG’s water quality goals.
Appendix 3.2 provides a description of each of the major structural BMP subcategories.
DISTRIBUTED BMPS
Distributed Structural BMPs are generally built at the site-scale. They are intended to treat stormwater
runoff at the source and usually capture runoff from a single parcel or a small area consisting of multiple
parcels and public rights of way. They may also include nature-based solutions such as natural habitat
restoration, and in particular on the Palos Verdes Peninsula natural canyon habitat and riparian canyon
restoration.
REGIONAL BMPS
Regional BMPs refer to large structural BMPs that receive flows from neighborhoods or large areas and
may provide multiple benefits such as: improved water quality, increased water supply, improved flood
management, enhanced park space, restored habitat, improved public access to waterways, creation of
new recreational opportunities, enhanced green spaces at school, reduced heat local island effect,
increased number of trees or other vegetation, or implementation of nature-based solutions79.
3.5.1. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL CONTROL MEASURES
The performance of existing and planned BMPs in the Peninsula EWMP area is evaluated through the RAA
following provisions of the MS4 Permit, both in terms of volume capture (based on BMP design criteria)
and predicted effluent quality. An analysis of BMP Performance data has been summarized in Appendix
4.1 and a summary of modeled BMPs is included in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 below. Refer to Section 4
(Reasonable Assurance Analysis) for more detail on the RAA.
3.5.1.1 REGIONAL BMPS
This chapter contains a summary of existing, planned, proposed, and potential Regional BMPs within the
Peninsula EWMP area
. These project categories are defined as follows:
• Existing – constructed and on-line Regional BMPs.
• Planned – some planning for the Regional BMP has been conducted (i.e. preliminary design report,
feasibility study).
79 Los Angeles County, California – Code of Ordinances. Flood Control District Code. Chapter 16 - The Los Angeles
Region Safe, Clean Water Program. Accessed May 2021.
122
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-10 | Page
•Proposed – initial planning for the Regional BMP has begun, but feasibility studies and preliminary
design reports have not yet been completed.
•Potential – alternative locations where conditions may be suitable for a Regional BMP
It is important to note that the EWMP is subject to adaptive management during the implementation
phase (see Section 9 of this EWMP). The Participating Agencies may notify the Regional Board that
alternative, equivalent actions are proposed in place of the actions described herein. It is important for
the Participating Agencies to have flexibility during the implementation phase if proposed Regional BMPs
are found to be infeasible or less desirable than alternatives. Regional BMPs will be subject to feasibility
studies and/or alternatives analyses. In some cases, the actions proposed herein may be determined to
be less preferred compared to other alternatives. If a preferred alternative action is identified and
selected, the responsible agency will notify the Regional Board of the newly selected alternative(s) and
demonstrate its equivalency.
Figure 3-1: Modeled Regional Projects
123
Palos Verdes Peninsula
3-11 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 3-1: Summary of Modeled Regional BMPs
Watershed
Management
Area
Project Name Lead WMG
Member
Completed,
Planned, or
Proposed
BMP Type
Drainage
Area
(ac)
Impervious
Drainage
Area (ac)
BMP
Volume
(ac-ft)
Infiltration
/Treatment
Capacity
Wilmington Drain (WD-1)
Torrance Airport Stormwater Basin Project Phase II Rancho Palos Verdes and Torrance[a] Planned Subsurface Detention & Diversion to Sewer
74 (PVE) 15 (PVE)
21[b] 2.2 cfs 678 (RPV) 263 (RPV) 1,113 (RHE) 539 (RHE) 441 (LAC) 112 (LAC) Rolling Hills Road Street Improvement Rolling Hills Estate Proposed Pervious Pavement 0.4 (RHE) 0.4 (RHE) 0.04 1 in/hr
Machado Lake (ML-1)
Casaba Estates LID Rolling Hills Estate Completed Surface Retention Basin 28 (RHE) 7 (RHE) 0.4 0.9 in/hr Rolling Hills Country Club Regional LID Project – West Rolling Hills Estate Completed Surface Retention & Infiltration Basin 358 (RHE) [c] 60 (RHE) 3.8 482 in/hr Rolling Hills Country Club Regional LID Project – East Rolling Hills Estate Completed Surface Retention & Infiltration Basin 51 (RHE) 2.0 (RHE) 0.7 1.3 in/hr Palos Verdes Drive East Street Improvement Rolling Hills Estate Proposed Pervious Pavement 2.6 (RHE) 0.5 (RHE) 0.3 1 in/hr
Los Angeles Harbor – Inner Harbor (LAH-IH) Eastview Park Regional Project Rancho Palos Verdes Proposed Subsurface Retention, Treatment and Diversion 345 (RPV) 123 (RPV) 1.2 0.6 cfs
Notes:
RPV-Rancho Palos Verdes; PVE-Palos Verdes Estates; RHE-Rolling Hills Estates; RH-Rolling Hills; LAC – Los Angeles County Unincorporated; TOR-Torrance
(a)The Peninsula WMG has agreed to collaborate with City of Torrance to utilize this project to receive and manage stormwater runoff from the Peninsula EWMP area.
(b)The Torrance Airport Stormwater Basin Project total estimated BMP volume is 21 ac-ft. The Peninsula WMG RAA model that did not include non-Peninsula EWMP drainage areas
demonstrates that for the Wilmington Drain (WD-1) Watershed Management Area (WMA), 7.4 ac-ft of 24-hour management volume is needed to meet the final target load
reductions. See Section 4 and Section 5 of the EWMP and Appendix 4.1 RAA Report.
(c)Does not include non-Peninsula EWMP drainage area.
124
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-12 | Page
3.5.1.1.1 COMPLETED REGIONAL BMPS
CASABA ESTATES (FORMERLY BUTCHER RANCH)80
The Casabas Estates regional BMP project was completed in 2013. The project is approximately 8.55 acres
located in Rolling Hills Estates. It is bounded on the south by Palos Verdes Drive North, easterly by
Monticello Drive, and westerly by Palos Verdes Drive East. The project consists of residential lots, one new
Commercial Recreational lot, parking lots, private roads, and allows for keeping of horses on the
residential lots.
The project involved re-grading a portion of the pre-existing ravine to remove standing water conditions.
This ravine area was rehabilitated into a vegetated bioretention system to retain and infiltrate runoff from
the site. The project receives runoff from offsite (through an existing 24” diameter culvert under Palos
Verdes Drive East) from onsite and offsite areas (a total of 28.62 acres). The new bioretention system was
designed to retain and infiltrate onsite and offsite runoff in a volume greater than the 85th percentile, 24-
hr storm event; therefore, the project was modeled in the RAA as a Regional EWMP Project. See Figure 3-
2 for post-development design conditions.
The Casaba Estates project includes multiple benefits in addition to the stormwater quality benefits that
will be observed. These additional benefits may include, but are not limited to, the following:
● Beneficial Use Protection. This project will result in higher water quality which will help to protect
recreational beneficial uses and support public health (and wellness) in Machado Lake and the Greater
LA Harbor.
● Neighborhood Greening and Public Recreation. This project includes green space within this
development which can positively impact the aesthetics, as well as property values, of urbanized
areas. Property value tends to increase when an urban neighborhood has green space or trees in sight
(CNT, 2010). Green infrastructure and green space can also alleviate urban heat-island effects by
reducing temperatures by about 5oF through shade and evaporation (CNT, 2010).
● Water Conservation/Supply. The stormwater retained onsite recharges groundwater which is being
used for potable or non-potable purposes by the adjacent golf course, thus offsetting reliance on
imported water supply.
80 Bolton Engineering Corp. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations. September 13, 2010.
125
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-13 | Page
Figure 3-2: Casaba Estates (formerly Butcher Ranch) Post-Development Design Conditions (Bolton Engineering Corp. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations.
September 13, 2010).
126
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-14 | Page
SAN RAMON CANYON
The San Ramon Canyon project is located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The project was completed
in October 2014. The project consists of a mid-canyon inlet structure connected to a 3,900-foot long and
a 54-inch pipe that outlets below the oceanfront bluff, bypassing a highly erodible section of the canyon
(see Figure 3-3). The project inlet is located slightly upstream of the upper switchback along Palos Verdes
Drive East and substantially reduces the amount of flow being delivered to an existing, and overwhelmed,
storm drain at Palos Verdes Drive South/25th Street. This project improves water quality by substantially
reducing erosion and minimizing debris and sediment transport to this drain by diverting all stormwater
runoff from a greater than ¼ inch rain event to the underground pipe, diverting it from the erosive canyon.
Due to the nature of this project its benefits could not be quantified in the RAA model. However, as
mentioned above, this project significantly improves the quality of the downstream receiving water and
addresses PCBs, DDT, and Sediment Toxicity.
The San Ramon Canyon project includes multiple benefits in addition to the stormwater quality benefits
that have been accrued. These additional benefits include, but are not limited to, the following:
●Beneficial Use Protection. This project protects recreational beneficial uses and supports public
health (and wellness) in Santa Monica Bay
●Habitat. This project restores and protects the existing streambed and the surrounding ecosystem to
encourage infiltration and biologic uptake.
●Flood Management. This project decreases flood risk by reducing runoff rate and volume.
●Water Conservation/Supply. The stormwater retained onsite recharges the groundwater which is
being used for potable or non-potable purposes by the golf course, thus offsetting reliance on
imported water supply.
Figure 3-3: San Ramon Canyon Project
127
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-15 | Page
CHANDLER RANCH/ROLLING HILLS COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT 81
Redevelopment of the former Chandler Quarry in the City of Rolling Hills Estates was completed in 2018
through private funding to construct a 114-home subdivision (Chandler Ranch) and reconfigure the Rolling
Hills Country Club golf course and clubhouse. The golf course portion of the project was constructed on
the site of the former quarry, with the golf course and subsurface infiltration gallery designed to provide
the same hydraulic retention and infiltration capacity as the former quarry, an exception to the
Peninsula’s typical geological constraints. The new homes that are part of this redevelopment are still
under construction, however the stormwater infiltration systems have been fully operational since
January 2018 and the golf course is also completed. The project site lies within the Machado Lake sub-
watershed of the Dominguez Watershed Management Area (DWMA). The 226-acre project site is now
comprised of the Chandler Ranch homes under development the Rolling Hills Country Club, and golf
course.
The regional project consists of three (3) infiltration galleries along with a pretreatment system for each
gallery that consists of a suite of catch basin inserts, drainage swales, barrancas and, for the largest gallery,
a biofiltration basin. The largest subsurface infiltration gallery has been designed as a regional BMP system
to capture the 50-year storm runoff event from its 705.2-acre tributary area. This regional project well
exceeds the standard for retention of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm.
See Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and Figure 3-6.
The Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project has multiple benefits in addition to the stormwater
quality benefits. These additional benefits include, but are not limited to, the following:
● Beneficial Use Protection. This project protects the multiple beneficial uses of Machado Lake and
supports public health (and wellness) through protection of this public recreational asset.
● Neighborhood Greening and Public Recreation. This project increases green space within this
neighborhood which positively impacts the aesthetics, as well as property values, of adjacent areas.
Property value tends to increase when an urban neighborhood has green space or trees in sight (CNT,
2010). Green infrastructure and green space can also alleviate urban heat-island effects by reducing
temperatures by about 5oF through shade and evaporation (CNT, 2010). Replacement of the
landfilling and concrete plant uses of the former quarry site with green space has decreased the
associated air pollutants including dust from the concrete and inert landfill activity, as well as diesel
truck trips along local roadways.
● Water Conservation/Supply. The stormwater retained onsite recharges groundwater and is used by
the golf course for non-potable purposes, thus offsetting reliance on imported water supply.
● Public Education/Awareness. This project incorporates stormwater infrastructure within a
recreational facility, creating an awareness of stormwater quality and its importance.
81 Hunsaker and Associates. Water Quality Mitigation Plan. June 16, 2010.
128
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-16 | Page
Figure 3-4: Chandler Quarry Project Drainage Area Map
Source:Hunsaker and Associates. Water Quality Mitigation Plan. June 16, 2010.
129
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-17 | Page
Figure 3-5: Chandler Quarry Project Drainage and Water Quality Concept Plan
Source: Hunsaker and Associates. Water Quality Mitigation Plan. January 29, 2016
130
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-18 | Page
Figure 3-6: Chandler Quarry Project Infiltration System Concept Design
Source: Hunsaker and Associates. Water Quality Mitigation Plan. January 29, 2016
131
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-19 | Page
3.5.1.1.2 PLANNED REGIONAL BMPS
The Peninsula WMG has planned regional BMPs which are at levels varying from a concept plan to a final
design. The anticipated pollutant removals associated with these BMPs were modeled in the RAA prior to
determining additional BMPs necessary for each drainage area. A summary of Planned Regional BMPs
within the Peninsula EWMP area is included below.
TORRANCE AIRPORT BASIN
A planned regional BMP located within the City of Torrance adjacent to the Torrance Airport will capture
and divert urban stormwater flows into the sanitary sewer. This project is located within the Machado
Lake Watershed, outside the Peninsula WMG watershed (see Figure 3-7). The agencies with tributary area
to this planned regional BMP include the cities of, Torrance, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho
Palos Verdes,, Palos Verdes Estates, and unincorporated Los Angeles County.
The purpose of the project is to divert stormwater flows from the storm drain to be pre-treated and then
stored in subsurface reservoirs for controlled release to the sanitary sewer system and ultimately to the
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in the City of Carson where the Metropolitan Water District
(MWD) has constructed the Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification Center demonstration plant
to treat storm water for regional groundwater infiltration. See Figure 3-8. The project was modeled in the
RAA and is predicted to achieve the TLRs for the entire Wilmington Drain WMA, while also capturing
stormwater from the 24-hour, 85th percentile event .
The Torrance Airport project will have multiple benefits in addition to the stormwater quality benefits
which may include, but are not limited to, the following:
● Beneficial Use Protection. This project will prevent stormwater runoff from reaching the Machado
Lake, and instead divert these flows to the sanitary sewer and ultimately to the JWPCP, thus resulting
in improved water quality, protection of beneficial uses, and support of public health and wellness in
Machado Lake.
● Flood Management. This project will decrease flood risk by reducing runoff rate and volume.
● Water Conservation/Supply. The stormwater diverted to sanitary sewer system and ultimately to the
JWPCP will provide a source of urban stormwater flow for recycled water and potential regional
groundwater infiltration.
132
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-20 | Page
Figure 3-7: Torrance Airport Drainage Area
133
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-21 | Page
Figure 3-8: Conceptual Layout of Torrance Airport Basin
134
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-22 | Page
3.5.1.1.3 PROPOSED REGIONAL BMPS
The Peninsula WMG has proposed regional BMPs, in addition to those already existing and planned, in
order to achieve the TLRs. Appendix 4.1 provides greater detail on the current land use designation,
location, and potential design capture volume of each site. The proposed BMP sites were scored and
ultimately ranked by the sum score from these characteristics:
- Drainage area
- Site area
- Completion status
- Land use
- Estimated infiltration rate
- Estimated depth to groundwater
- Geotechnical hazards
- Sensitive environmental area
- Liquefaction potential.
The sites with the largest drainage area were scored the highest. The land use with the highest
accessibility is listed first. Within each land use designation, the sites have been scored from largest
to smallest. Ultimately, these locations can serve as a starting point for the continued implementation
of the EWMP. Note that with Regional BMPs there are opportunities for multiple agencies to benefit
from the same site. The land uses are ranked as follows:
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION: Sites designated for open space, parks, and recreational activities were
ranked with the highest potential for future regional BMPs. This ranking is based on the fact that these
types of areas have a high likelihood of being publicly owned eliminating or reducing any high land
acquisition costs, they generally have a high percentage of landscaped area available, and they have
a greater opportunity for multiple benefits.
MUNICIPAL INSTITUTION: Sites owned by a municipality and designated for government use were
ranked with the second highest potential for future Regional BMPs. This ranking is based on the
institution being municipally-owned and presenting a higher likelihood of collaboration than a
privately-owned facility. Although this may be the case, many Municipal Institutions may not be
willing to take on maintenance responsibilities which could result in the necessity of land acquisition
or maintenance agreements.
GOLF COURSES/COUNTRY CLUBS: Sites designated as golf courses or country clubs were ranked with the
third highest potential for future Regional BMPs. This ranking is based on the fact that these types of
areas generally have a high percentage of landscaped area available and have a greater opportunity
for multiple benefits. Although this may be the case, land acquisition for these sites is expected to be
a difficult and costly process.
EDUCATIONAL USE: Sites designated for educational use were ranked with the fourth highest potential
for future Regional BMPs. These sites generally have a high percentage of landscaped area available
and have a greater opportunity for multiple benefits; however, gaining cooperation is expected to be
difficult.
COMMERCIAL USE: Sites designated as commercial areas were ranked with the fifth highest potential
for future regional BMPs. This ranking is based on the fact that these types of areas generally have a
135
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-23 | Page
high percentage of parking available which could potentially be retrofitted for infiltration
opportunities. Although this may be the case, land acquisition for these sites is expected to be a
difficult and costly process.
The available sites were then further assessed by the Peninsula WMG to determine locations for Regional
BMPs. Note that the sites presented do not represent the only sites available for the Peninsula WMG. The
site selection process took into account the following characteristics:
LOCATION IN RELATION TO RAA RESULTS: The RAA provides an estimation of runoff reduction to be
provided in each area in order to meet the water quality objectives. The sites should be selected to
take this into consideration.
GIS DATA: GIS data was further analyzed to screen projects based on criteria such as land use,
topography, hydrologic features, streets and roads, existing storm drain infrastructure, and storm
drain invert depth.
PROJECT BENEFITS: Projects with potential multiple benefits were prioritized due to the increase in the
overall benefit and support for these projects. Benefits to take into consideration included, but were
not limited to, the following:
Water quality benefits
Water supply benefits
Recreational use
Multi-agency benefits
Publicly owned
Storage availability
Funding available
Project readiness
Flood control benefits
Proximity to pollutant sources or impaired waters
Adjacent to existing storm drain
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS: Potential project constraints were a key component in site selection and
elimination. It is important to take into consideration any constraints that may result in project
infeasibility prior to the design phase. Constraints that were taken into consideration include:
High groundwater
Potential for deleterious geotechnical impacts (land movement)
Low infiltration rates
Existing soil contamination/proximity to existing soil contamination
Brownfields 82
Existing groundwater contamination/proximity to existing groundwater contamination
Potential for soil instability (liquefaction zones, hillside areas)
Existing private ownership (requires land acquisition)
Cost Effectiveness (determined through RAA)
82 With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term "brownfield site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment,
or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant (Environmental Protection Agency).
136
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-24 | Page
Historical landmarks
The participating agencies of the Peninsula Watershed Management Group has encountered geotechnical
and geological constraints in the process of developing projects. Due to the unique geological nature of
the Palos Verdes Peninsula, infiltration is often infeasible. Frequent geologic movement is prevalent
throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula and extensive research has documented areas where geotechnical
hazards exist and are a concern. See Figure 3-9. These geologic conditions coupled with additional areas
where rising groundwater is a known concern have limited the feasibility of infiltration projects in many
areas within the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Figure 3-9: Geologic Hazards in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed
These locations served as a starting point for the RAA, which was the final step to determine where BMPs
were needed and the pollutant removal that could be observed through implementation of a BMP.
BMPs were identified in a prioritized manner. Prioritization was based on cost (low cost BMPs were
prioritized); BMP effectiveness for the pollutants of concern (BMPs that had greater treatment efficiency
for the pollutant of concern in a particular analysis region were prioritized over other BMPs); and
implementation feasibility as determined by desktop screening. In general, structural BMPs were
identified that would result in the greatest load reduction per dollar. This was accomplished by targeting
land uses with the greatest drainage area with imperviousness, and BMPs with the greatest performance,
particularly for the controlling pollutant. The Proposed BMPs resulting from the selection process are
described below.
137
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-25 | Page
MACHADO LAKE WATERSHED BMPS
The Machado Lake Watershed has limited areas capable of implementing infiltration projects due to
limited areas with storm drains, available right-of-way, geotechnical hazards, specifically land subsidence,
and lack of available space. Despite these limitations, construction of a large infiltration system was
completed at the former Chandler Quarry (Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club Project) in 2018.
Alternatives to regional infiltration-type projects have also been proposed: the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Multi-Benefit Flow Diversion Project, Rolling Hills Road Street Improvement, and Palos Verdes Drive East
Street Improvement. The Peninsula WMG will continue efforts to identify projects within and outside of
the geotechnically challenged Machado Lake Watershed.
