SR-505-004-01 (6)
.
505- oo~-o/
.
/I."E.
SfP - 8 1981
GS:SS:NM:sm 9/2/87
Council meeting:septernber 8, 1987 Santa Monica, California
To: City Council
From: city staff
Subject: Pico Kenter Storm Drain Lead Agency
Introduction
This report recommends alternatives for determination of a lead
agency for improvements to the Fico Kenter