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA MULTI-BENEFIT FLOW D IVERSION PROJECT (ADJACENT TO PALOS VERDES LANDFILL)
The EWMP initially conceived the closed Palos Verdes Landfill (PVLF) as a potential location for diversion
of a major storm drain into a flow-through regional stormwater treatment facility. Due to impaired
groundwater and subsurface contamination at this inactive landfill, which is under the oversight of DTSC,
infiltration BMPs could not be considered, instead costly large-scale flow-through treatment BMPs were
evaluated. The scale of the original proposed project, which was sized to manage large storm flows, was
subsequently determined to be infeasible due to constraints associated with the proposed project site on
the PVLF Main Site. A smaller scale project is currently proposed adjacent the PVLF Main Site to divert
baseline flows for beneficial use for irrigation. The proposed project would address significant year-round
baseline flow from rising groundwater in a major storm drain system tributary to Machado Lake.
Collectively, these storm drains collect runoff from approximately 1,500 acres within the WD-1 Analysis
Region, i.e., the Machado Lake Wilmington Drain subwatershed. See Figure 3-10.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Multi-Benefit Flow Diversion project would have multiple benefits in addition
to the stormwater quality benefits that will be accrued. These additional benefits may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
● Beneficial Use Protection. This project will result in higher water quality which will help to protect
recreational beneficial uses and support public health (and wellness) in Machado Lake. Furthermore,
beneficially using the baseline flows emerging from the Palos Verdes Hills within the Palos Verdes
Peninsula for enhancing parks and open space is a sustainable use for capture flows that reduces the
demand of imported water.
● Neighborhood Greening and Public Recreation. This project contemplates enhancing green space on
the PVLF Main Site which would positively impact the aesthetics, as well as property values, of
adjacent areas (CNT, 2010). The primary uses proposed for the captured flows will be to replace
potable water used for irrigation of nearby parks and/or to enhance existing open space at the PVLF
Main Site by establishing native and drought tolerant landscaping along with a new irrigation system.
The use of native and climate-appropriate plants in landscaping of the PVLF Main Site would
maximizes the use of nature-based solutions by limiting use of turf grass only for playing fields. Green
infrastructure and green space can also alleviate urban heat-island effects by reducing temperatures
by about 5oF through shade and evaporation (CNT, 2010). This project would also increase
recreational opportunities on the PVLF Main Site.
138
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-26 | Page
●Water Conservation/Supply. The primary water supply benefits to accrue from the captured flows
are to offset current potable water use for irrigation, thus offsetting reliance on imported water
supply.
●Public Education/Awareness. This project will beneficially use captured runoff to enhance
recreational benefits, creating an awareness of stormwater and its value as a resource. This project
will provide public education opportunities in the form of on-site educational materials, such as
placards and interpretive signage.
Legend
Storm Drain Diversion
Tributary Area
Flow Direction
Figure 3-10: Proposed Palos Verdes Landfill Regional BMP Drainage Area
139
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-27 | Page
R OLLING HILLS ROAD GREEN STREET
Redevelopment of Rolling Hills Road from Palos Verdes Drive North to the northern boundary of Rolling
Hills Estates with Torrance has been proposed to the conceptual design level. The project concept has
received significant community engagement through the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ Traffic and Safety
Committee. The preferred project conceptual design received City Council approval on December 8,
2020. This section of roadway will be significantly improved to include bike lanes and
pedestrian/equestrian multi-use pathways on both sides of Rolling Hills Road and will incorporate green
infrastructure features consistent with the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ Green Street Policy. Due to
grade/elevation change along the length of the roadway and current unimproved soft shoulders, during
storm conditions the current drainage conditions along the roadway result in erosion and transport of
sediment into downstream MS4s. Roadway realignment is likely to be associated with this project and will
include the installation of rolled curbs and gutters and related drainage improvements. Project
construction will be scheduled after the neighboring City of Rolling Hills completes installation of a new
sanitary sewer line along this same stretch of roadway. Benefits of the project include but are not limited
to improved pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle safety; connectivity to local bicycle routes in the adjacent
City of Torrance; stormwater quality improvements through reduced sediment and associated pollutant
transport; and enhanced multi-modal transportation and recreational opportunities.
LOS ANGELES HARBOR WATERSHED BMPS
EASTVIEW PARK INFILTRATION PROJECT
Eastview Park is a large park space near the southeast corner of the intersection of Western Avenue and
Westmont Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes (see Figure 3-11). A large storm drain main runs adjacent to the
park, draining approximately 350 acres. There are two sanitary sewer outfall tunnels running through
Eastview Park at depths ranging from 145-208 ft. If feasible, treatment at this location could consist of a
subsurface infiltration BMP capable of capturing the 1-inch design storm 83 is proposed. Assuming a depth
of 6 feet, the project footprint would be approximately 3.5 acres. Multiple benefits include pollutant load
reduction and groundwater recharge. Significantly more work is needed to investigate the feasibility, cost-
effectiveness, and design details of such a BMP. In the case that infiltration is not a feasible option or
unforeseen constraints affect the project, alternative BMPs could be proposed in the Los Angeles Harbor
Watershed.
The Eastview Park Infiltration project would have multiple benefits in addition to the stormwater quality
benefits that will be observed. These additional benefits may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
●Beneficial Use Protection. This project will result in higher water quality which will help to protect
recreational beneficial uses and support public health (and wellness) at the Greater LA Harbor.
●Neighborhood Greening and Public Recreation. This project will increase the green space within this
development which can positively impact the aesthetics, as well as property values, of urbanized
areas. Property value tends to increase when an urban neighborhood has green space or trees in sight
(CNT, 2010). Green infrastructure and green space can also alleviate urban heat-island effects by
reducing temperatures by about 5oF through shade and evaporation (CNT, 2010). Recreation
83 The 1.00 -inch storm was selected for load reduction purposes and is larger than the 85th percentile storm
(approximately 0.85-inch).
140
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-28 | Page
opportunities also can be increased by increased green space which may decrease the amount of cars
on the road, subsequently decreasing the associated pollutants.
●Water Conservation/Supply. The stormwater retained onsite will recharge the groundwater which
could potentially be used for potable or non-potable purposes in the future, thus offsetting reliance
on imported water supply.
●Public Education/Awareness. This project will incorporate stormwater infrastructure within an area
which is highly used by the public creating an awareness of stormwater quality and its importance.
The onsite BMP may serve as public education opportunities in the form of on-site educational
materials, such as placards and interpretive signage.
Figure 3-11: Proposed Eastview Park Infiltration Project Drainage Area
141
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-29 | Page
5.1.1.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL BMPS
In addition to the existing, planned, and proposed BMPs, several opportunities will be considered for
implementation. In many cases, significantly more work is needed to investigate the feasibility, cost-
effectiveness, and design details of these BMPs; however, they will be considered during the
implementation phase of the EWMP. As further information is gathered, the Participating Agencies may
be inclined to select the below opportunities as alternative or supplemental to the proposed BMPs listed
above. The revised RAA model projected that to meet the TLRs, there Peninsula Watershed Management
Group needs to develop additional projects to manage stormwater besides projects that are existing,
planned, or proposed. This includes projects that would manage additional stormwater for Rancho Palos
Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates in the ML-1 WMA, for Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates in the
LAH-IH WMA, and for Rancho Palos Verdes in the LAH-CM WMA. See Section 4 and Section 5.
The EWMP is subject to adaptive management during the implementation phase (see Section 9 of this
EWMP) and it is important for the Participating Agencies to have flexibility during the implementation
phase if proposed Regional BMPs are found to be infeasible or less desirable than alternatives.
POTENTIAL MACHADO LAKE WATERSHED BMPS
HARBOR CITY PARK
A stormwater capture project at Harbor City Park would provide water quality improvements to Machado
Lake. An earlier project concept, included in the EWMP developed by the Dominguez Channel Watershed
Management Group, assumed an infiltration project with 2,230 acres diverted to the project from Cities
of Los Angeles, Lomita, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. On behalf of the Peninsula WMG, the
County of Los Angeles initiated discussion with City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts to evaluate feasibility of expanding the project to include tributary area from the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, diverting stormwater and dry weather runoff from a total capture area of 4,783 acres to be
infiltrated or diverted to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant in Carson for treatment.
WALTERIA DETENTION BASIN
The Walteria Detention Basin was constructed for flood protection in 1962 by the LACFCD. The basin has a
perimeter of approximately one mile and extends to an approximate depth of 100 feet and has a total capacity
of approximately 1,005 acre-feet. The primary function of the Walteria Detention Basin is to provide flood
protection and as such it is operated to detain flows that enter the basin during storm events. During storm
conditions the basin receives runoff from a tributary area of approximately 2,287 acres with 7.6% of that area
(174 acres) contributed by the Peninsula WMG, with the balance of the area contributed by the City of
Torrance. The facility is operated as a detention basin and when a major storm is forecast or following a
significant storm event, the level in the basin is pumped down to maintain sufficient flood protection capacity
for adjacent communities and to sustain capacity of downstream flood conveyance infrastructure. When such
discharge is necessary, the discharge is pumped into a 54-inch diameter storm drain, i.e., through the Project
No. 584 storm drain, and comingles with flows from other MS4 agencies before eventually discharging to
Wilmington Drain and on to Machado Lake. The Peninsula WMG also understands that it is also necessary to
periodically pump the level in the basin down for maintenance purposes.
The Walteria Detention Basin was identified as a potential location for a regional BMP in the Peninsula
EWMP, pending the results of a Special Study Monitoring Program. The City of Torrance and the LACFCD
collaborated and completed the two-year Special Study Monitoring program to characterize water quality
of the stormwater flowing into and out of the basin. Results of the monitoring effort can be found in the
2017-18 Watershed Annual Report.
142
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-30 | Page
Although it is not feasible to use Walteria Basin as an in-situ water quality treatment system (such as
through application of aluminum sulfate or other flocculants) since such approaches could diminish the
flood protection capacity of the basin, the Peninsula WMG is interested in further analysis to assess how
the basin could be utilized as part of a regional system of stormwater capture projects in conjunction with
the Torrance Airport Regional Project, the Harbor City Park Regional Project, and the Palos Verdes Multi-
Benefit Flow Diversion Project to meet Machado Lake TMDL WLAs on a mass basis for the tributary area
to the basin.
FERN CREEK & VALMONTE CANYON CROSSING RESTORATION PROJECT (FERN CREEK MULTI-BENEFIT WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT)
Fern Creek Canyon and Valmonte Canyons are natural drainage courses that converge at the western
corner of Ernie Howlett Park in Rolling Hills Estates where stormwater flows from the two canyons are
directed into an improved culvert and cross under Ernie Howlett Park via a subsurface storm drain that
connects into the MS4 leading to Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake. As observed through years of dry
weather monitoring, Valmonte Canyon does not exhibit flow during dry weather, however Fern Creek
Canyon receives groundwater discharges and exhibits low or intermittent flows throughout the year along
its lower reach. The mouth of Fern Creek Canyon as it enters the culvert has been adversely impacted by
periodic storm debris flows from upper reaches of the canyon which accumulate at the mouth below the
culvert entrance. Restoring the creek bed at the mouth of the canyon and management of debris flows
could reduce nutrient loading to Machado Lake associated with these year-round low flows. The land at
this location is currently privately held and is used for horse keeping, but is not suitable for residential
development, thereby making land acquisition for public open space and recreation potentially feasible
in the future by the City of Rolling Hills Estates. This project would have multiple benefits in addition to
year-round water quality benefits for Machado Lake including, but not limited to, improvement of riparian
habitat, permanent trail access and connectivity of the multi-use trail system at the crossing of Fern Creek
and Valmonte Canyon Trails (currently trail access is conditional by permission of the property owner),
restoration and protection of stream habitat, and enhanced passive and active recreational opportunities.
ACADEMY CANYON AND TRAIL RESTORATION PROJECT
This project would restore and preserve a one-mile section of natural canyon drainage course and hiking
trail that has been adversely impacted by hydromodification. Erosion of the canyon invert has eroded
portions of the trail and exposed sections of a 2,000 linear foot section of subterranean sewer line.
Restoration work would involve canyon, trail and sewer line stabilization, trail enhancement, stormwater
management to protect from future hydromodification and improvement of stormwater quality through
erosion remediation and control, enhancement of wildlife habitat, and enhancement of recreational and
educational opportunities. The trail crest is located adjacent to an independent K-12 day school—the
school has listed the canyon as a certified wildlife habitat with the National Wildlife Federation and
includes the canyon in its environmental education programs. At its terminus near Palos Verdes Drive
North, Academy Canyon drainage is directed into a box culvert and flows via the subsurface MS4 to
Wilmington Drain and Machado Lake. Reversing the impacts of hydromodification will enhance the
nature-based retentive function of this natural canyon thereby reducing storm flow and associated
pollutant loading to Machado Lake.
PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST GREEN STREET
The City of Rolling Hills Estates is considering redevelopment of Palos Verdes Drive East roadway from
Palos Verdes Drive North to the northern boundary of Rolling Hills Estates with the City of Lomita. Due to
grade/elevation change along the length of the roadway, roadway curvature and unimproved soft
143
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-31 | Page
shoulders, during storm conditions the current drainage conditions along the roadway result in erosion
and transport of sediment into downstream MS4s and cause stormwater to flow across the roadway at
several locations. Conceptual planning for the project has not yet begun but would incorporate the City’s
Green Street Policy and include/consider the following improvements and benefits: pedestrian,
equestrian and vehicular safety; drainage improvements; stormwater quality improvements through
reduced sediment and associated pollutant transport; and enhanced multi-modal transportation and
recreational opportunities.
REOPENER FOR THE MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT AND PESTICIDES AND PCBS TMDL
A reconsideration of the Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL was scheduled for September 11. 2016, and the
Peninsula WMG submitted a request for reconsideration on September 7, 2016. At the time Regional
Board TMDL staff indicated that a sufficient body of in-lake monitoring data collected by the City of Los
Angeles following completion of the lake rehabilitation project would be needed prior to a
reconsideration. The Peninsula WMG subsequently requested the Machado Lake Nutrient and Pesticides
& PCBs TMDL implementation schedules be extended as part of the Regional Board’s Consideration of
Extension of Final TMDL Implementation deadlines for Certain TMDLs in the Los Angeles Region in
November 2020; however, the Machado Lake TMDLs were ultimately not considered for extension in that
action. A TMDL reopener to allow reevaluation of the TMDL schedules for final compliance is an avenue
which the Peninsula WMG continues to support.
POTENTIAL SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED BMPS
MALAGA COVE W ATER REUSE 84
The City of Palos Verdes Estates has implemented dewatering measures to prevent nuisance rising
groundwater from damaging homes and businesses in Malaga Cove. The nuisance groundwater removed
from these dewatering sites is currently discharged into the local storm drain system and/or to the nearby
Pacific Ocean. This potential project could divert this water to a nearby school site or a nearby parkway
in Palos Verdes Estates for irrigation use. This project would serve as a dry weather/low flow diversion
rather than as stormwater capture or treatment project.
In 2019, the City of Palos Verdes Estates completed a source tracking study of dry weather storm drain
flows in this area for presence of HF183 human markers and found no persistent human sources in the
City’s MS4 system upstream of Malaga Cove Beach. Although this potential project has not been included
in the load reductions modeled in the RAA, if needed in the future, it has the potential to contribute to
additional pollutant removal by reducing or eliminating non-stormwater discharges and low flow wet
weather flows from the drainage area.
More work would be required to investigate the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and design details of such
a BMP. The Malaga Cove Water Reuse project could have additional benefits besides water quality
benefits including offsetting current use of potable water in landscaping of nearby areas.
P ORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE COMPLEX M ITIGATION PROJECT 85 (ABALONE COVE WATER REUSE)
The City of Ranchos Palos Verdes has implemented dewatering measures to prevent nuisance
groundwater and runoff from damaging homes and businesses. In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
continuous-withdrawal dewatering wells have been installed to slow the progression of the Abalone Cove
Landslide and the Portuguese Bend Landslide. The nuisance groundwater removed from these dewatering
sites is currently discharged into the local storm drain system and/or to the nearby Pacific Ocean. The
84 RMC. “Abalone Cove Project and Malaga Cove Plaza Project Conceptual Evaluation.” August 06, 2009.
85 Information gathered from a feasibility study which is currently being conducted for this project.
144
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
3-32 | Page
City of Rancho Palos Verdes conducted and completed a feasibility study of the Portuguese Bend Landslide
Complex (PBLC) to investigate additional mitigation measures to reduce landslide movement and protect
Santa Monica Bay coastal water quality. Although this potential project has not been included in the load
reductions modeled in the RAA, it has the potential to contribute to additional pollutant removal by
reducing or eliminating non-stormwater discharges and low flow wet weather flows from the drainage
area. Additionally, the PBLC Mitigation project will serve to protect the restored rocky reef from excessive
sediment deposition from stormwater discharges through drainage improvements, flow detention basins,
bioswales, and coastal sage scrub habitat restoration.
More work is needed to investigate the cost-effectiveness and design details of such a BMP.
3.5.1.1.5 STAKEHOLDER INCORPORATION
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The Peninsula WMG initially solicited stakeholder input on the Peninsula EWMP development. These
stakeholders included: City Staff, City Council Members and Water Quality and Flood Protection Oversight
Committee, Governmental Organizations Staff, Non-Governmental Environmental Organizations Staff,
Non-Governmental Organizations Staff, and residents. Several public workshops were held and ultimately
stakeholder feedback was incorporated. The Participating Agencies have and will continue to conduct
project-specific stakeholder and community engagement through public workshops, meetings, and
project presentations at the Safe, Clean Water Program South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area Steering
Committee meetings.
145
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
4-1 | Page
4. REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS
4.1. RAA SUMMARY
The MS4 Permit requires that a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) be conducted for the waterbody-
pollutant combinations addressed by this EWMP. The RAA involves the identification and evaluation of
potential BMP implementation scenarios with respect to the MS4 Permit-specified effluent and receiving
water limits (RWLs) for the priority pollutants of concern for the Peninsula WMG. The RAA demonstrates
achievement of these effluent and receiving water limits for each waterbody-pollutant combination
addressed in this EWMP. As part of the Adaptive Management process as prescribed by the MS4 Permit,
the RAA must be updated by June 30, 2021, and submitted for review and approval by the Regional Water
Board Executive Officer.
Further refining the original RAA (2015), the revised RAA continues to conform to Permit requirements
and the (2014) guidelines developed by the Regional Board. Per MS4 Permit provisions, the revised RAA
incorporates recent monitoring data, project planning and implementation, and modeling advances.
Additionally, the revised RAA addresses issues and comments raised by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB, 2020), such as inclusion of relevant data for model calibration, non-structural Best
Management Practices (BMP) credit, and application of the limiting pollutant approach.
The updated wet weather RAA was conducted using the Watershed Management Modeling System 2.0
(WMMS 2.0), the latest modeling tool developed by Los Angeles County Flood Control (LACFCD), to
determine a cost-effective implementation strategy to meet applicable water quality standards (i.e. TMDL
waste load allocations [WLA] and Basin Plan Objectives) and targets. For dry weather, a revised semi-
quantitative approach was implemented to update the dry weather portion of the revised RAA.
The RAA process:
1. Applied an acceptable model tailored to the Peninsula WMG based on available outfall and
receiving water data collected through June 2020.
2. Calculated target load reductions (TLRs) necessary to achieve applicable water quality targets.
3. Demonstrated that the existing and proposed suite of projects will attain the TLRs. Where this
was not demonstrated, volumetric management needs have been documented to show what
needs to be achieved in order to demonstrate compliance.
The final MS4 WLAs for total nitrogen and total phosphorus are expressed in the following two ways in
the Machado Lake Nutrients TMDL:
• Monthly average WQBEL concentration.
• Annual average pollutant load calculated as the WQBEL concentration multiplied by the annual
average inflow to the Machado Lake (8.45 HM3/year) apportioned to each WMA tributary to
Machado Lake (directly or via Wilmington Drain). This method was initially established in the Los
Angeles County Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Special Study (LACDPW, 2011) following
conditional approval of the work plan by LARWQCB (LARWQCB, 2010).
Of the two acceptable pathways to meet targets, the annual average pollutant load method was selected
to determine the allowable load in subsequent TLR calculations.
146
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
4-2 | Page
The revised and updated Peninsula RAA therefore meets the objectives and requirements of the LA MS4
Permit and RAA Guidance Document, demonstrating that a reasonable assurance of compliance will be
achieved in each analysis region if the TLRs are fully and appropriately managed.
Refer to the Reasonable Assurance Analyses provided in Appendix 4.1 for the rationale of the Model
Selection and Overview and the RAA Approach. Refer to Appendix 4.2 for requirements for achieving RWLs
for each pollutant category.
4.2. REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS
The Reasonable Assurance Analysis for the Peninsula WMG is included in Appendix 4.1.
Table 4-1 summarizes the interim target load reductions (TLRs) established by the RAA, which yielded
interim TLRs of zero for all analysis regions in the Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain WMAs. For the
Santa Monica Bay and Los Angeles Harbor WMAs, no RAA is required to demonstrate compliance with
the interim MS4 WLAs because receiving water monitoring demonstrates the pollutants are below the
interim RWLs.
See Table 4-2 for the final TLR summary. For the Santa Monica Bay WMA, no RAA is required to
demonstrate compliance with the final MS4 WLA because receiving water monitoring shows the
pollutants are meeting the RWLs.
For the non-zero TLRs in Machado Lake and Wilmington Drain WMAs, all the TLR-equivalent 24-hour
management volumes are less than the 85th percentile 24-hour design storm runoff volume. Hence, the
recommended approach is to meet the final TLRs rather than trying to meet the full 85th percentile 24-
hour design storm runoff capture alternative. A 24-hour management volume needed to meet TLRs for
each pollutant was determined for each analysis region, and the largest 24-hour management volume
was selected as the target compliance metric, since management of the largest volume will result in
management of all others.
For analysis regions in the Los Angeles Harbor WMA, the 85th percentile 24-hour design storm runoff
volume of each analysis region is less than the maximum TLR-equivalent 24-hour runoff management
volumes in that analysis region. Therefore, the recommended approach is to meet the full 85th percentile
24-hour runoff capture alternative.
Table 4-3 summarizes the results of the Peninsula EWMP RAA for all analysis regions and shows that the
TLRs will be met through a combination of LID, Regional and Distributed BMPs. More details on the
completed, planned, proposed and potential BMPs to be implemented to meet these TLRs is provided in
Section 3.
147
Palos Verdes Peninsula
4-3 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 4-1: Interim Wet Weather Target Load Reduction Summary WMA Analysis Region Pollutant Critical Condition Baseline Load Allowable Interim
Load
Interim Target Load
Reduction
TLR
Equivalent 24-
Hour
Management
Volume (ac-ft) Absolute
% of
Baseline
Load Machado Lake ML-1Total Nitrogen Average Runoff Year Final TLR = 0%, hence RAA achieved
Total Phosphorus Average Runoff Year 38.4 lb/yr 475 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0 Machado Lake - Wilmington Drain WD-1 Total Nitrogen Average Runoff Year Final TLR = 0%, hence RAA achieved
Total Phosphorus Average Runoff Year 346 lb/yr 3,731 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0 WD -Solano Total Nitrogen Average Runoff Year Final TLR = 0%, hence RAA achieved
Total Phosphorus Average Runoff Year Final TLR = 0%, hence RAA achieved Los Angeles Harbor LAH - IH Total Copper
Total Lead
Total Zinc
DDx (Total)
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
Receiving water monitoring shows all interim RWLs have been met. Hence no RAA needed. LAH-CM Total Copper
Total Lead
Total Zinc
DDx (Total)
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
Receiving water monitoring shows all interim RWLs have been met. Hence no RAA needed. Santa Monica Bay SMB DDx (Total)
Total PCBs Receiving water monitoring shows all RWLs have been met. Hence no RAA needed. SMBBB Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Enterococci
Receiving water monitoring shows all RWLs have been met. Hence no RAA needed.
148
Palos Verdes Peninsula
4-4 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 4-2: Final Wet Weather Target Load Reduction Summary Subwatershed Analysis Region Pollutant Critical Condition Baseline Load
Final Target Load Reduction
Absolute % of Baseline
Load
TLR Equivalent 24-
Hour Management
Volume
(ac-ft) Machado Lake ML-1Total PCBs Average Water Year 7.5E-04 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDx (Total) Average Water Year 1.0E-03 lb/yr 9.0E-04 lb/yr 88% 1.3
DDT (All congeners) Average Water Year 1.2E-05 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDE (All congeners) Average Water Year 6.4E-04 lb/yr 5.7E-04 lb/yr 89% 1.3[1]
DDD (All congeners) Average Water Year 6.3E-04 lb/yr 5.2E-04 lb/yr 82% 1.1
Total Chlordane Average Water Year 2.1E-04 lb/yr 1.3E-04 lb/yr 64% 0.7
Dieldrin Average Water Year 1.2E-05 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Nitrogen Average Water Year 119 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Phosphorus Average Water Year 38.4 lb/yr 0.4 lb/yr 1% 0.1
n/a 85th Percentile 24-Hour
Storm 1.6 ac-ft 1.6 ac-ft 100% 1.6 Machado Lake - Wilmington Drain WD-1 Total PCBs Average Water Year 3.6E-03 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDx (Total) Average Water Year 4.9E-03 lb/yr 4.3E-03 lb/yr 88% 7.4
DDT (All congeners) Average Water Year 6.0E-05 lb/yr 0.0E+00 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDE (All congeners) Average Water Year 3.1E-03 lb/yr 2.7E-03 lb/yr 89% 7.4[1]
DDD (All congeners) Average Water Year 3.1E-03 lb/yr 2.5E-03 lb/yr 82% 6.2
Total Chlordane Average Water Year 9.9E-04 lb/yr 6.3E-04 lb/yr 64% 4.2
Dieldrin Average Water Year 5.6E-05 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Nitrogen Average Water Year 1510 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Phosphorus Average Water Year 346 lb/yr 47.2 lb/yr 14% 0.6
Bacteria (E. coli) 90th Percentile Wet
Year 8.3 1012 MPN/yr 4.2 1012 MPN/yr 51% 6.0
n/a 85th Percentile 24-Hour
Storm 8.01 ac-ft 8.01 ac-ft 100% 8.0 WD-Solano Total PCBs Average Water Year 2.07E-04 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDx (Total) Average Water Year 2.84E-04 lb/yr 2.5E-04 lb/yr 88% 0.5[1]
DDT (All congeners) Average Water Year 3.47E-06 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDE (all congeners) Average Water Year 1.77E-04 lb/yr 1.6E-04 lb/yr 89% 0.5
DDD (All congeners) Average Water Year 1.76E-04 lb/yr 1.4E-04 lb/yr 82% 0.4
149
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
4-5 | Page Subwatershed Analysis Region Pollutant Critical Condition Baseline Load
Final Target Load Reduction
Absolute % of Baseline
Load
TLR Equivalent 24-
Hour Management
Volume
(ac-ft)
Total Chlordane Average Water Year 5.72E-05 lb/yr 3.6E-05 lb/yr 64% 0.3
Dieldrin Average Water Year 3.21E-06 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Nitrogen Average Water Year 42 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Phosphorus Average Water Year 9 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Bacteria (E. coli) 90th Percentile Water
Year 0.46 1012 MPN/yr 0.23 1012 MPN/yr 50% 0.5
n/a 85th Percentile 24-Hour
Storm 0.57 ac-ft 0.57 ac-ft 100% 0.6 Los Angeles Harbor LAH - IH Total Copper Average Water Year 8.1 lb/yr 4.5 lb/yr 55% 2.2
Total Lead Average Water Year 1.7 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Zinc Average Water Year 33.5 lb/yr 17.4 lb/yr 52% 2.0
4,4'-DDT Average Water Year 1.3E-05 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDx (Total) Average Water Year 4.7E-03 lb/yr 4.6E-03 lb/yr 96% 10.4
Total PCBs Average Water Year 3.5E-03 lb/yr 1.0E-03 lb/yr 30% 0.9
Total PAHs Average Water Year 4.4E-01 lb/yr 9.8E-03 lb/yr 2% 0.1
n/a 85th Percentile 24-Hour
Storm 5.4 ac-ft 5.4 ac-ft 100% 5.4[1] LAH-CM Total Copper Average Water Year 1.8 lb/yr 0.87 lb/yr 49% 0.5
Total Lead Average Water Year 0.4 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
Total Zinc Average Water Year 8.2 lb/yr 4.1 lb/yr 50% 0.5
4,4'-DDT Average Water Year 3.3E-06 lb/yr 0 lb/yr 0% 0.0
DDx (Total) Average Water Year 1.2E-03 lb/yr 1.2E-03 lb/yr 96% 2.8
Total PCBs Average Water Year 8.8E-04 lb/yr 2.6E-04 lb/yr 30% 0.3
Total PAHs Average Water Year 1.1E-01 lb/yr 2.5E-03 lb/yr 2% 0.1
n/a 85th Percentile 24-Hour
Storm 1.5 ac-ft 1.5 ac-ft 100% 1.5[1]
[1] Bold value is the representative 24-hour management runoff volume for each analysis region.
150
Palos Verdes Peninsula
4-6 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 4-3: Peninsula EWMP RAA Summary Analysis Region Management Volume
Final Target Load
Reduction
BMP Load Reduction Summary
LID Redevelopment Regional Projects[2]Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance Achieved? Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %
ML-1 24-Hour[1]1.3[3]ac-ft 100 0.003 ac-ft 0.2 1.25 ac-ft 96 0.04 ac-ft 0.4 1.3 ac-ft 100 Yes
WD-1 24-Hour[1]7.4[3] ac-ft 100 0.02 ac-ft 0.2 7.4 ac-ft 100 0.1 ac-ft 0.8 7.5 ac-ft 100 Yes
WD-Solano 24-Hour[1]0.6[3] ac-ft 100 0.001 ac-ft 0.2 0.57 ac-ft 100 0 ac-ft 0 0.57 ac-ft 100 Yes
LAH-IH 85%, 24-Hour 5.4 ac-ft 100 0.03 ac-ft 0.6 5.4 ac-ft 100 0 ac-ft 0 5.4 ac-ft 100 Yes
LAH-CM 85%, 24-Hour 1.5[1] ac-ft 100 <0.01 ac-ft 0.5 1.5 ac-ft 100 0 ac-ft 0 1.5 ac-ft 100 Yes
[1]The 24-hour management volume is the equivalent runoff management volume that will achieve all TLRs. It does not necessarily equate to BMP capacity. A project located at
analysis region outlet may have more 24-hour management capacity than a project with same BMP capacity but is located further upstream in the analysis region. The 24-hour
management volume of a project needs to be computed via a continuous modeling simulation using the calibrated Peninsula EWMP WMMS 2 model
[2]Regional projects include existing and proposed projects discussed in Section 3 of the EWMP and modeled in the RAA.
[3]Please see the Appendix 4.1 RAA Section 7.6 and table 11 on how the representative 24-hour management volume was selected for each analysis region.
151
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-1 | Page
5. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
This Chapter provides the implementation schedule for the Peninsula EWMP. The implementation
schedule will be used to measure progress toward addressing the highest water quality priorities (WQPs)
and achieving final water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) and receiving water limitations
(RWLs). As noted in Chapter 4 and Appendix 4.1 Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), interim WQBELs
have been met for all water body pollutant combinations (WBPCs).
5.1. INTRODUCTION
Provisions of the MS4 Permit describe how receiving water limits (RWLs) goals are to be attained for
various WBPCs identified through adaptive management of the EWMP. Specifically, the following
categories of WBPCs are to be addressed by the EWMP:
• WBPCs addressed through a TMDL (Category 1 pollutants)
• 303(d)-listed WBPCs (Category 2 Pollutants)
o Pollutants in the same class as those identified in a TMDL and for which the waterbody is 303(d)-
listed
o Pollutants not in the same class as those identified in a TMDL, but for which the waterbody is
303(d)-listed
• Non 303(d)-listed WBPCs (Category 3 pollutants)
o Pollutants for which there are exceedances of RWLs, but for which the waterbody is not 303(d)-
listed
Refer to Section 2 for the priority pollutant categorization for the Peninsula EWMP.
152
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-2 | Page
5.2. SCHEDULES
Per Permit provisions, TMDL schedules must be incorporated into the EWMP to demonstrate that
watershed control measures (WCMs) selected during EWMP development will adequately address these
WBPCs in a timely manner so that MS4 discharges of the pollutants will not cause or contribute to
exceedances of RWLs.
This updated EWMP incorporates TMDL schedules outlined in the Permit and, where necessary, interim
milestones and dates for their achievement during the next five year Permit term. These schedules will
be used to measure progress towards addressing the highest water quality priorities and achieving
applicable WQBELS and/or RWLs.
These schedules will meet the following criteria:
• Schedules must be adequate for measuring progress on a watershed or subwatershed scale.
• Schedules must be developed for all WCMs that will be implemented individually and on a watershed
scale.
Schedules must also incorporate the following:
• Applicable interim and/or final TMDL deadlines occurring within the Permit term identified in Permit.
• Interim milestones and dates for their achievement within the Permit term must be developed for
any applicable TMDL(s) where deadlines within the next 5-year Permit term are not otherwise
specified.
• Interim milestones and dates for their achievement within the Permit term must be developed for
Water Quality Priorities not addressed through a TMDL (Category 2 and 3 WBPCs) based on the
following criteria:
o Milestones must be based on measurable criteria or indicators, to be achieved in the receiving
waters and/or MS4 discharges,
o A schedule with dates for achieving the milestones must be developed, and
o A final date for achieving the receiving water limitations as soon as possible must be determined.
The Peninsula WMG has identified Category 1 and 2 WBPCs as summarized in Table 2-1.
Table 5-1 below outlines the dates and corresponding water quality objectives to be achieved by the
Peninsula EWMP.
153
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-3 | Page
5.2.1. NONSTRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SCHEDULE
The RAA does not assume or separately quantify a load reduction for the implementation of nonstructural
BMPs. Rather, because recent monitoring data was used during calibration, it was assumed that the
calibrated baseline model effectively accounted for the load reduction accomplished by existing non-
structural BMPs already being implemented in the Peninsula EWMP area. These nonstructural BMPs
consist of Minimum Control Measures (MCMs), Nonstormwater Discharge (NSWD) Measures and
Nonstructural Targeted Control Measures (TCMs) as described in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3.1.
In accordance with the State Board Order (SWRCB, 2020), all non-structural BMP credits are required to
be adequately justified. As such, the RAA has calculated load reductions associated with quantifiable non-
structural BMPs (for copper reductions resulting from phase out of copper in brake pads).
In 2010, California Senate Bill 346 (SB 346) was enacted to eliminate nearly all use of copper in brake pad
manufacturing. In 2013, TDC Environmental prepared a draft detailed study for the California Stormwater
Quality Association (CASQA) describing the expected percent reduction for copper as a result of the
passage of SB 346 (TDC Environmental, 2013). The TDC study identified three possible implementation
scenarios, the least aggressive of which estimated that a 52% load reduction in copper will be achieved
by 2032 due to the brake pad phase-out.
Since the referenced study assumed a 21.2% reduction in urban runoff copper by 2020, and the RAA
model was calibrated with local water quality data through June 2020, the load reduction accounted for
in the revised RAA was estimated as a weighted fraction (by time) of 52%. Therefore, a 39.1% load
reduction was calculated for copper in the Peninsular Los Angeles Harbor WMA.
5.2.2. STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURAL MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURE SCHEDULE
Pollutant load reductions are anticipated through each Participating Agency’s effective implementation
of the structural LID BMP requirements of the Planning and Land Development Program.
STRUCTURAL TARGETED CONTROL MEASURE SCHEDULE
The RAA (Chapter 4) and Appendix 4 RAA Report demonstrates the cumulative effectiveness of BMPs to
be implemented, supports BMP selection, and provides target load reduction (TLR) goals optimized across
the entire watershed.
The plan depicted in the RAA is considered a potential scenario. Through the adaptive management
process, the Participating Agencies may select different types and/or locations of BMPs as described in
Chapter 3. The proposed implementation schedule for the projects modelled in the RAA can be found in
Table 5-1. In addition to the projects listed in Table 5-1 and shown in Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2, and Figure 5-
3, the Peninsula WMG is also collaboratively identifying and seeking funding for other regional projects.
These projects were not modeled in the RAA due to uncertainty of their feasibility, future design, and
performance:
Walteria Basin Special Study: Walteria Basin is a flood control basin that receives runoff from 174
acres of drainage area (which includes 55 acres of impervious area) from Palos Verdes Estates in
analysis region WD-Solano. The Peninsula WMG will continue working with LACFCD and the City
of Torrance to assess how the Walteria Basin can be utilized as part of a regional system of
154
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-4 | Page
stormwater capture project in the Machado Lake watershed to meet TLRs in the WD-Solano
analysis region.
Palos Verdes Multi-Benefit Flow Diversion Project. This project is currently proposed as a dry
weather flow management project within analysis region WD-1. The Peninsula WMG submitted
this project for FY 21-22 SCW Technical Resources Program funding and it has been approved by
the South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area for inclusion in its FY 21-22 Stormwater Investment
Plan being forwarded to the Regional Oversight Committee and Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors for final technical resources funding approval. A wet weather flow management
component will be further evaluated if additional wet weather projects are required to meet the
final TLR through the Peninsula EWMP adaptive management process.
Harbor City Park Stormwater Capture Project. This project is a signature regional project proposed
by the Dominguez Channel WMG. It is hydrologically connected to the Torrance Airport
Stormwater Capture Project and can potentially capture and treat excess stormwater runoff from
analysis region WD-1. The project was approved for SCW Technical Resources Program FY 20-21
funding. The Peninsula WMG is interested in collaborating with the Dominguez Channel WMG to
share in the benefits of reduced load if additional wet weather projects are required to meet the
final TLR through the Peninsula EWMP adaptive management process.
155
Palos Verdes Peninsula
5-5 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 5-1: Structural TCM Implementation Schedule Subwatershed Analysis Region Project Name
Lead
WMG
Member
Estimated Schedule Modeled
24-Hour
Management
Volume
(ac-ft)
Final TLR
Equivalent
24-Hour
Management
Volume
(ac-ft)
Targeted Milestone Site Investigation and
Feasibility Study Design and Permitting Construction/
Implementation Machado Lake - Wilmington WD-1 Torrance Airport
Stormwater Basin
Project Phase II
RPV and
TOR[a] •Completed in 2019 •Funding Secured: 2020
•Completion Date: 2024
•Funding: 2024
•Completion Date: 2027 7.4 7.4
•Machado Lake
Nutrient TMDL Final
Deadline Date:
(September 11,
2018)
•Machado Lake
Pesticides and PCBs
TMDL Final Deadline
Date: (September
30, 2019)WD-Solano WD-Solano PVE
Project/Study PVE •Funding: 2022
•Completion Date: 2024 TBD •Completion Date: 2027 0.57 0.5 Machado Lake ML-1Casaba Estates LID RHE Project completed in 2013 0.06
1.3
Rolling Hills
Country Club
Regional LID
Project – West
RHE Project completed in 2018 0.82
Rolling Hills
Country Club
Regional LID
Project – East
RHE Project completed in 2018 0.02
ML-1 RHE Project RHE •Funding: 2023
•Completion Date: 2024
•Funding: 2024
•Completion Date: 2025
•Funding: 2026
•Completion Date: 2027 0.35
ML-1 RPV Project RPV •Funding: 2023
•Completion Date: 2024
•Funding: 2024
•Completion Date: 2025
•Funding: 2026
•Completion Date: 2027 0.04 LA Harbor LAH -IH Eastview Park
Regional Project RPV •Funding Secured: 2020
•Completion Date: 2022
•Funding: 2023
•Completion Date: 2025
•Funding: 2026
•Completion Date: 2030 1.16
5.38 •Long Beach and
Greater LA Harbor
Toxics TMDL Final
Deadline Date:
(March 23, 2032)
LAH-IH RPV Project RPV •Funding Secured: 2023
Completion Date: 2024
•Funding: 2025
Completion Date: 2027
•Funding: 2028
•Completion Date: 2032 3.42
LAH-IH RHE Project RHE •Funding: 2024
•Completion Date: 2025
•Funding: 2026
•Completion Date: 2028
•Funding: 2028
•Completion Date: 2030 0.80 LAH-CM LAH-CM RPV
Project RPV •Funding: 2023
•Completion Date: 2024
•Funding: 2025
•Completion Date: 2026
•Funding: 2027
•Completion Date: 2032 1.51 1.51
156
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-6 | Page
Note:
PVE = Palos Verdes Estates; RPV =Rancho Palos Verdes; RHE = Rolling Hills Estates. LAC = Unincorporated Los Angeles County
Due to comparatively low volumes, LID redevelopment is not shown in the figure
Figure 5-1: 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Wilmington Drain WMA (WD-1 and WD-Solano)
157
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-7 | Page
Note:
RPV = Rancho Palos Verdes; RHE = Rolling Hill Estates
Due to comparatively low volumes, LID redevelopment is not shown in the figure
Figure 5-2: 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Machado Lake WMA (ML-1)
158
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
5-8 | Page
Note: RPV = Rancho Palos Verdes; RHE = Rolling Hill Estates
Due to comparatively low volumes, LID redevelopment is not shown in the figure
Figure 5-3: 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Los Angeles Harbor WMA
159
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-1 | Page
6.EWMP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS AND FINANCIAL
STRATEGY
The purpose of this section is to present the financial strategy and to represent the strategic options
available to the permittees for financing the program costs associated with this updated EWMP. This
section provides an order-of-magnitude estimate of the financial resources and an outline for the financial
strategy associated with those costs that may be required to attain the goals of the EWMP. The financial
strategy is defined as the options available to the Peninsula WMG to finance the EWMP implementation,
including a prioritization of these options.
6.1. EWMP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Planning-level estimates of costs associated with implementation of the proposed structural BMPs within
the Peninsula WMG area are provided herein based on results from the RAA (Section 4). This section
includes an evaluation of the overall economic impacts the proposed projects and programs may have on
the community. The cost estimates are preliminary and are based on the best available information to
date. The estimated costs will be refined as EWMP implementation progresses with the use of actual BMP
implementation costs. Costs associated with implementation of non-structural programs are not provided
herein.
Cost opinions are presented as an aid for decision makers, and contain considerable uncertainties. Given
the iterative and adaptive nature of the EWMP and the many variables associated with the projects, the
budget forecasts are order-of magnitude estimates, and are subject to change based on BMP
effectiveness assessments, results of outfall and receiving water monitoring, and additional studies such
as site specific objectives which could modify water quality objectives for a specific water body-pollutant
combination.
6.1.1. METHODOLOGY
Costs estimated for structural BMPs include capital as well as “soft” costs, which include considerations
such as contingency and permitting.
The capital, operation and maintenance (O&M) and 20-year life-cycle costs of the proposed projects were
estimated using the following information and cost functions:
•For the Torrance Airport Stormwater Capture Project, the presented costs were extracted from
the Safe Clean Water Program Feasibility Study submitted in October 2020 (City of Torrance,
2020).
•The cost of the remaining projects was estimated based on key modeling parameters using the
cost functions presented in the WMMS 2.0 Phase II Report (LACFCD, 2020c). The cost functions
are summarized in Table 6-1.
160
Palos Verdes Peninsula
6-2 | Page
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Table 6-1: WMMS 2.0 Cost Function
BMP Type BMP Component Capital Cost[1] Annual O&M
Cost[1] Life Cycle Cost[1]
Pervious Pavement $253(A) $5.1 (A) $253(A) + $5.1(A) (Yr)
Subsurface
Retention +
Infiltration
Diversion $7,000(In) $320(In) [$7000 + $12,000](A) +
$12.6(Vf) + $6,000(Yr) + $320
(In)(Yr)
Pretreatment $12,000(In)
Storage $12.6(V) $6,000
Subsurface
Retention +
Filtration
Diversion $7,000(In) $320(In) [$7000 + $12,000](A) +
$12.6(Vf) + $6,000(Yr) + $320
(In)(Yr) + [$177,000
+$70,000](Eff) + [$1,000 +
$3,000](Eff)*(Yr)
Pretreatment $12,000(In)
Storage $12.6(V) $6,000
Pump $177,000(Eff) $3,000(Eff)
Filtration $70,000(Eff) $1.000(Eff)
Subsurface
Retention +
Diversion to
Sewer
Diversion $7,000(In) $320(In) [$7000 + $12,000](In) +
$12.6(Vf) + $6,000(Yr) + $320
(In)(Yr) + $177,000(Ps) +
$3,000(Ps)(Yr)
Pretreatment $12,000(In)
Storage $12.6(V) $6,000
Pump $177,000(Ps) $3,000(Ps)
Sewer Diversion $67,000
[1]A – BMP footprint in ft2; Eff – Treatment rate in cfs ; In – Inflow rate in cfs; Ps – Sewer diversion rate in cfs; Vf –
BMP storage capacity in ft3;
Soft costs are project costs that cannot be calculated on a unit cost basis. For conceptual cost estimating,
these costs are generally calculated as a percentage of total capital costs.
The soft costs considered for each BMP were:
•Contingency – Costs intended to compensate for any estimating inaccuracy based on assumptions or
measured values, unanticipated market conditions, scheduling delays and acceleration issues, lack of
bidding competition, and subcontractor defaults.
•Construction Management – The costs associated with management and oversight of the
construction of the BMP, from project initiation until completion of the contract.
•Mobilization and Demobilization – The costs associated with activation/deactivation of equipment
and manpower resources for transfer to/from a construction site until completion of the contract.
•Permitting – Cost, including permit fees and personnel hours, of obtaining required permits for BMP
installation. Examples of permits needed may include erosion and sediment control, stormwater,
construction, and public space permits.
•Engineering and Planning – Costs associated with BMP and site design, as well as access for
maintenance, environmental mitigation, buried objects, safety/security, traffic control, limited space,
and site restoration.
The expected costs for each of these soft costs as percent of total project capital costs are presented in
Table 6-2. These percentages were based on literature, best professional judgment, and data from past
projects.
161
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-3 | Page
Table 6-2: Range of Soft Costs for Regional Projects
Cost Item Low Cost Assumption
(% of Capital Cost) High Cost Assumption
(% of Capital Cost)
Contingency 10% 20%
Construction Management 8% 15%
Mobilization and Demobilization 3% 5%
Permitting 3% 5%
Engineering and Planning 10% 20%
Total 38% 50%
6.2. SUMMARY OF COSTS
The Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) for the Peninsula EWMP indicates that the 24-hour
management volume of runoff and stormwater required to be captured within the Watershed to comply
with RWLs and WQBELs is: 1.3 acre-ft for the Machado Lake WMA, 0.5 for the Wilmington Drain – Solano
WMA, 7.4 acre-ft for the Wilmington Drain WMA, 5.4 acre-ft for Los Angeles Harbor – Inner Harbor WMA,
and 1.5 acre-ft for the Los Angeles Harbor – Cabrillo Marina WMA.
Table 6-3 presents the estimated capital cost to construct or implement each modeled structural BMP
and the associated annual O&M costs. The cost summary does not include already-completed regional
projects (Casaba Estates LID and Rolling Hills Country Club LID) or projects that are not included in the
RAA (Harbor City Park Stormwater Capture Project). The cost of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Multi-benefit
Flow Diversion Project will be determined as part of the Project’s Safe, Clean Water Program Feasibility
Study.
162
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-4 | Page
Table 6-3: Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Regional BMPs
Analysis
Region Lead Agency Project Capital Annual
O&M Cost
20-Year Life
Cycle Cost
ML-1 Rolling Hills
Estates
Palos Verdes Drive East Street
Improvement $2,859,000 $58,000 $4,012,000
ML-1 Rolling Hills
Estates ML-1 RHE Regional Project $254,000 $40,000 $1,060,000
ML-1 Rancho Palos
Verdes ML-1 RPV Regional Project $30,000 $40,000 $821,000
WD-1
Rancho Palos
Verdes and
Torrance
Torrance Airport Stormwater
Basin Project Phase 2 $12,000,000 $118,000 $13,700,000
WD-1 Rolling Hills
Estates
Rolling Hills Road Street
Improvement $481,000 $10,000 $675,000
LAH-IH Rancho Palos
Verdes Eastview Park $781,000 $42,000 $1,619,000
LAH-IH Rolling Hills
Estates LAH-IH RHE Regional Project $2,308,000 $47,000 $3,241,000
LAH-IH Rancho Palos
Verdes LAH-IH RPV Regional Project $540,000 $41,000 $1,363,000
LAH-CM Rancho Palos
Verdes LAH-CM RPV Regional Project $913,000 $9,000 $968,000
163
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-5 | Page
6.3. FINANCIAL STRATEGY
6.3.1. SUMMARY
Financing the implementation of the Peninsula EWMP has historically been the greatest challenge
confronting the Peninsula WMG. In the absence of stormwater utility fees (aside from those specified for
maintenance), the Peninsula WMG had no dedicated revenue stream to pay for implementation of the
EWMP. The absence of a stable stormwater funding mechanism not tied to municipal General Funds
became ever more critical with the approval of the fourth term MS4 Permit, which greatly magnified the
cost challenges associated with managing stormwater. This prompted the City Manager Committees of
the California Contract Cities Association and the League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division, to form
a City Managers’ Working Group (Working Group) to review stormwater funding options after the Clean
Water, Clean Beaches funding initiative that was proposed by LA County failed to move forward. The result
was a Stormwater Funding Report that noted, “the Los Angeles region faces critical, very costly, and
seriously underfunded stormwater and urban runoff water quality challenges.” The Report found that
funding stormwater programs is so complex and dynamic, and that the water quality improvement
measures are so costly, that Permittees could not depend on a single funding option at the time. The
Report also included a variety of recommendations, including organizational recommendations;
education and outreach program recommendations; recommendations for legislation; Clean Water, Clean
Beaches recommendations; local funding options; and recommendations for the Regional Water Board86.
The Watershed Group carefully considered the recommendations of the Report during the development
of the original financial strategy for the EWMP, and placed focus on the local funding options presented
in the Report to secure the needed funding for initial implementation of the EWMP.
The significant challenges associated with financing the implementation of the EWMP have since been
partially addressed and ameliorated with the passage of Measure W, which was approved by voters in Los
Angeles County with 69.45% of the vote in the general election held on November 6, 2018. Measure W
successfully proposed the implementation of a special parcel tax of 2.5 cents per square foot of
impermeable area to be included on property tax bills in Los Angeles County beginning in October 2019.
As presented on the ballot, funds generated through Measure W are to be utilized for
“improving/protecting water quality; capturing rain/stormwater to increase safe drinking water supplies
and prepare for future drought; protecting public health and marine life by reducing pollution, trash,
toxins/plastics entering Los Angeles County waterways/bays/beaches.” The special parcel tax is initially
anticipated to amount to an annual, county-wide commitment of up to $285 million, though this could
decrease slightly over time as exemptions and credits are processed.
The passage of Measure W also created the Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP), which is administered by
the County of Los Angeles and is designed to provide local, dedicated funding for stormwater and urban
runoff management programs and projects. Total revenue will be distributed per the following
breakdown: 10% will be allocated to the District Program (for the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District to distribute funds, provide staff support, and oversee capacity building programs), 40% to the
Municipal Program, and 50% to the Regional Program.
The Municipal Program will provide cities with direct funding proportional to the revenues generated
within their boundaries. The Peninsula WMG may utilize these funds to finance the implementation of
the EWMP, including public LID projects and many of the other WCMs outlined in Section 3.
86 League of California Cities. (2014). Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding in Los Angeles County. Prepared By City
Managers Working Group. Los Angeles County Division May 21, 2014.
164
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-6 | Page
The Regional Program will allocate funds through nine Watershed Area Steering Committees (WASCs) into
the competitive Infrastructure, Technical Resources, and Scientific Studies Programs. Respectively, the
Infrastructure Program will provide funding for multi-benefit regional projects including design, permits,
CEQA compliance, grant-writing, right-of-way and land acquisition, construction, and long-term
operations and maintenance of projects; the Technical Resources Program will provide funding for the
development of project feasibility studies; and the Scientific Studies Program will provide funding for
scientific studies, technical studies, monitoring, modeling, and other similar activities. The Peninsula WMG
falls under the jurisdiction of the South Santa Monica Bay WASC.
With the implementation of the SCWP underway, the Peninsula WMG now have a reasonably dependable
revenue stream to offset, albeit only partially, the high costs of the multi-faceted strategy for the selection
and implementation of WCMs outlined in Section 3. The Peninsula WMG has coordinated the proposed
implementation schedule (outlined in Section 5) with the financial strategy outlined in this chapter.
However, uncertainties associated with future risks persist. For instance, there are multiple TMDLs in
multiple watersheds that must be addressed despite limited resources.
The Peninsula Agencies will set priorities to construct these facilities strategically, and in accordance with
the administrative and financial limitations and requirements of the SCWP framework, and seek
alternative outside funding in order to close funding gaps.
To address the Water Quality Priorities (WQPs), the Peninsula WMG is going to pursue a multi-faceted
financial strategy. In addition, the Peninsula WMG has coordinated the proposed implementation
schedule (see Section 5) with the financial strategy. The participating agencies are committed to
developing projects through the design phase so that they are shelf ready to take advantage of grants and
federal infrastructure funding that may become available. In collaboration with City of Torrance, the
Participating Agencies secured Prop 1 Stormwater Planning grant funding for the preliminary design and
feasibility study for the Torrance Airport Project and supported the subsequent application for SCW
Regional Program Infrastructure funding for design, which was approved and included in the South Santa
Monica Bay (SSMB) Watershed Area Steering Committee (WASC) FY 20-21 Stormwater Investment Plan
(SIP). The Torrance Airport Project has the potential to address the highest water quality priorities of the
Machado Lake Nutrient and Pesticides and PCBs TMDLs within the WD-1 WMA. The Peninsula WMG is
planning to submit the Torrance Airport Project to the SSMB WASC for construction funding by the FY2122
Call for Projects deadline. The participating agencies also received SCW Regional Program Technical
Resources funding to complete feasibility studies during FY2122 for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Multi-
Benefit Flow Diversion and during FY2021 for the Harbor City Park Regional projects for the WD-1 WMA.
The participating agencies also succeeded in securing SCW Technical Resources Program funding for the
Eastview Park Infiltration Project feasibility study as part of the SSMB WASC FY 20-21 SIP. The Eastview
Park Project will address priority pollutants under the Long Beach and Greater LA Harbor Toxics TMDLs
in the LAH-IH WMA.
The continued exploration and leveraging of additional sources of funding will be necessary to finance the
implementation of the WCMs. Notably, these may include Municipal Safe Clean Water Program funds and
other existing funding measures (such as Measures H, A, and M), various grant programs administered by
local, state and federal agencies, local fees such as inspection fees, and Clean Water State Revolving Fund
program financing agreements to the extent feasible.
Additionally, the Peninsula WMG will also support programs to increase water conservation, reduce dry
weather discharges to the storm drain system, and reduce TSS during wet weather. Successfully
165
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-7 | Page
accomplishing these efforts could reduce the money needed in the long term to capture and/or treat
stormwater discharges to comply with TMDLs and address other WQPs.
In the long term, the challenge of financing the WCMs for the Peninsula WMG has partially been alleviated
with the passage of Measure W and the ongoing implementation of the SCWP, which have established a
reasonably dependable revenue stream for local water quality programs. Nonetheless, implementation
of the WMP presents a formidable task that will require the cooperation of many entities, including
business, environmental organizations, and the Regional Board.
166
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-8 | Page
6.3.2. OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS
The financial strategy to fund the EWMP requires the utilization of multiple funding options. The Peninsula
WMG will work together to maximize cost-effectiveness and each individual agency will be responsible
for seeking funding for its share in EWMP implementation. The sections below outline multiple
approaches to funding and allow each jurisdiction to consider and select the funding options that best fit
the specific preferences of their agency. For each funding option, a brief description is included that
includes benefits and challenges associated.
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The Peninsula WMG implements public outreach and engagement on a watershed-based level and at the
individual participating agency level. Projects proposed for SCW funding are reviewed by various
stakeholders: government, non-profit, and business and available for public review and comment at the
Watershed Advisory Steering Committee (WASC) level.
LEGISLATION
Legislative action has dramatically changed the face of contemporary stormwater management. This
includes passage of laws, adoption of regulations, and interpretation of laws and enforcement of
regulations by the courts at local, state and federal levels. These legislative activities impact all aspects of
stormwater management by local governments, as well as the private sector, such as developers who
provide basic infrastructure as a part of their developments, industrial facilities that discharge stormwater
from their properties, and those conducting ground disturbing construction activities. The Peninsula WMG
will continue participation in stormwater legislation advocacy efforts led by the League of California Cities
and California Contract Cities and California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). The challenges
associated with legislation include time and resources. Incorporating new legislation requires a significant
amount of time and political influence. Although these options have great potential, they will likely not
be available in the short term.
FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS
Federal and State Grant programs are made available for agencies to receive funding for projects which
fall under the guidelines of the grant.
Challenges associated with grants include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Matching Funds. Almost all grants include matching requirements, which can be up to 50% of the
total project costs. Additionally, grant development and administration can take up significant
resources, particularly from the small agencies associated with the Peninsula WMG.
• Shovel ready projects are typically preferred. Grant programs are generally structured to favor
projects that are not “shovel ready” while projects without substantially complete design plans are
much less likely to be selected.
• Grants are competitive. Each grant program has a set allocation of funds that are available within a
defined region (i.e. statewide). As regulatory pressures are increased throughout California and the
United States, the competition for securing this type of funding will significantly increase.
• Not all projects apply. Project eligibility is dependent on the grant program which may not support
the project type as needed.
167
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-9 | Page
• Grants do not provide long-term O&M funding. In general, grants are structured to help fund project
construction costs. Separate funding streams for the operations and maintenance costs would be
needed.
Although grants alone will not provide the revenue necessary for EWMP implementation and long-term
O&M, the Peninsula agencies are committed to pursuing and leveraging these opportunities with their
SCW Regional and Municipal funding as well as other local funding sources as they become available.
LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS
The agencies may consider local funding options to address stormwater funding. Local funding options
would typically be pursued within individual agencies. Local funding options include:
• Safe Clean Water Municipal Program funds allocated as local return proportional to the revenues
generated within the municipality for activities such as project development, design, construction,
monitoring, and O&M;
• Revising street sweeping contracts to provide NPDES trash control programs;
• Adoption of water conservation fees to provide funding for reducing irrigated runoff to conserve
water and reduce dry weather discharges;
• Local, statewide, or regional fees on car rentals to contribute to copper and zinc clean-up costs and
incorporate stormwater quality features into street and highway projects funded by bonds and other
street funds;
• Increase in commercial facility inspection fees.
Local funding options may be useful for short-term funding; however, it is unlikely that they will result in
amounts significant enough to cover any substantial portion of EWMP implementation costs.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is a federal-state partnership that provides low-
cost financing (at half of the most recent General Obligation Bond Rate at the time of funding approval –
1.6% in March 2015) with terms up to 30 years for a wide range of water quality infrastructure projects.
This fund is likely to be the vehicle for delivery of federal infrastructure funding to local projects once it
becomes available to states. The Peninsula WMG could use CWSRF for individual projects or groups of
projects as there is no maximum funding limit. The CWSRF can be used for a variety of projects including
stormwater measures to manage, reduce, treat, or recapture stormwater or subsurface drainage water;
water conservation, efficiency, and reuse; and watershed pilot projects meeting criteria in CWA §122.
TRANSPORTATION BONDS
Another consideration is future transportation bonds. This can be pursued by encouraging the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to include funding stormwater quality features, such as
Green Streets, in future bonds and encourage Council of Governments to develop strategic transportation
plans that include mitigations designed to address water quality issues from transportation projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The Regional Board should request funding for a staff position that would be responsible to identify and
distribute information on the available federal, state, non-profit, corporate and other sources of funds;
and establish an on-line resource center to assist the cities in complying with the stormwater permit
requirements.
168
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
6-10 | Page
6.3.3. PRIORITIZATION
The Group continues to support programs to increase water conservation, reduce dry-weather discharges
to the storm drain system, and reduce TSS during wet weather. Successfully accomplishing these efforts
could reduce the funds needed in the long term to capture and/or treat stormwater discharges to comply
with TMDLs and address other WQPs.
The Peninsula WMG and/or the Participating Agencies will also pursue state grants (i.e. IRWMP,
Proposition 1, Proposition 84, etc.) and potential federal infrastructure funding to implement stormwater
BMPs.
In the long term, financing the WCMs for the Peninsula Watershed will require establishing dependable
revenue streams for local water quality programs with the cooperation of many entities, including
business and environmental organizations. Participating Agencies will begin utilizing existing funds to
implement the EWMP as well as pursue additional funding in accordance with Table 6-4 below.
Table 6-4: Funding Option Priorities
Agency Funding Priorities Integration with Existing
Infrastructure Improvement Plans
County
1.Federal and State Grants
2.Local Funding Options & Stormwater Fees (Measure W Safe
Clean Water Program)
3.Seek allocation in the General Fund; investigate bond and loan
opportunities (i.e. CWSRF)
4.Continued participation in stormwater funding advocacy efforts
led by the League of California Cities and California Contract
Cities and CASQA
•Incorporation of stormwater
improvements in capital improvement
plan for public facilities
•Design guidelines updated and
included green street standard plans
which include elements such as bio-
retention planters, porous pavement,
tree wells, etc.
LACFCD
1.Federal and State Grants
2.Local Funding Options & Stormwater Fees (Measure W Safe
Clean Water Program)
3.Seek allocation in the Flood Fund
•Incorporation of stormwater
improvements in capital improvement
plan for public facilities
•
RPV
PVE
RHE
1.Federal and State Grants
2.Local Funding Options & Stormwater Fees (Measure W Safe
Clean Water Program)
3.Continued participation in stormwater funding advocacy efforts
led by the League of California Cities and California Contract
Cities and CASQA
•Incorporation of stormwater
improvements in capital improvement
plan for public facilities
169
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
7-1 | Page
7. LEGAL AUTHORITY
This section covers information such as documentation and references/links to water quality ordinances
for each participating agency. These documents demonstrate adequate legal authority to implement and
enforce Watershed Control Measures (WCMs) identified in this plan and as required in the MS4 Permit.
The goal of these WCMs is to create an efficient program that focuses on the watershed priorities by
meeting the following objectives:
• Prevent or mitigate non-storm water discharges to the MS4 that are a source of pollutants from
the MS4 to receiving waters.
• Implement pollutant controls necessary to achieve all applicable interim and final water quality-
based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations pursuant to corresponding
compliance schedules.
• Ensure that discharges from the MS4 do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water
limitations.
The WCMs include the minimum control measures, nonstormwater discharge measures and targeted
control measures (i.e. controls to address TMDL and 303(d) listings). As the requirement to incorporate
these WCMs is an element of the MS4 Permit, the legal authority to implement them results from each
agency’s legal authority to implement the NPDES MS4 Permit.
Table 7-1 includes the water quality ordinance for each agency with a reference link. Additionally, the
participating agencies have developed and adopted LID ordinances and Green Street Policies which
provides legal authority to enforce the Planning and Land Development Program.
Table 7-1: Water Quality Ordinance Language
City Water Quality Ordinance Reference
Rancho Palos
Verdes
Chapter 13.10 - STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION CONTROL
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/rancho_p
alos_verdes/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=
TIT13PUSE_CH13.10STWAURRUPOCO
13.10.020 Purpose – This chapter is also intended to provide the city with the legal authority necessary to control discharges to and
from those portions of the municipal storm water system over which it has jurisdiction as required by the municipal NPDES permit.
Palos Verdes
Estates
Chapter 13.08 – STORM DRAINS AND STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL
http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/palosverdes
estates/
13.08.Purpose and Intent– The purpose of this chapter is to protect and enhance the quality of surface waters and surface water
bodies, including the Santa Monica Bay and Machado Lake, in a manner consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
Sections 1251 et seq.), the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.), and the
municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Rolling Hills
Estates
Chapter 8.38 - STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION CONTROL
https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills_est
ates/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HES
A_CH8.38STURRUPOCO
8.38.030 Construction and Application – This chapter will be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the Clean Water
Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and their implementing regulations, and the municipal NPDES permit.
LACFCD Flood Control District Code, Chapter 21 - Stormwater and
Runoff Pollution Control
https://library.municode.com/HTML/16274/level
2/FLCODICO_CH21STRUPOCO.html#FLCODICO_C
H21STRUPOCO_21.01PUIN
21.01 - Purpose and Intent - The purpose and intent of this chapter is to regulate the stormwater and non-stormwater discharges to
the facilities of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the protection of those facilities, the water quality of the waters in and
downstream of those facilities, and the quality of the water that is being stored in water-bearing zones underground.
170
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
8-1 | Page
8. COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM
The Participating Agencies implement a customized Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP)
based on the provisions set forth in Attachment E of the MS4 Permit. The data collected by the CIMP are
used to assess the effectiveness of the EWMP projects and programs in addressing water quality priorities,
specifically in achieving water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) and receiving water limitations
(RWLs) per compliance schedules. The customized CIMP includes the following program elements:
• Receiving Water Monitoring
• Storm Water Outfall Monitoring
• Non-Storm Water Outfall Monitoring
• Regional Studies
171
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
9-1 | Page
9. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Adaptive management is the process by which new information about the state of the watershed is
incorporated into the EWMP.
Following the previous 2018 and 2020 Adaptive Management processes, the Peninsula WMG is required
to submit an updated EWMP and Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) by June 30, 2021 for review and
approval by the Regional Board. The updated RAA detailed in Appendix 4.1, utilizes all relevant, available
data, including updates to the water body pollutant combination prioritization, source assessment, TMDL
milestone achievements, and control measure performance data. As further elaborated in the updated
EWMP (Section 2, Section 3, RAA Report in Appendix 4.1, etc.), the EWMP is adaptively managed following
the process described in the MS4 Permit.
The process is implemented by the participating agencies and submitted to the Regional Water Board for
review and approval as required by the MS4 Permit and as deemed appropriate. The purpose of the
adaptive management process is to improve the effectiveness of the EWMP based on – but not limited to
– consideration of the following:
1. Progress toward achieving interim and/or final water quality-based effluent limitations and/or
receiving water limitations in §VI.E and Attachments L through R of the MS4 Permit, according to
established schedules;
2. Progress toward achieving improved water quality in MS4 discharges and achieving receiving
water limitations through implementation of the watershed control measures based on an
evaluation of outfall-based monitoring data and receiving water monitoring data;
3. Achievement of interim milestones;
4. Reopening of TMDLs;
5. Re-evaluation of the water quality priorities identified for the Watershed Management Area
(WMA) based on more recent water quality data for discharges from the MS4 and the receiving
water(s) and a reassessment of sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges;
6. Availability of new information and data from sources other than the MS4 Permittees’ monitoring
program(s) within the WMA that informs the effectiveness of the actions implemented by the
Permittees;
7. Regional Water Board recommendations; and
8. Recommendations for modifications to the Enhanced Watershed Management Program solicited
through a public participation process.
9.1. MODIFICATIONS
Based on the results of the adaptive management process, the participating agencies may find that
modifications of the EWMP are necessary to improve effectiveness. Modifications may include new
deadlines and interim milestones, with the exception of those deadlines established in a TMDL.
172
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
9-2 | Page
9.1.1. REPORTING
Modifications are reported in the Annual Report and as part of the Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD)
required pursuant to the MS4 Permit. The background and rational for these modifications are included
by addressing the following points:
• Identify the most effective control measures and describe why the measures were effective and
how other control measures will be optimized based on past experiences.
• Identify the least effective control measures and describe why the measures were deemed
ineffective and how the control measures will be modified or terminated.
• Identify significant changes to control measures during the prior year and the rationale for the
changes.
• Describe all significant changes to control measures anticipated to be made in the next year and
the rationale for the changes. Those changes requiring approval of the Regional Water Board or
its Executive Officer shall be clearly identified at the beginning of the Annual Report.
• Include a detailed description of control measures to be applied to New Development or Re-
development projects disturbing more than 50 acres.
• Provide the status of all multi-year efforts that were not completed in the current year and will
continue into the subsequent year(s).
• Provide the status of multi-year/future regional BMPs, both planned and proposed.
• Provide the status of efforts to secure funding for structural TCMs both for capital investments
and O&M.
9.1.2. IMPLEMENTATION
Modifications are implemented upon approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer or within
60 days of submittal if the Regional Water Board Executive Officer expresses no objections.
173
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
10-1 | Page
10. REPORTING PROGRAM & ASSESSMENT
The reporting information provided below is based on the requirements of the MS4 Permit. These
implementation reports and monitoring reports allow the Regional Board to assess implementation
progress and program effectiveness.
10.1. ANNUAL REPORT
Each year as directed by the MS4 Permit, all Permittees are required to submit an Individual Annual
Report. Each year the participating agencies in the Peninsula EWMP will also submit a joint Watershed
Annual Report to the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. The Watershed Annual Report will present
a summary of information that will allow the Regional Board to assess implementation progress and
effectiveness of the watershed management program 87.
The reporting process is intended to meet the following objectives to assess:
• Each agency's participation in the Enhanced Watershed Management Program and Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Program.
• The impact of each agency's storm water and non-storm water discharges on the receiving
water.
• Monitoring results in comparison to receiving water limitations, numeric water quality-based
effluent limitations, and non-storm water action levels.
• The effectiveness of control measures in reducing discharges of pollutants from the MS4 to
receiving waters.
• Whether the quality of MS4 discharges and the health of receiving waters is improving, staying
the same, or declining as a result watershed management program efforts, and/or TMDL
implementation measures, or other Minimum Control Measures.
• Whether changes in water quality can be attributed to pollutant controls imposed on new
development, re-development, or retrofit projects.
The Annual Report will identify data collected and strategies, control measures and assessments
implemented for each watershed within the participating agency's jurisdiction. The participating agencies
will submit annual reports as required by the MS4 Permit.
87 Annual reports will cover summary from previous fiscal year beginning June 1st through July 30th.
174
Palos Verdes Peninsula
Enhanced Watershed Management Program
10-1 | Page
10.2. MONITORING REPORT
10.2.1. DATA REPORTING
Analytical data reports will be submitted on a semi-annual basis, or as directed by the MS4 Permit. CEDEN-
formatted data will be sent electronically to the Regional Water Board's Storm Water site at
MS4stormwaterRB4@waterboards.ca.gov. These data reports will summarize:
•Exceedances of applicable WQBELs, receiving water limitations, or any available interim action
levels or other aquatic toxicity thresholds.
•Basic information regarding sampling dates, locations, or other pertinent documentation.
•The annual watershed monitoring report will summarize efforts to address water quality
exceedances.
10.2.2. CHRONIC TOXICITY REPORTING
Aquatic toxicity monitoring results will be submitted to the Regional Board on an annual basis as part of
the watershed and monitoring report as well as in the semi-annual basis data report submittal.
10.2.3. TMDL REPORTING
The participating agencies will also report on progress of TMDL implementation on an annual basis as part
of the watershed and monitoring report and submit to the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.
APPENDICES NOT INCLUDED
IN THIS DOCUMENT
175
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:DISCUSS THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S
REQUEST RELATING TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS EMERGENCY
POWER PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
To replace the non-functioning standby generator that provides emergency power to City Hall and the
Rolling Hills Community Association, the City Council authorized an assessment report and considered
three options for replacement at the May 10, 2021 City Council meeting. On May 24, 2021, after City
Council discussed the three options, staff was directed to: 1) design the solar option; 2) consider leasing
portable generator to provide emergency if necessary; and 3) remove the existing non-functioning
emergency standby generator, and repair the water intrusion problem at the existing generator structure.
At the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council approved a second amendment with Pacific
Architecture and Engineering, Inc. for preparing plans to remove the existing standby generator
including repairing of the water intrusion at the generator housing and prepare design plans to
implement the solar option..
The second amendment with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. (PAE) was executed in July
2021 and PAE proceeded with preliminary design. City Staff and PAE held several meetings to discuss
the proposed solar option and layout. After a period of research and information gathering, PAE
provided preliminary design plans for layout of the solar panels in November 2021. The preliminary
design plan was reviewed by staff. The available roof surface area, the orientation of the surface area to
the sun, and other design/cost factors were considered. The most efficient and cost effective design was
to position all the solar panels on the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) building.
The preliminary design was provided to RHCA and the plans were reviewed by the Architectural
Review Committee on December 7, 2021. The Architectural Committee requested to have solar panels
over the entry of the RHCA building be removed and placed on the City Hall Building. The preliminary
design plans submitted to the Architectural Review meeting and the meeting minutes are attached to this
report.
176
DISCUSSION:
Removing solar panels from the RHCA Building and placing them on the City Hall building will have
several impacts/issues to consider:
There is a tree at City Hall making the panels less efficient. The city could consider cutting this
tree down so that the panels would have more exposure to the sun.
There is space for 29 panels on the City Hall roof versus 66 panels on the RHCA building. Panels
on both buildings will drive up the cost of the project. Cost of re-roofing one roof vs two roofs
(roughly savings of $20,000 just for roof and waterproofing, and additional $30,000-$50,000 if
structural reinforcement is needed).
This item was presented to the City Council at the January 10, 2022 meeting. The City Council decided
to delay taking action so that Councilmember Jeff Pieper can participate in the discussion.
Councilmember Pieper was absent from the January 10, 2022 City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The overall project cost will be impacted if the solar panels are divided between roofs of City Hall and
the RHCA building. High level estimation shows the cost differential between placing all solar panels
on the RHCA building and dividing the panels is approximately $20,000 to $60,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Rolling Hill Maintenance Buildings One Two- SFR V3_Review.pdf
177
% $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7
' #()&NBUILDINGTWOBUILDINGONE 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/
" &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+7./).1, 1* &19-& ! *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $
"%18*46*4 :+'(
:+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+ &19-& !
*1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $
"%18*46*45 :+'(
:+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G
:+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=
Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4
8BG>5&>;;8=6 8;;A %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A
'(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !!
>>B78;;;D3'C8B4
@20380
!82 C= C98B0 0;;
INVERTER&BATTERYSTORAGEEQUIPMENTLOCATIONINVERTER&BATTERYSTORAGE EQUIPMENTLOCATION2IN SCHEDULE90PVCCONDUIT TO BECONNECTED BETWEENTHE TWO BUILDING FORSOLAR ARRAY178
% $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7
' #()& 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/
" &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+7./).1, 1* &19-& !
2/&43&1*/562'*/2(&6*)21422+2+7./).1, 92 *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $
"%18*46*4
:+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G
:+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=
Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4
8BG>5&>;;8=6 8;;A3<8=8AB@0B8>=C8;38=6 %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A
:+'(%7>B>D>;B082&>>5'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !!
>>B78;;;D3'C8B4
@20380
!82 C= C98B0 0;;
NBUILDING ONEINVERTER&BATTERY STORAGEEQUIPMENT LOCATION179
% $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7
' #()& 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/
" &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0/2(&6*)217./).1, 92 &19-& !
*1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $
"%18*46*4 :+'( :+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G
:+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>=
Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4
8BG"08=B4=0=24C8;38=6 %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A
'(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !!
>>B78;;;D3'C8B4
@20380
!82 C= C98B0 0;;
NBUILDINGTWOINVERTER&BATTERYSTORAGEEQUIPMENTLOCATION180
% $($*$!( '-'("$)"#(''744B#C<14@ 8;4%0B7
' #()& 4=4@0;#>B4A&.1 *48.(* &1*/
" &035 -.5 -26282/6&.( :56*0(215.5652+7./).1, 1* &19-& ! *1*4&( 29*4 :56*05# $
"%18*46*4 :+'(
:+%(AB8<0B43:+7?@>3C2430==C0;;G :+7@0E=1G EE411&4D8A8>= Project Address:Project Name:Project contact:0B4
8BG"08=B4=0=24C8;38=6 %>@BC6C4A44=3&>03&>;;8=6 8;;A
'(%7>B>D>;B082'GAB4<' !*& $,&#+!' !!
>>B78;;;D3'C8B4
@20380
!82 C= C98B0 0;;
8= 8= #&%+&!!A<0@B10BB4@G
:+720?028BG0=3 :+7CA01;44=4@6G$)($$&&(#"
& "#' $#'!F+F F F
8=
8= #&%+&4;; 4=4@02%>E4@'GAB4<A,*(
.
*/ "#' $#'!F+F F F '$!& '$##( #&%+&4;;CB><0B82(@0=A54@'E8B2717.1 kwh City Hall 8 kwh Community Association Building When batteries are used in a black out event: 42 cells dedicated to City Hall 24 cells dedicated to Community Association Buildings181
Agenda Item No.: 10.C
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER HIRING A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO INVENTORY THE
CITY HALL CAMPUS IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In September 2021 the City of Rolling Hills solicited services to accept proposals from qualified
licensed landscape architects or firms to provide professional services to audit existing conditions
(landscape, lighting and irrigation), submit WELO compliant landscape and lighting design package,
install or assist in hiring a qualified licensed landscape contractor to install these items for City Hall
Campus.
Between 2016 and 2019 the landscaping on the campus was poorly maintained due to broken sprinkler
pipes, nonworking valves and inadequate care. In early 2020, the City conducted necessary repairs,
including insect, and gopher treatments to restore a fully functioning irrigation system at the campus. In
2021, even after repairs, the City continues to have ongoing issues with gophers, broken sprinkler pipes
and maintenance of the overall campus.
The city aims to have a well-designed green space that comprises of both California native plants and
waterwise plants that are adapted to our climate. These should be planted and maintained to meet
WELO requirements, the new high hazard plants regulation, and fire fuel abatement standards and
guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
With the many capital improvement projects the Council has decided to take on staff has made an
adjustment to downsize the scale of campus replacement and break the project up into small parts as
opposed to larger assignments. The following needs more immediate attention:
1. Irrigation Inventory/Assessment (find out what we have, where it is, working/not working, and
how frequently it used)
182
2. Planting (use water-wise planting)
3. Improve Patchy Areas (consider new planting/installation of areas that are blank/empty/ badly
managed)
The main focus would be the irrigation/inventory assessment so the city can understand our system and
make informed decisions on what can be retained and what needs to be replaced. This will require our
candidate to:
1. Assist the client in obtaining bids, negotiating contracts, reviewing project billing,
2. Attend meetings at the job site for the purpose of construction review with the agent, agent’s
representatives and/or contractors.
3. Provide field visits to review layout of landscape elements and check for general conformance to
the contract documents and design intent.
4. Visit nurseries to tag and select plant material.
Irrigation assessments can be challenging due to the limitation of only assessing the above ground
components. During the assessment dependent upon the findings, some underground work may be
necessary. Age and implementation is also an unknown factor in irrigation (Age of the system? Original
installation?).
The challenges of an unknown irrigation schematic design make it difficult to provide detailed estimates
on specific costs so staff has requested services on an as needed basis and the candidate has requested a
retainer. When the retainer is nearing zero the Council can decide if they would like to continue with
other aspects of the project and discuss further retainers at that time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$150/ hour on an as needed basis for a non-refundable retainer of $6,000 which is equivalent to 40
hours of work.
There is $21,260.00 available remaining balance in the account and sufficient funds if the City Council
decided to engage Evan Smith for services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council consider and discuss the hiring of a Landscape Architect to perform an
irrigation inventory assessment and provide further recommendations for City Hall Campus
landscaping.
ATTACHMENTS:
Landscape Architecture RFP- Final Draft-V10 Letterhead FINAL.pdf
Rolling Hills Contract 11.10.21 for irrigation.pdf
183
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,
1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE
BEND ROAD ROLLING
HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
PROPOSALS DUE 5:00PM, SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
BACKGROUND
The City of Rolling Hills is seeking proposals from qualified licensed landscape architect or firms to provide
professional services to audit existing conditions (landscape, lighting and irrigation), submit WELO
compliant landscape and lighting design package, install or assist in hiring a qualified licensed landscape
contractor to install the proposed project at the City Hall Campus located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, CA and Tennis Courts Facility located across the City Hall Campus. The City Hall Campus is
approximately 1.3 acres and the Tennis Courts Facility is approximately 1.2 acres estimating 2.5 acres in
total (Attachment 1). The City Hall Campus has three existing structures: City Hall, Rolling Hills Community
Association (RHCA) office and a shed housing a generator. The RHCA is a tenant of the City. The City is
responsible for the maintenance of the City Hall campus and the Tennis Courts Facility.
Between 2016 and 2019 the landscaping on the campus was poorly maintained due to broken sprinkler
pipes, nonworking valves and inadequate care. In early 2020, the City conducted necessary repairs,
including insect, and gopher treatments to restore a fully functioning irrigation system at the campus.
Current Day, 2021, even after repairs, the City seems to have continuous issues with gophers, broken
sprinkler pipes and maintenance of the overall campus.
With this project, the City aims to have a well-designed green space that comprises of both California native
plants and waterwise plants that are adapted to our climate. These should be planted and maintained to
meet WELO requirements and more importantly, meet fire fuel abatement standards and guidelines. The
City is located in a very high fire severity zone and designers must avoid high-hazard plants. In addition,
designers must also take into consideration CPTED principles when designing landscaped areas while also
providing adequate visual screening from the adjacent main road north of the subject site. Lastly, the City
will be using the City Hall Campus and Tennis Courts Facility to showcase water efficient plants and design
principles, so residents will know the proper landscape materials suitable for the zone and low maintenance
techniques.
184
SECTION 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City is requesting proposals from qualified landscape architect or companies to provide the following
services:
Inventory and audit existing conditions and document
Submit complete landscape package that includes:
o Irrigation plan, planting plan, lighting design plan, all applicable
details/specifications, and MWELO compliance
Conduct site visits and attend working meetings with key stakeholders and staff to solicit
their input on the conceptual plans before a final plan is approved by the City.
Design Fire Code compliant access around the generator shed
Design a pad that is ADA compliant for an existing freestanding USPS Mailbox
Receive approval from applicable agencies, i.e. Fire Department’s Fuel Modification
Division, Building and Safety and the City’s landscape architect
Develop final approved design for implementation
Provide copies of all reports, technical memoranda, and presentation materials to city staff.
Attend up to two City Council Meetings
Develop cost estimates for the conceptual and final approved plans and specifications.
Install proposed project or oversee hiring of contractor to install project
Respond to Request for Information
Inspect the completed project and verify compliance with approved plan
Secure a Certificate of Compliance
Provide manuals and maintenance instructions for plant materials, lighting and irrigation
system
Review and approve close-out documents
Provide Record Drawings in hard copy and digital format
Conduct training for maintenance crew
Provide Project Schedule
SECTION 2
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Understanding of the Scope of Work:
Firms shall provide a narrative to the approach to complete the Scope of Work efficiently and
economically.
2. Organization, Credentials and Experience:
Provide a summary of the Firm’s qualifications, credentials, and related experience. Describe the
firm, including the personnel who will be assigned to the contract. Provide a list of three of the firm’s
projects within the last five years of similar scope and content.
3. Fees:
Under separate cover, provide a rate proposal for the scope of work. The cost proposal shall be
identified for each task. The proposed cost budget shall present the labor rates and proposed labor
hours of proposed staff for each work task described in the consultant’s proposal, as well as other
direct costs.
185
4. Additional Information:
Firms are to review the sample Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 5) and provide
comments and or questions as a part of the firm’s proposal.
SECTION 3
PROPOSAL PROCEDURE
All proposals are due no later than 5:00pm on September 17, 2021. The City reserves the right to extend
the deadline. The City will respond to request for clarification in written RFP addendum(s) as needed. All
inquiries for clarification shall submitted in writing via email to the Senior Management Analyst by 12:00pm
on September 01, 2021. The City will post any addendums to the RFP to the City’s website. Consultants
planning to submit a proposal are required to refer to the website to verify that they have received all
addendums issued for this RFP.
Proposals shall be emailed to the Senior Management Analyst.
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
aball@cityofrh.net
(310) 377-1521
Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for
proposal unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the agreement
between the City of Rolling Hills and the firm selected. The City of Rolling Hills reserves the right without
prejudice to reject any or all proposals. No reimbursement will be made by the City for costs incurred in the
preparation of the response to this Request for Proposal. Submitted materials will not be returned and
become the property of the City of Rolling Hills.
SECTION 4
SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be selected based on sound approach to meeting the scope of work, the ability to demonstrate
efficiency use of resources, the relevant experience of proposed personnel, and dedication of personnel to
complete the project within the specified timeframe. Firms may be asked to participate in an interview with
the City. If necessary, interviews are tentatively scheduled for the week of September 27, 2021.
SECTION 5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Site Plan
Attachment 2 Aerial View of City Hall Campus and Tennis Courts Facility
Attachment 3 Photographs of City Hall Campus
Attachment 4 Sample Professional Services Agreement
186
ATTACHMENT 1
Site Plan
187
188
189
ATTACHMENT 2
Bird’s-eye View of City Campus
190
191
ATTACHMENT 3
Photographs of City Campus
192
193
194
195
196
ATTACHMENT 4
Sample
Professional Service Agreement
197
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 2019
between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"CITY'' and with principal offices at -,
hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
1. RECITALS:
A. The CITY desires to contract the CONSULTANT for
B. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education and experience to perform
such services; and
C. CONSULTANT is willing to render such
hereinafter defined.
services as
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein
contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to perform the services
set forth in this AGREEMENT.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to
CITY the services set forth in the specifications and the scope of work
described in the Proposal for
Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as “SERVICES”).
3. COST
Services, attached herein as
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed
under this AGREEMENT at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Scope of Work,
attached herein as Exhibit A.
Total contract shall not exceed the sum of during the term
of the AGREEMENT. This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all local travel, attendance at
meetings, printing and submission of grants, which are accrued during that period. It also
includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated.
Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be approved by expressed written
amendment executed by the CITY and CONSULTANT.
198
4. METHOD OF PAYMENT
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed within 30 (thirty) days of submitting an invoice to City
for the SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice for the SERVICES within 10 (ten) days of
completing each task or portion thereof identified in Exhibit A to this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT
shall submit invoices electronically to the City Manager of the CITY and shall also provide a
courtesy copy by U.S. Mail addressed to the City Manager of the CITY.
5. SUBCONTRACTING
CONSULTANT may employ qualified independent subcontractor(s) to assist CONSULTANT
in the performance of SERVICES with CITY’s prior written approval.
6. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall commence work under this AGREEMENT upon execution of this
AGREEMENT.
7. PERFORMANCE TO SATISFACTION OF CITY
CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY and within
the time hereinafter specified.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
All SERVICES rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with the requirements
of relevant local, State and Federal Law.
9. ACCOUNTING RECORDS
CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs
incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the CONSULTANT’s California
office during the contract period and thereafter for five years from the date of final payment.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DATA
All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the contract
shall become the property of the CITY.
11. TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract shall be valid for AGREEMENT.
199
Page 2 of 20
12. TERMINATION
This contract may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon seven
(7) days written notice to the other party. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract
and prior to the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement.
13. ASSIGNABILITY
CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the prior written
consent of the CITY.
14. AMENDMENT
It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract,
or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by
the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary parties.
15. NON-SOLICITATION CLAUSE
The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any company or
persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the
award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right
to annul this contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage
fee, gift, or contingent fee.
16. INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officers and
employees from all claims, damages, suits, cost or actions of every name, kind or description, brought
for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from
performance of this AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of
CONSULTANT, it officers, agents, employees and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT.
CITY shall indemnify and save harmless CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, and
servants from all claims, damages, suits, costs or actions of every name, kind, or descri ption, brought
for, or on account of, (i) injuries to or death of any person, (ii) damage to property or (iii) arising from
performance of this AGREEMENT in any manner that resulted from the fault or negligence of the
CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, and/or servants in connection with this AGREEMENT.
If CONSULTANT should subcontract all or any portion of the SERVICES to be performed under this
AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend
CITY and each of its officers, officials, employees
200
Page 3 of 20
agents and volunteers in accordance with the term of the preceding paragraph. This section shall
survive termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT.
17. INSURANCE
A. Without limiting CONSULTANT’S obligations arising under paragraph 16 - Indemnity,
CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this AGREEMENT until it obtains policies of insurance
required under this section. The insurance shall cover CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and
employees in connection with the performance of work under this AGREEMENT, and shall be
maintained throughout the term of this AGREEMENT. Insurance coverage shall be as follows:
i. Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverage of $300,000 for property
damage, $300,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and
$300,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence.
ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its elected and
appointed officers and employees from claims for damages for personal inj ury,
including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from
CONSULTANT’S actions under this AGREEMENT, whether or not done by
CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such
insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $500,000.
iii. Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT’S employees to the extent
required by the State of California. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors
who are hired by CONSULTANT to perform the SERVICES and who have employees
to similarly obtain Worker’s Compensation Insurance for all of the subcontractor’s
employees.
iv. Professional Liability Insurance for CONSULTANT that at a minimum covers
professional misconduct or lack of the requisite skill required for the
performances of SERVICES in an amount of not less than $500,000 per occurrence.
B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and
(iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence.
C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers and employees shall be
named as additional insured on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and (ii).
D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) and (ii) shall be primary
and not excess coverage.
E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the execution of this
AGREEMENT, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by an insurer authorized to do
business in California, and an endorsement to each such
201
Page 4 of 20
policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days prior wri tten
notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the AGREEMENT. All required
insurance policies are subject to approval of the City Attorney. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to
procure or maintain said insurance in full force and effect shall constitute a material breach of this
AGREEMENT or procure or renew such insurance, and pay any premiums therefore at CONSULTANT’S
expense.
18. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT
In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the ri ghts created under this
AGREEMENT, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees
in the amount to be determined by the court.
19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other offi cer, employee, or agent of the
CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out
of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this AGREEMENT; and
the CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this AGREEMENT, no person having
any such interest shall be employed.
20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent
contractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the
CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT’s employees or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or
employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
This AGREEMENT supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between
the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the
covenants and agreements between the parties with respect such employment in any manner
whatsoever. Each party to this AGREEMENT acknowledges that no representations, inducements,
promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf
of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall
be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.
22. NOTICES.
All written notices required by, or related to this AGREEMENT shall be sent by Certified Mail,
Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid and addressed as listed
202
Page 5 of 20
below. Neither party to this AGREEMENT shall refuse to accept such mail; the parties to this
AGREEMENT shall promptly inform the other party of any change of address. All notices required by
this AGREEMENT are effective on the day of receipt, unless otherwise indicated herein. The mailing
address of each party to this AGREEMENT is as follows:
CITY: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager City of
Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling
Hills, CA 90274
CONSULTANT:
4. GOVERNING LAW
This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the date and year first
above written.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSULTANT CITY
MANAGER
ELAINE JENG, PE
DATE: DATE:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY
203
Evan Smith - Landscape Architect #4716
1301 Via Gabriel, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Ph 818/665-8710 evansmith4716@gmail.com
facebook.com/EvanSmithLA
November 16th, 2021
The following proposal is intended to convey the scope of the work to be
performed by Evan Smith for the address below, in agreement with the price and
payment schedule outlined herein.
I intend to work with the cities agents to discuss the site developments.
requirements, schedule and budgets; and to review and develop design concepts
to formulate a landscape design that incorporates the elements found in the
architectural design and brings the property to its full potential.
SCOPE OF WORK AT:
Rolling Hills City Hall Campus & Tennis Court
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
All work shall be directed IN WRITING by the clients and may include but
not be limited to:
SITE ASSESMENT :
- Irrigation Inventory of current condition and zone locations
- Planting: health, water usage and general condition
- Drainage: current condition and efficiency.
SITE IMPROVEMENTS :
- Design Development Plans(Concepts) I.e. “Improvement of patchy areas”
To be submitted to authorized agent for review prior to Construction
Documents / RFP’s being prepared.
- Construction/Submittal Documents and RFP’s for the installation of the
hardscape & planting and any necessary HOA, city, county or state
submittals.
Documents may include but not limited to:
- Construction Details and Specifications: Detailing all landscape
construction items including, but not limited to, concrete,
masonry, walls, planters, gates, ponds, pools and spas. All
necessary specifications and construction details pertaining to
the work shall be provided excluding structural and hydraulic
engineering which are to be detailed by a LICENSED ENGINEER.
- Drainage Plans: showing location, size, quantity and type of
drainage devices for the landscape work.
- Landscape Plan: Detailing all trees, shrubs, annual color, ground
covers, and container plantings where appropriate. A plant list
detailing all plant sizes, quantities, general notes and
specific varieties.
- Irrigation Plans and Details: showing design and equipment
specifications of a segregated irrigation system. The system
shall be designed to meet local code requirements.
page 1 of 3
204
Evan Smith - Landscape Architect #4716
1301 Via Gabriel, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Ph 818/665-8710 evansmith4716@gmail.com
facebook.com/EvanSmithLA
Site Improvements ( continued) :
- Lighting Plans: showing design equipment specifications of the
landscape lighting system.
- Fuel Modification Plans for submittal to the LACFD for review and/
or approvals. This submittal includes a WUCOLS plan & Invasive
species mitigation plan.
NOTE - ( Above plans may be used for construction &/or bidding purposes.)
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION / MANAGEMENT
- Assist the client in obtaining bids, negotiating contracts, reviewing
project billing and obtain mechanics lien releases.
- Attend meetings at the job site for the purpose of construction review with
the agent, agent’s representatives and/or contractors.
- Provide field visits to review layout of landscape elements and check
for general conformance to the contract documents and design intent.
- Visit nurseries to tag and select plant material.
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
The client shall furnish Evan Smith with all necessary topographic survey
maps, utility information, plot plan, architectural plans, soils report and
other graphic or statistical information or data pertinent to the project at
the clients expense.
All necessary specifications and construction details pertaining to the
work shall be provided excluding structural and hydraulic engineering which
are to be detailed by a LICENSED ENGINEER.
FEES
Client authorized work to be billed at the rate of $150 per hour.
Hours to include but not limited to:
- Office Design &/or Drafting time
- Phone, email, text, Zoom and any other time spent communicating with
clients, agents &/or suppliers.
- Travel time will be included in each authorized site or off site meeting.
- Any task related to said project received IN WRITING from authorized
agent(s)
ALL work to be performed against a retainer for services.
Evan Smith will provide a weekly written log of time showing:
- Services provided with Data, Time and hours accrued to nearest 1/10th of an
hour (6 minuets)
Once initial retainer is depleted another retainer, To Be Determined, will be
necessary to continue services.
page 2 of 3
205
Evan Smith - Landscape Architect #4716
1301 Via Gabriel, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Ph 818/665-8710 evansmith4716@gmail.com
facebook.com/EvanSmithLA
APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE
Your signature below and the receipt of $6,000 nonrefundable retainer
will constitute acceptance of this proposal.
________________________________________________
Authorized Agent TITLE Date
City Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills , CA 90274
________________________________________________
Evan Smith Date
Landscape Architect #4716
1301 Via Gabriel
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Landscape Architects are licensed by the State of California.
Any unresolved issue with the Landscape Architect will be arbitrated in The
State of California by a third party OR:
California Architects Board, Landscape Architects Technical Committee
400 R Street, Suite 4000, Sacramento, CA 95814-6238, PH# 916/445-4954
NOTE: All documents, plans & other statistical information shall remain under
copyright of Evan Smith. No reproductions nor publications shall be permitted
without written authorization.
page 3 of 3
206
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:BID PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN
REPAIR AT 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On December 30, 2021, the easement adjacent to Middleridge Lane South developed multiple sinkholes
during a storm event. As a result the RHCA contacted LA County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW) on January 3, 2022 to request assistance and repair.
On January 6, 2022, LACDPW informed the RHCA and City that they had found documentation
confirming that the City of Rolling Hills was responsible for maintenance of the subject drain via a
1972 signed agreement between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the City.
On January 9, 2022 the City Manager sent an email update to the Council and adjacent neighbors
updating them on the above and the steps being taken to address the issues. While the city initially tried
to engage LA County through our General Services agreement, they were unable to commit time and
resources due to extenuating circumstances including lack of manpower due to COVID-19 and other
emergency projects.
Staff contacted private contractors who visited the site and provided feedback on repair scope of work,
schedule, and cost. In the meantime, the RHCA, in anticipation of projected rain directed staff to place
sandbags and tarp over the sink holes.
On Tuesday, January 18, 2022, EC Construction was on site to investigate as to whether the broken
drainpipe was the cause of the upper sinkhole and determine a more clear scope of work. The coupling
(pipe connector) was the issue at the upper and lower sinkholes. Staff would like to commence repair
work as soon as possible, depending on availability of EC Construction personnel and material. EC
Construction did not express issues with the stability of the adjacent road and presented two options for
the City to consider.
DISCUSSION:
207
Option 1:
1. Excavate all wet/bad soil at sink hole areas, 2 spots.
2. Remove 40 LF of damaged 24” CMP Pipe.
3. Connect to existing 24” CMP Pipe with 40 LF of new 24” CMP including ½” rock bedding under
pipe for stability.
4. Backfill new Pipe with 1 sack slurry, 1’ over new pipe.
5. Backfill and compact the remaining excavation with clean dirt.
6. Excavate small pipe displacement sink hole and pour a concrete collar around displacement.
Backfill and compact with clean dirt.
7. Repair Asphalt berm at edge of street that eroded with trail failure.
Option 2:
Repair the pipe as stated above and line the entire length of 24” CMP from the upstream catch basin
above 1 Middleridge Lane S to the catch basin at the intersection of Middleridge Lane S & N.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The repair to the storm drain line is an unexpected expense and not budgeted in the FY 2021-2022
adopted budget.
Option 1
COST: $33,235 include 15% contingency.
Exclusions: permits, inspection fees, SWPPP plan, engineering, survey, relocation of underground
utilities, night or weekend work, concrete, slurry, and striping.
Option 2
COST: Unknown at this time. Waiting for pricing and timeline from EC Construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct City Attorney to draft a professional services contract and authorize the City manager to execute.
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Rolling Hills SD Repair.pdf
CL_AGN_220124_CC_RH_StormDrain_EmergencyRepair_Resolution.pdf
208
BID PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
2213 CHICO AVE./SO. EL MONTE, CA 91733
Phone: (626) 444-9596 Fax: (626) 444-3077
California Contractors License #366814
DATE: 1/19/2022
TO City of Rolling Hills JOB ADDRESS
2 Portuguese Bend Rd
Rolling Hills, CA 90274 1 Middleridge Lane S
We agree to furnish all labor, materials, equipment and supervision necessary to complete the f ollowing:
STORM DRAIN REPAIR
1. Excavate all wet/bad soil at sink hole areas, 2 spots.
2. Remove 40 LF of damaged 24” CMP Pipe.
3. Connect to existing 24” CMP Pipe with 40 LF of new 24” CMP including ½” rock bedding under pipe for
stability.
4. Backfill new Pipe with 1 sack slurry, 1’ over new pipe.
5. Backfill and compact the remaining excavation with clean dirt.
6. Excavate small pipe displacement sink hole and pour a concrete collar around displacement. Backfill and
compact with clean dirt.
7. Repair Asphalt berm at edge of street that eroded with trail failure.
COST……$28,900.00
Exclusions: permits, inspection fees, SWPPP plan, engineering, survey, relocation of underground utilities,
night or weekend work, concrete, slurry, and striping.
The above described work will be performed in a workman like manner and in accordance with standard practices.
TERMS: Unless credit arrangements have been made, in writing, in advance, the invoice for the work described herein is due and payable on
presentation. 1 ½ % per month will be charged on a daily basis on all accounts or portions thereof not paid within 10 days of the date of the invoice.
Customer agrees to pay reasonable attorney fees and collection costs incurred by E.C. Construction Co. for the collection of both principal and interest
due to customer’s failure to pay per this agreement.
Unless otherwise specified, if this proposal is not accepted within______30___________days from bid date, we reserve the right of cancellation.
APPROVE AND ACCEPTED Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________ E.C. CONSTRUCTION CO.
Date__________________20___ By_________________________
209
1
RESOLUTION NO. 1287
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS FINDING AND DECLARING THAT
AN EMERGENCY CONDITION EXISTS ARISING FROM
DAMAGE TO THE CITY’S STORM DRAIN LOCATED AT
OR NEAR 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH AND
AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY REPAIR TO THE STORM
DRAIN WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING
RECITALS
A. Sections 22035 and 22050 of the Public Contracts Code authorize the City of
Rolling Hills (“City”) to proceed with awarding a public works contract to perform emergency
work upon adoption by the City Council by a four-fifths vote of a resolution declaring that the
public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public funds to safeguard life,
health, or property;
B. The City’s storm drain located at or near 1 Middleridge Lane South (“storm
drain”) is in need of emergency repair as a result of damage to the coupling (pipe connector) of
the storm drain;
C. The repairs are necessary to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the City;
D. The need for repair of the City’s storm drain requires immediate action that will
not permit undergoing the formal competitive bidding process because the City is currently in a
rainy season and the last storm event resulted in multiple sink holes in the easement adjacent to
Middleridge Lane South. Additional rain events have the potential for causing soil instability;
E. The City Manager solicited proposals from Hardy Harper and EC Construction
and received a written acceptable proposal to perform the emergency work from EC
Construction, and the City now wishes to award an emergency contract for repair of the City’s
storm drain to EC Construction; and
F. Public Contract Code section 22050 also provides that the City Council may, by
resolution, delegate the authority to order any action required by the emergency and to procure
the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids
to let the contracts, to the City Manager, her designee, or any other officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council finds that the public interest and necessity
demand the immediate expenditure of public funds for emergency work for the repair of the
210
2
City’s storm drain to safeguard life, health and property. The City Council further finds that the
emergency will not permit a delay that would result from a competitive solicitation for bids and
that action is necessary to respond to the emergency related to the damaged condition of the
City’s storm drain. The City Council further finds that based on the foregoing, the approvals
herein authorized are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Award of Contract; Delegation of Emergency Contracting Authority.
A contract to perform the necessary emergency repair work to the City’s water storage tank is
hereby awarded to EC Construction for 33,235.00 and t he City M anager, or her designee, is
hereby authorized to execute said contract, and to order any other action required to remedy the
emergency relating to the damaged condition of the City’s storm drain, and to procure the
necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to
let contracts. The City Manager, or her designee, is directed to report to the City Council at the
next regularly scheduled meeting and at every meeting thereafter until the action is terminated to
determine if there is a need to continue the action.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately.
This Resolution was adopted at a regular public meeting of the City Council of the City
of Rolling Hills, California held on the 24th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS
___________________________________
Bea Dieringer, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
211
Agenda Item No.: 11.B
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER APPLYING FOR THE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROGRAM
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is administering a one-time grant
program meant to provide aid in the implementation of regulations adopted by CalRecycle pursuant to
Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 and SB170 Budget Act of 2021. This non-competitive grant program
provides $57,000,000 of funding to local jurisdictions to assist with the implementation of regulation
requirements associated with SB 1383, including but not limited to:
Capacity Planning
Collection
Edible Food Recovery
Education and outreach (includes organic waste & edible food recovery)
Enforcement and Inspection
Program Evaluation/Gap Analysis
Procurement Requirements
Record Keeping
DISCUSSION:
Grant funding can be used for planning and compliance efforts to adopt an ordinance amendment
updating the Municipal Code to reflect SB 1383 requirements. It can also be used to pay for education
and public outreach efforts. The City recently submitted a Low Population Waiver to CalRecycle per
Section 18984.12 of SB 1383 which relieves the City from the requirement of adopting a mandatory
recycling/organics ordinance. The City will need to update the Municipal Code to reflect the
requirements for procurement of organic waste products, recycled content paper, minimum compost
and mulch for landscaping projects, and recycling and organics enclosure space allocation.
Applicants who certify they will adopt an ordinance amendment to CalRecycle by April 1, 2022, will be
eligible to receive first round funding (Spring 2022). In addition, the first round of awardees may be
212
eligible to receive additional remaining funds from entities who did not apply. For applicants who adopt
an ordinance after April 1, 2022, awards will be delayed to the second round.
Timeline
February 1, 2022: Application Due Date
March 1, 2022: Secondary Due Date for First Round Funding
Approved Resolution, and if applicable, Letters of Designation and Letters of Authorization, must
be received by this date if it was not submitted with the application.
June 14, 2022: Secondary Due Date for Second Round Funding
Approved Resolution, and if applicable, Letters of Designation and Letters of Authorization, must
be received by this date if it was not submitted with the application.
April 1, 2022 (tentative): Grants Awarded for First Round Funding
CalRecycle considers funding recommendations, and if approved, conditionally awards grants on
this date.
September 1, 2022 (tentative): Grants Awarded for Second Round Funding
CalRecycle considers funding recommendations, and if approved, conditionally awards grants on
this date.
April 2, 2024: Grant Term End for First Round Funding
September 2, 2024: Grant Term End for Second Round Funding
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the grant application is approved, the City would receive up to $20,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to file an application for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program and prepare a
resolution in support of the application.
ATTACHMENTS:
SB 1383 Grant Program Appl Guidelines and Instructions.pdf
213
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 1
January 2022
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program
Application Guidelines and Instructions
Fiscal Year 2021–22
Revised January 10, 2022
214
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 2
Table of Contents
Grant Cycle Overview ................................................................................................... 3
Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 3
Eligible Applicants ........................................................................................................ 4
Individual Application .................................................................................................... 4
Regional Application ..................................................................................................... 4
Joint Powers Authority Application Requirements ........................................................ 5
Eligible Projects/Products ............................................................................................. 5
Available Funds ............................................................................................................ 5
Ordinance Requirement ................................................................................................ 5
Grant Term ................................................................................................................... 6
Eligible and Ineligible Costs .......................................................................................... 6
Questions ..................................................................................................................... 6
Public Records Requests ............................................................................................. 6
Confidentiality ............................................................................................................... 6
Application Instructions................................................................................................ 8
Application Access ....................................................................................................... 8
GMS Tabs - Application Contents and Instructions ...................................................... 8
Summary Tab ............................................................................................................ 8
Applicant/Participant Tab ........................................................................................... 9
Detail Tab .................................................................................................................. 9
Contacts Tab ............................................................................................................. 9
Budget Tab .............................................................................................................. 10
Documents Tab ....................................................................................................... 10
Application Submittal and Deadline ............................................................................ 10
Application Documents............................................................................................... 11
Electronic and Original Signatures ............................................................................. 11
CalRecycle Documents .............................................................................................. 11
Application Certification ........................................................................................... 11
Applicant’s Required Authorization Documents .......................................................... 11
Individual Application Authorization Documents: ..................................................... 12
Regional Application Authorization Documents: ...................................................... 12
Joint Powers Authority Agreement .......................................................................... 13
Letter of Designation ............................................................................................... 13
Grant Review and Award Process ............................................................................. 14
Grant Application Review Process ............................................................................. 14
Grant Award Process.................................................................................................. 14
Grant Award Conditions.............................................................................................. 14
Grant Program Administration ................................................................................... 15
Application Certification .............................................................................................. 15
Reporting Process ...................................................................................................... 15
Payments .................................................................................................................... 15
215
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 3
Grant Cycle Overview
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) offers the SB
1383 Local Assistance Grant Program pursuant to Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016. This
non-competitive grant program will provide one-time funding to local jurisdictions to
assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383.
This resource document provides applicants with instructions to access and complete
the application online and information about grant administration. The web-based
application is in CalRecycle’s Grants Management System (GMS)
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/GMS/). The applicant will need to sign in to
GMS to complete and submit an application.
Note: The following terms used in this document are defined below, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
• “Applicant” refers to either the legal name of the entity that is legally responsible
for grant administration and any entity that will receive and control grant funded
equipment, if awarded, or to a person who is completing an application on behalf
of the Applicant (this is usually the primary contact listed on the application, but
could also be the secondary contact, signature authority, or consultant).
• “You” refers to a person who is completing the application on behalf of the
Applicant.
Timeline
February 1, 2022: Application Due Date
• Applicants must submit applications in GMS by 11:59 p.m. on this date.
• Customer service will be available until 4:00 p.m. on this date.
Note: There is only one application period. All applicants must submit an
application by February 1, 2022 to be considered for first and second round funding.
March 1, 2022: Secondary Due Date for First Round Funding
• Approved Resolution, and if applicable, Letters of Designation and Letters of
Authorization, must be uploaded in GMS by this date if it was not submitted with
the application.
June 14, 2022: Secondary Due Date for Second Round Funding
• Approved Resolution, and if applicable, Letters of Designation and Letters of
Authorization, must be uploaded in GMS by this date if it was not submitted with
the application.
April 1, 2022 (tentative): Grants Awarded for First Round Funding
• CalRecycle considers funding recommendations, and if approved, conditionally
awards grants on this date.
Note: Applicants with outstanding debt owed to CalRecycle will not receive funding
unless debt is paid by March 1, 2022.
216
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 4
September 1, 2022 (tentative): Grants Awarded for Second Round Funding
• CalRecycle considers funding recommendations, and if approved, conditionally
awards grants on this date.
Note: Applicants with outstanding debt owed to CalRecycle will not receive funding
unless debt is paid by August 15, 2022.
April 2, 2024: Grant Term End for First Round Funding
September 2, 2024: Grant Term End for Second Round Funding
For milestones that take place during the grant term, refer to the Procedures and
Requirements document.
Eligible Applicants
California Labor Code section 1782 prohibits a charter city from receiving state funding
or financial assistance for construction projects if that charter city does not comply with
Labor Code sections 1770-1782. If any applicants or participating entities are charter
cities or Joint Powers Authorities that include charter cities, the lead participating entity
must certify on the Detail tab of the application that Labor Code section 1782 does not
prohibit any included charter city from receiving state funds for the project described in
this application. If it is determined after award that an applicant or participating entity is
a charter city prohibited from receiving state funds for this grant project, the grant will be
terminated and any disbursed grant funds shall be returned to CalRecycle.
Eligible applicants include:
• City
• County
• City and county
• Regional or Joint Powers Authorities
• Special Districts that provide solid waste collection services
Individual Application
An Individual Application is one in which a single eligible entity will be responsible for
grant implementation. The applicant in an Individual Application will be responsible for
the performance of the grant and all related documentation. In addition, the applicant
will be the only entity receiving any real or personal property that is purchased with
grant funds.
Regional Application
Local governments may join together in a Regional Application in which two or more
eligible jurisdictions join together for the purpose of grant implementation. A Regional
Lead Participant must be designated to act on behalf of all Non-Lead Participants. The
Lead Participant is the applicant, and if awarded, will be the grantee responsible for the
performance of the grant and all required documentation. CalRecycle will direct all
official correspondence and grant payments to the Lead Participant. If a jurisdiction is a
Non-Lead Participant in a Regional Application, it may not apply individually.
217
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 5
Joint Powers Authority Application Requirements
Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) may submit a grant application as an individual
applicant. An entity may not submit an individual application if that entity is also a
member of an applicant JPA. In addition to the requirements for an Individual
Application, a JPA must upload a copy of its JPA Agreement.
The JPA Agreement must:
1. Give authority over solid waste management.
2. List all member entities.
3. Contain the signature of all members.
Eligible Projects/Products
Eligible activities and costs include:
• Capacity Planning
• Collection
• Edible Food Recovery
• Education and outreach (includes organic waste & edible food recovery)
• Enforcement and Inspection
• Program Evaluation/Gap Analysis
• Procurement Requirements (using recycled organic products – compost, mulch,
electricity, and/or renewable gas and recycled paper and paper products)
• Record Keeping
Available Funds
• $57,000,000 is available for this grant cycle, fiscal year 2021–22, subject to
funding availability.
• $20,000 base award for each eligible applicant.
o CalRecycle provides estimated funding amounts on the Notice of Funding
Availability page for applicants to budget anticipated costs of implementing
the program.
• CalRecycle will distribute remaining funds to eligible entities based on per capita
calculations using the Department of Finance’s January 2021 population
statistics.
Ordinance Requirement
Applicants must identify the status of adopting an enforceable ordinance(s), or similarly
enforceable mechanism, pursuant to section 18981.2 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
Applicants who certify they will adopt an ordinance to CalRecycle by
April 1, 2022, will be eligible to receive first round funding (Spring 2022). In addition, the
first round of awardees may be eligible to receive additional remaining funds from
entities who did not apply.
For applicants who adopt an ordinance after April 1, 2022, awards will be delayed to the
second round.
218
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 6
Grant Term
The Grant Term for first round funding begins on April 1, 2022 (tentative) and ends on
April 2, 2024. The Grant Term for second round funding begins on September 1, 2022
(tentative) and ends on September 2, 2024.
For detailed information about requirements within the grant term, refer to the
Procedures and Requirements document.
Eligible and Ineligible Costs
Grantees may incur eligible costs only during the Grant Term. For detailed information
about eligible and ineligible costs, refer to the Procedures and Requirements document.
Questions
Refer to the Frequently Asked Questions page
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/owrlocalassistancegrant/faq202122). If
your answer is not listed, send your question to grants@CalRecycle.ca.gov.
Public Records Requests
CalRecycle’s policy is to make records requested by the public promptly available in
accordance with the laws governing disclosure of records and information to the public.
In general, all records in the possession of a state agency are public records subject to
disclosure, unless a law provides that a particular kind of record or information is not a
public record or is exempt or prohibited from disclosure.
Upon request, the entire contents of the submitted application are subject to public
records requests. This may include contact information, project summary, uploaded
documents, and scoring information. Public records may be requested from CalRecycle
through the California Public Records Act Requests web page
(https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Forms/ContactUs/PublicRecordsRequest/).
Confidentiality
The following describes the treatment of certain confidential or proprietary information
under the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250, et seq.) and related
regulations. It also describes how questions are resolved on whether information is
truly confidential, the legal protections for confidential information, and internal and
program procedures to maintain confidentiality.
Confidential or Proprietary Information
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR), sections 17041-17046
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Regulations/Title14/), states that confidential or
proprietary information shall include, but is not limited to:
• Personal or business-related financial data, customer client lists, supplier lists
and other information of a proprietary or confidential business nature provided by
persons in applications, reports, returns, certifications or other documents
submitted to [CalRecycle] which if released would result in harmful effects on the
person’s competitive position.
• Tax information prohibited from disclosure, pursuant to the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
219
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 7
Accordingly, appropriate documents submitted with an application that are clearly
marked, on each page, “confidential or proprietary information” will be treated by
CalRecycle pursuant to the procedures set forth in 14 CCR sections 17041-17046.
However, the law does not treat documents marked as “confidential or proprietary
information” (such as sales brochures, promotional literature and other general non-
financial documents) as confidential if they do not fall within the categories of protected
financial documents listed above.
What if there is a question about what is confidential?
If CalRecycle receives a request to disclose data claimed by the applicant to be
confidential, CalRecycle would notify the applicant of the request and state that the
documents were under review to determine whether information was correctly identified
as “confidential.” If there was any question as to whether specific information was
confidential, CalRecycle would contact the person(s) identified in the application to
provide a justification and statement why the information is confidential. The process
for evaluating confidentiality claims is set forth in section 14 CCR 17046.
What procedures does CalRecycle have in place to ensure that confidential
information is kept confidential?
Confidential or proprietary information will be evaluated and analyzed only by
CalRecycle staff, kept confidential, and will be maintained with restricted access.
Records no longer needed to provide the services offered under the grant program are
periodically destroyed, when allowed by audit policies and state law.
220
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 8
Application Instructions
Application Access
The application is available in CalRecycle’s web-based Grants Management System
(GMS). Access to GMS is secure; therefore, you must have a CalRecycle WebPass to
log in to the system. Those who have not previously obtained a CalRecycle WebPass
can create an account at the CalRecycle WebPass page
(https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/WebPass/).
To start an application:
1. Log in to GMS (https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/Grants).
2. Select Apply for a Grant on the left.
• All open grant cycles are displayed in a table.
3. Find SB 1383 Local Assistance, OWR: 2021–22 and select Start Application.
• A pop-up window will appear asking for contact information. If you have
an existing GMS Account, the information may be auto populated.
• GMS will automatically add you as the Primary Contact for the new grant
application however; you may update this later.
4. Click Save.
GMS Tabs - Application Contents and Instructions
The components of the application are divided into tabs. To fill out an application, click
on each tab and complete the sections in each tab as required. General directions are
on the top of each tab, and detailed information about the requirements for each tab is
listed below.
The applicant is responsible for a complete application. This includes signing
documents, uploading required documents, and submitting the application by the due
date(s). Failure to do so will result in disqualification from the SB 1383 Local Assistance
Grant Program.
Examples of disqualifications may include:
• Applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements.
• Project is not eligible.
• Applicant fails to use required CalRecycle documents or forms.
• Applicant uploads incomplete or blank documents to the Documents tab.
• Signature Authority fails to sign Application Certification or any document that
requires a signature.
• The online application is incomplete or missing information.
• Applicant fails to certify that they will have an enforceable ordinance, or similarly
enforceable mechanism, pursuant to section 18981.2 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations by the required due dates.
Summary Tab
This tab provides a summary of the application, due dates, resource documents and
links, application documents, and the Application Submission section. It is the
applicant’s responsibility to submit all required documents, based on the particular grant
application/project, by the appropriate due date.
221
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 9
Applicant/Participant Tab
The applicant name is the legal name of the entity that is legally responsible for grant
administration, if awarded.
1. Select the Add Applicant/Participant button and type in the Applicant Name
and County. Do not enter your personal name.
2. Search the table for the correct applicant name and select Add
Applicant/Participant.
3. Choose the Lead Participant radio button and click Save.
• Every application must have a Lead Participant even if it is an individual
application with no Non-Lead Participants.
If the Participant Search List does not contain your Applicant/Participant name:
1. Click on Add New Applicant/Participant.
2. Enter the Applicant/Participant Name as it appears on the Resolution. Do not
include the department or unit name. Do not enter your personal name.
• List county names with the name first followed by the word “County,” e.g.,
“Sacramento County.”
• List city names as “City of” followed by the city’s name, e.g., “City of
Sacramento.”
3. Complete all required fields then click Save.
For Regional, or Joint Powers Authority Applications, add the name of each eligible
Non-Lead Participant and select the Participating Jurisdiction radio button.
For a list of eligible applicants, please see the Grant Cycle Overview section titled
“Eligible Applicants.”
Detail Tab
Complete this tab as follows:
1. Enter a dollar amount in the Grant Funds Requested field. Do not exceed the
maximum grant award amount provided to you.
2. Enter the Assembly Districts and Senate Districts. To select more than one
district hold the “Ctrl” key while selecting the numbers.
3. Enter the applicant’s Department Name, e.g., “General Services.” If the
applicant does not have a department, enter the applicant’s name.
4. Enter the grant payment mailing address.
5. Project Summary/Statement of Use: Enter a detailed description of your
project.
6. Select the appropriate option for the Resolution Requirement and optional Letter
of Designation.
7. Select the appropriate answer for Program Questions.
Contacts Tab
CalRecycle requires the application to have only one Primary Contact and at least one
Signature Authority. Each application contact may be granted access by checking the
box on the top of the contact’s detail screen. The contact will be able to log in to GMS
using their own CalRecycle WebPass and access the application.
222
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 10
• Primary Contact. One person who the Signature Authority or their designee has
authorized to manage and oversee the grant. This person will be the first contact
with whom the Grant Manager will communicate.
• Signature Authority. The person(s) authorized to sign CalRecycle documents,
such as grant applications, grant agreements, etc., as authorized by a
board/council-adopted Resolution or Letter of Designation.
• Secondary Contact. A person authorized (by the Primary Contact or Signature
Authority or their designee) as the alternate person with whom the Grant
Manager will communicate. (Not required.)
• Consultant. A professional who provides advice in an area of expertise. If
CalRecycle awards a grant to the applicant, the consultants may manage the
grant or only conduct specific activities, based on a written agreement between
the applicant and the consultant outlining work to be performed. (Not required.)
Budget Tab
Select the applicable budget category and enter the dollar amount provided in the 1383
Local Assistance Grant Program Funding Estimates spreadsheet (URL) and detailed
budget detail information. The total must equal the Grant Funds Requested amount
shown on the Detail tab.
Documents Tab
See the Application Documents section in the Summary tab for documents that must be
uploaded in the Documents tab.
When uploading a document, enter a document title, select the appropriate document
type from the drop-down list, and enter the date that it was executed/signed, if
applicable, or select “today’s date.” Utilizing a document form other than the official
CalRecycle versions, tampering with the CalRecycle version, or otherwise
circumventing imposed character limits may subject the applicant to disqualification.
Application Submittal and Deadline
The Submit Application button located in the Summary tab will be enabled after all
required documents have been uploaded.
Click the Submit Application button and the application status will change to
Submitted. You can only submit the application once; however, you may upload the
following documents until the secondary due date: Resolution, Letter of Designation,
Letters of Authorization, and JPA Agreements.
You must submit your application no later than 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2022.
Customer service will be available until 4:00 p.m. on the application due date either by
emailing grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov or calling Melissa Sanford at
(916) 341-6104.
Note: Applications that are not submitted by the due date will be deleted from GMS.
223
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 11
Application Documents
Electronic and Original Signatures
CalRecycle now allows for certified e-Signature or original wet signature on documents
or forms that certify legally binding information.
Note: E-signatures must include the first and last name of the Signature Authority, be in
the Adobe Digital ID format (or through another certified digital signature program), and
cannot be completed using the “Fill and Sign” function within Adobe. Any documents
using the “Fill and Sign” function, is considered incomplete and may be sent back to the
applicant.
Once the document(s) have been signed by the Signature Authority, upload the digitally
signed document, or scan the wet signature and save it to GMS. Retain the original
document for potential CalRecycle audits. See Audit Considerations section of the
Procedures and Requirements document for more information.
If you have questions, email grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov.
CalRecycle Documents
Altered or reproduced CalRecycle documents or templates may result in automatic
disqualification of your application. Unless a document specifies that it may be
reproduced as necessary, do not alter CalRecycle documents. If you are having
trouble with a document, email grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov or call Melissa
Sanford at (916) 341-6104.
Below is a list of CalRecycle documents:
Application Certification
The Application Certification is a required application document that must be generated
from GMS.
After you have completed each tab of the application and uploaded the required
documents, generate the Application Certification from the Summary tab. Once the
Application Certification is signed, upload it to the Documents tab.
Applicant’s Required Authorization Documents
Below is a list of required authorizing documents by application type that the applicant is
responsible for preparing and uploading to their application.
Note: For Resolution, Letter of Authorization, and Letter of Designation templates refer
to the CalRecycle Resolution and Letter Examples
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Funding/SampleDocs) web page. CalRecycle staff are
available to answer questions about the Resolution or to review your draft Resolution to
ensure it meets the requirements of the grant program. You may upload the Resolution
to your application as a “Draft Resolution,” or, for immediate review, email it to
grantassistance@calrecycle.ca.gov.
224
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 12
Individual Application Authorization Documents:
If subject to a governing body the applicant must submit a Resolution no later than
the secondary due date or CalRecycle will deem the application incomplete and your
application will be moved to the second funding round. The Resolution must:
1. Authorize submittal of an application for one or more specifically named
CalRecycle grant(s), payment programs, or for all CalRecycle grants or payment
programs for which the applicant is eligible.
2. Identify the time period, up to five years, during which the authorizations are valid.
a. Five years is encouraged; however, periods of less than five years are
acceptable.
3. Identify the Signature Authority by listing the job title of the person(s) authorized to
sign all grant-related documents necessary to implement and close-out the
grant(s).
a. (Optional but encouraged) The Resolution should authorize the Signature
Authority to delegate their signature authority to another person identified
by job title. Applicants can only submit a Letter of Designation if the
corresponding Resolution includes designee language.
Note: The Signature Authority must sign a Letter of Designation prior to the designee’s
exercise of their authority.
Regional Application Authorization Documents:
Lead Participant
Applicant must submit a Resolution no later than the secondary due date or CalRecycle
will deem the application incomplete and your application will be moved to the second
funding round.
The Resolution must:
1. Authorize submittal of a Regional Application on behalf of itself as Lead
Participant and all other Non-lead Participants for a specifically named
CalRecycle grant or payment program.
2. Identify the time period, up to five years, during which the authorizations are valid.
a. Five years is encouraged; however, periods of less than five years are
acceptable.
i. A Resolution that is valid for more than one year must contain either:
1. A list of all potential jurisdictions that may serve as Non-Lead
Participants, or
2. A provision that the Signature Authority may alter the list of
Non-Lead Participants for each grant cycle.
3. Identify the Signature Authority by listing the job title of the person(s) authorized to
sign all grant-related documents necessary to implement and close-out the
grant(s).
a. (Optional but encouraged) The Resolution should authorize the Signature
Authority to delegate their signature authority to another person identified
by job title. Applicants can only submit a Letter of Designation if the
corresponding Resolution includes designee language.
225
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 13
Non-Lead Participant
The Non-Lead Participant prepares the Letter of Authorization (LOA) and gives the
Lead Participant authorization to apply for and to act on its behalf in the implementation
and administration of the grant or payment program.
Applicant must submit a Letter of Authorization no later than the secondary due date or
CalRecycle will remove the Non-Lead Participant(s) from the application.
The LOA must:
1. Be on the Non-Lead Participant’s official letterhead.
2. Specify grant or payment program name.
3. Be valid for as long as the Lead Participant’s Resolution, not to exceed five years;
otherwise, the participating entity must date the letter within the last 12 months.
4. Authorize the Lead Participant to submit a Regional Application and act as Lead
Agency on behalf of the Non-Lead Participant.
5. Authorize the Lead Participant to execute all documents necessary to implement
the grant or payment program.
6. Be signed by an individual authorized to contractually bind the Non-Lead
Participant.
Joint Powers Authority Agreement
Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) must upload a copy of their JPA Agreements giving them
authority to conduct the project, listing all member entities, and containing the signature
of all members. CalRecycle does not require Letters of Authorization for JPA
applicants. A JPA applicant must still upload a Resolution as a part of their application
and list all JPA members as Non-Lead Participants on the Applicant/Participant tab.
Letter of Designation
CalRecycle requires a Letter of Designation (LOD) only when the Signature Authority
identified in the approved Resolution chooses to delegate their signature authority to
another person.
The approved Resolution must indicate the Signature Authority’s ability to delegate or
designate their authority. The applicant must upload the LOD prior to the designee’s
exercise of their authority. If the designee signs an application document in place of the
Signature Authority, the applicant must upload the LOD with their application.
The LOD must:
1. Be on the applicant’s letterhead.
2. Include the job title of the designee and the scope of the designee’s authority.
3. Include the time period during which the designee may exercise the authority.
4. Be signed by the Signature Authority.
The designee’s authority may not extend beyond the effective date of the approved
Resolution. For example, if the Resolution is effective until December 31, 2022, then
the Letter of Designation may not be effective beyond December 31, 2022. If the letter
does not identify a valid time period, the letter will follow the same time frame as the
Resolution.
226
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 14
Grant Review and Award Process
Grant Application Review Process
After the close of the application period, CalRecycle staff will review the applications for
completeness and eligibility. Only complete applications will be considered for award.
Grant Award Process
For qualifying applications, CalRecycle staff will develop funding recommendations for
the consideration and approval of CalRecycle’s Director, or their designee; tentatively
scheduled for April 1, 2022 and September 1, 2022. CalRecycle reserves the right to
partially fund or fund individual phases of selected proposals, and CalRecycle may fund
an amount less than requested.
CalRecycle reserves the right to not award any grant funds under one or more cycles.
Grant Award Conditions
If recommended for award, this grant will be subject to the following condition:
1. The recommended grantee for round one funding must pay all outstanding debts
due to CalRecycle, or bring current outstanding payments owed to CalRecycle,
by March 1, 2022.
2. The recommended grantee for round two funding must pay all outstanding debts
due to CalRecycle, or bring current outstanding payments owed to CalRecycle,
by August 15, 2022.
Failure to comply with the above condition will void the grant award.
227
Applications Guidelines and Instructions – Revised January 10, 2022
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program, (FY 2021–22) 15
Grant Program Administration
Application Certification
The Application Certification will be the Grant Agreement that binds the Grantee to
CalRecycle’s requirements as outlined in the documents below. These documents shall
guide the grantee’s administration of the grant project.
Following CalRecycle’s approval of the grant awards, CalRecycle will email grantees
the information below.
• Award email
• Exhibit A: Terms and Conditions
o Contain CalRecycle standard legal requirements for grants
• Exhibit B: Procedures and Requirements
o Contain specific requirements for administering this grant, including but
not limited to project, reporting, and audit requirements
Reporting Process
CalRecycle requires grantees to report on the progress and expenditures on a bi-annual
basis. The Procedures and Requirements document contains reporting information and
deadlines.
Note: This requirement is subject to change at CalRecycle’s discretion.
Payments
Funds must be placed into an interest-bearing account. Tracking and reporting of
interest earned (if any) on the funds is not required. All interest accrued and received
from the funds shall be used only for eligible expenses related to the performance of
this Agreement.
228
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REPORT BY THE FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE ON THE JANUARY 20, 2022
COMMITTEE MEETING AND APPROVE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE WILDLAND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the Fire Fuel Committee meeting on December 15, 2021, the Committee reviewed proposals from
interested parties to review the draft vegetation management in the canyon ordinance and to provide
educational workshops in the community to showcase appropriate vegetation management measures in
the canyons. The Committee recommended to the City Council to engage the services of Wildland
Resource Management. The Council shortly spoke about this item at the previous City Council meeting
on January 10, 2021 and decided to revisit the discussion for today's Council meeting so that all
members of the Council can vote on the matter. Councilmember Jeff Pieper was absent from the
January 10, 2022 meeting. Additionally, the Fire Fuel Committee was waiting for updated information
on estimated costs for consultant's site visits to private properties to offer guidance and approach to
managing fuel for properties abutting canyons. The cost for site visits was made available on the week
of January 17, 2022 and can be found in the attachment to this report.
DISCUSSION:
The Fire Fuel Committee met Thursday January 20, 2022 and discussed two of the five categories,
applicability and environmental regarding the vegetation in the canyons management draft ordinance.
The five categories are as follows: (1) applicability, (2) environmental, (3) appropriate standards for
mitigation, (4) cost, and (5) mandatory versus voluntary. The Committee discussed the details of
making a decision on whether to apply a specific slope standard to each canyon or apply regulations on
a case-by-case basis. The Committee then decided to make a recommendation to Council at the January
24, 2022 City Council meeting on a case-by-case premise as opposed to a standard due to the various
characteristics/hazard of each canyon. The Committee then discussed distance from the structure to the
canyon for regulation of the ordinance with three options:
229
A. Add 100 feet to the distance of the fire departments’ jurisdiction (defensible space 200 ft) with a
total of 300 feet from the structure of clearance needed.
B. If the property distance from the top of the canyon is beyond the defensible space amount (200 ft)
and does not go into the property’s canyon then the additional 100 feet would start at the top of the
canyon.
C. Residents would be required to clear the whole property (which would include their canyon)
For the discussion on the environment the committee requested staff to bring the list from the high
hazard plant prohibition discussed at the November 22, 2021 City Council meeting at the next Fire Fuel
meeting to better inform their discussion. The plants requested to be prohibited on any new builds in the
city were:
1. Pine
2. Pampas Grass
3. Palm
4. Juniper
5. Acacia (Shrub)
6. Eucalyptus
7. Cedar
8. Cypress
9. Italian Cypress
With the exception of Bougainvillea and Wisteria. The next Fire Fuel Committee meeting is scheduled
for Tuesday February 8, 2022 at 6:30pm and the committee plans to discuss the remaining three
categories. Staff recommends the committee receive this report, consider the Committee’s
recommendations, and provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Costs for Wildland Resource Management Assistance with Ordinance Development- $7,500
Canyon Management Data Collection and home inspections $9,250
TOTAL $16,750.00
ADDITIONAL COSTS
$500 Per site visit based on the aggregation of 3 visits in one day
$1,500.00 a day for 3 visits.
OPTIONAL COST
**Optional** $ 3,700 Training staff on canyon inspections
There is available budget in Emergency Preparedness account if the City Council decided to engage
Wildland Resource Management for services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report, consider Committee's recommendations and provide direction to staff.
230
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220120_FF_Agenda.pdf
Wildland Resource Management-Proposal to City of Rolling Hills UPDATED.pdf
231
1.PARTICIPANTS
2.ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.A.ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNAL BIN EVENT ON JANUARY 24, 2022 -
JANUARY 31, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
2.B.RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON THE CALOES/FEMA GRANT VEGETATIVE
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
2.C.DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF APPLICABILITY AND A STANDARDIZED SLOPE FOR
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ON STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO CANYONS
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and Consider
2.D.DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NATIVE/ NONNATIVE AND
INVASIVE /NONINVASIVE PLANTS AND DETERMINE MITIGATION MEASURES
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and Consider
2.E.CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT FIRE FUEL MEETING AND SET THE
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
AGENDA
Special Fire Fuel Management
Committee Meeting
FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Thursday, January 20, 2022
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
6:30 PM
Executive Order
All Committee members will participate in-person wearing masks per Los Angeles County Health
Department's Health Officer Order effective Saturday, July 17, 2021. The meeting agenda and live
audio will be available on the City’s website:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Members of the public may come in to City Hall wearing masks, per the new Health Officer's Order.
Zoom teleconference will not be available for this meeting, but members of the public can submit
written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your
comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please
do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.
Communal Bin 2nd Event Placement 2022.pdf
RHills - Vegetation Management Overview.pdf
Rolling Hills Vegetation Management_Bio Tech Memo.pdf
1
232
NEXT MEETING DATE
RECOMMENDATION: Consider Agenda Items
3.COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN BY EMAIL IN REAL TIME - PUBLIC COMMENT
WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda.
Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.
4.ADJOURNMENT
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agendas are available for review in the
City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting
to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of
this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
2
233
1
Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737
316 California Ave. #68, Reno NV 89509 carollrice@aol.com
January 20, 2022
Ashford Ball
Senior Management Analyst
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Sent via email to aball@cityofrh.net
Dear Mr. Ball:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit a combined proposal for consulting services to
the City, and to visit canyon properties to provide advice to the owners of those sites so
that they can appropriately treat their lands and advance the wildland fire safety of the
City of Rolling Hills.
The services will focus on two different types of activities. The first is to guide code
and ordinance development, primarily to assist the determination of what constitutes a
nuisance. Tasks would include the description of a nuisance in terms of fuel volume,
or arrangement of type (include possibly plant species). For this activity we propose
an arrangement based on responding to the questions of the city and offering
clarification and guidance. The need for clarification regarding CEQA can also be
anticipated. Because of the uncertainty involved in this activity, an arrangement based
on time and materials (with a set not-to-exceed ceiling of $7,500) makes the most
sense.
The second activity would be to offer consultations regarding canyon management.
The overall goals would be to (1) provide guidance to the community about best
practices and CEQA, (2) conduct canyon evaluations, and (3) as an optional activity,
train staff regarding how to evaluate the compliance and fuel management of canyons.
Based on the tasks associated wit h site visits, meetings, and consultation, we estimate a
cost of $16,750.
An important feature of this second activity is to offer advice to canyon owners. The cost per visit is
$500 separate from the total cost listed above, based on the aggregation of three visits in a day.
Because travel time is a significant portion of the cost, we aim to aggregate three site visits in one
day.
We look for ward to the possibility of working with the City on scheduling these visits; We assume
the City will gather the visit requests and facilitate the scheduling. In addition, this proposal is based
on having the City staff document the recommendations. This will result in a City record of
expectations, and increased knowledge base and expertise of City staff.
We would be pleased to expand the description of services and deliverables in following discussions.
These services would be provided by Carol Rice, with Wildland Res Mgt and J. Lopez, Los Angeles
County Fire Department (retired). Both have been working in the wildland urban interface for
decades, and are familiar with the environs and community of the City of Rolling Hills. Both J. and
Carol are both natural resource managers and wildland fire managers. Our combined experience
enables our ability to offer recommendations that minimize wildland fire hazards and environmental
impacts.
234
2
The initial work can b egin in as soon as agreements are reached.
Below please find a description of services and costs estimated for each task. Please let me know
if adjustments should be made so that we can better support the City of Rolling Hills.
Sincer ely,
Carol L. Rice
Task Cost
Guide code development Time and Materials, NTE $7,500
Work aimed at determining what constitutes a nuisance
E.g., fuel volume, fuel arrangement, species
Discussion of CEQA procedure and local regulations
Canyon Management
Identify/select good example of canyon mgt
Site visit to identify/select canyon where lessons can be learned $4,440
Develop BMPs for canyon management, considering local
regulations $1,480
Assumes work done by other entities, per BMP
Develop a checklist for evaluations $2,220
Spot check other inspections next year $1,110
Subtotal (Canyon Management only) $9250
Site Vists/ Traning Staff Services
Consultation services for canyon property owners, at $500/visit,
based on 3 properties/day. Estimated 24 site visits $500/site
Training of staff, via site visits to inspect 2 canyons (Optional) $3,700
235
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:COMMUNITY RECOGNITION LUNCHEON FOR RETIRING SHERIFF
DEPUTIES REECE SOUZA AND TAMI BOUSE FROM THE LOMITA
STATION.
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In February 2022, Deputy Tami Bouse and Deputy Reece Souza will be retiring from the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department.
Deputy Bouse and Souza are a part of the Community Resource (CORE) Team for the Sheriff's
Department Lomita Station serving the Peninsula for over fifteen years. The CORE team unlike patrol
deputies, provide education, and awareness to prevent crime and incidents. The CORE team of the
Lomita Station conducts the traffic enforcement within the city, often placing a black and white at
certain locations to remind drivers to slow down. The CORE team also conduct site visits in the
community to work with neighbors on invasion of privacy issues, attend Block Captain meetings,
neighborhood zone meetings to educate residents on being emergency prepared. In the last three years,
Deputy Souza has been a fixture at Block Captain meetings, coyote forums, and public safety forums.
Deputy Bouse attends all the Traffic Commission meetings to report on the traffic enforcement statistics
and trends. Deputy Bouse and Souza are engaging, and present. Their work has made them an
indispensable part of the community providing a sense of community and safety. A third deputy, John
Despot make up the CORE team at Lomita Station. Deputy Despot retired earlier than anticipated in
December 2021.
Captain James Powers of Lomita Station will be hiring a new CORE team for the station. If the City
Council approves the recognition lunch, staff will invite the new CORE deputies to attend the event for
an opportunity to meet the community.
DISCUSSION:
The event would comprise of catered lunch at the Council Chambers, a short presentation of Deputy
Bouse and Souza's career, and time for the residents to engage the deputies to wish them well.
FISCAL IMPACT:
236
There is available budget in account 917 Community Recognition to fund the recognition event. Staff
anticipates the event to cost $2,000. Adjacent cities like Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates
are interested in participating in the event and offered to share the expense. The Rolling Hills
Community Association may also want to participate in the event. Contribution amounts are unknown
at this time but if contributions are made by adjacent cities and or the RHCA, the cost to the city will be
less than $2,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and consider approval for hosting a community luncheon on Wednesday, February 9, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
237
Agenda Item No.: 13.B
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT ENFORCEMENT CASES QUARTERLY
REPORT FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2021. (OCTOBER 1
THROUGH DECEMBER 31)
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
The Code Enforcement division provides quarterly updates on code enforcement cases and fuel
abatement cases which consist of active and closed cases. The attachments show active and closed cases
consisting mainly of unpermitted work, dead vegetation and code violation complaints from neighbors.
DISCUSSION:
In the fourth quarter of 2021 (October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021), there was a total of 3 new
Code Enforcement cases that were opened: one (1) new fire fuel abatement violation cases and two (2)
new complaints unrelated to fire fuel abatement violations. During that same period, a total of 6 cases
were closed: four (4) vegetation related cases and two (2) non-fire fuel abatement violation.
Due to the busy holiday schedule, the Code Enforcement division did not hold the 4th Quarter Fire Fuel
meeting with the City's fire fuel reduction partner agencies. Staff sent emails to the participating
agencies requesting reports regarding Fire Fuel Abatement activities. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy (PVPLC) provided a report regarding the current Fuel Load Reduction Project. According
to the PVPLC, the third phase was completed in the fall of 2021.
The Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) has been working on clearing of the trails, riding
rings, and hillsides.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) indicated they do not have any reports of fuel
modification requests for the fourth quarter. They are looking to begin brush inspections starting
February and lasting through May.
The Code Enforcement Division is continuing to use iWorQ to generate quarterly updates and track
code enforcement and fire fuel abatement cases.
238
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
PVPLC Reducing Fuel Load Project Update -2021.pdf
4th_Quarter_Report_All_Closed_Cases_from_10.1.21-12.31.21.pdf
4th_Quarterly_Report_All_Open_Cases_from_10.1.21-12.31.21.v2.pdf
4t_Quarter-_All_Open_Cases_Comprehensive_Report_from_January_2018_-_December_2021.pdf
239
1
Update on Fuel Load Reduction
2021
Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
In the spring of 2021, The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) proposed
a third phase of fuel load reduction work in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve abutting the
City of Rolling Hills. The third phase was completed in the fall of 2021 and this document
serves as a report and update of the work completed, including phase one and two, which
were completed in the spring of 2021.
Phase 1
Approximately 18 acres of fuel load reduction maintenance were implemented. Of the 18
acres, 2 acres of previously removed acacia areas were monitored for regrowth (and treated)
and 16 acres of mustard and non-native grasses were mowed. All sites had biological
monitoring surveys done before any work was implemented.
Mowed areas in pink. Monitored areas in red
240
2
241
3
Phase 2
Approximately 15 acres of fuel load reduction maintenance were implemented. Of the 15
acres, 1 acre of previously removed acacia areas were monitored for regrowth (and treated)
and 14 acres of mustard and non-native grasses were mowed. All sites had biological
monitoring surveys done before any work was implemented.
Mowed areas in green. Monitored areas in dark blue
Mowed areas in green. Monitored areas in dark blue
242
4
243
5
Phase 3
Approximately 7.5 acres of fuel load reduction were implemented. Of the 7.5 acres, 2 acres
were Acacia removal and 5.5 acres were mowing of mustard and non-native grasses. The site
is currently being monitored for Acacia regrowth. All sites had biological monitoring surveys
done before any work was implemented.
Acacia Removal Site in Red Polygon and Mowing in Blue Polygon
244
6
245
7
246
8
247
9
248
Page: 1 of 1
4th
Quarter
Closed
Cases
Report
Cases closed from 10/01/2021 - 12/31/2021
Case
#
Case Date Address of Violation Description Case Closed
216 6/17/2021 5 Johns Canyon Road View 11/30/2021
153 10/22/2020 15 Portuguese Bend Road View 10/4/2021
248 9/9/2021 66 Portuguese Bend Road Tumbleweeds 12/16/2021
229 7/20/2021 88 Saddleback Road Dead Vegetation 12/15/2021
222 6/28/2021 77 Portuguese Bend Road Dead Vegetation 10/26/2021
138 8/11/2020 2 Appaloosa Lane Dead Vegetation 12/14/2021
Total Records: 6
249
Page: 1 of 1
4th
Quarterly
Opened
Cases
Opened Cases 10/1/2021 - 12/31/2021
Case # Case Date Address of
Violation
Description
254 12/30/2021 3 Appaloosa
Lane
Dead Tree
253 11/23/2021 2 Acacia Lane Unpermitted replacement of roof on guesthouse, unpermitted
demolition of pool deck, and no C&D permit.
251 10/13/2021 2 El Concho Illegal structure
Total Records: 3
250
Page: 1 of 1
4th
Quarterly
All Open
Cases
Report
All Open Cases from 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2021
Case # Case Date Address of Violation Description
225 7/6/2021 1 Chestnut Lane Illegal structure
246 9/1/2021 1 Crest Road East Tumbleweeds
205 6/3/2021 1 Hackamore Road Illegal construction and structures
223 6/22/2021 1 Pinto Road Dead Vegetation
241 8/10/2021 1 Ranchero Road Illegal construction
253 11/23/2021 2 Acacia Lane Unpermitted replacement of roof on guesthouse,
unpermitted demolition of pool deck, and no C&D
permit.
251 10/13/2021 2 El Concho Lane Illegal structure and no permits
206 6/8/2021 2 El Concho Lane Planting trees, illegal construction
66 3/11/2020 2950 Palos Verdes Drive Expired Permit
254 12/30/2021 3 Appaloosa Lane Dead Tree
245 8/23/2021 38 Crest Road West Dead Vegetation
244 8/18/2021 5 Caballeros Road Dead vegetation
239 8/3/2021 53 Portuguese Bend Road View Impairment
175 3/17/2021 57 Saddleback Road Dead Vegetation
208 5/25/2021 6 Pine Tree Lane Dead Vegetation
5 6/24/2020 61 Eastfield Drive Grading and Drainage
119 5/16/2019 67 Portuguese Bend Road Illegal Construction
213 6/11/2021 8 Crest Road East Illegal export of dirt
250 9/28/2021 8 Middleridge Lane Dead Vegetation
224 6/29/2021 80 Saddleback Road Dead vegetation
There are a total of 9 Fire Fuel Abatement related cases highlighted in green.
There are a total of 11 Non-related Fire Fuel Abatement cases.
Total Records: 20
251
Agenda Item No.: 14.A
Mtg. Date: 01/24/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
DATE:January 24, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
252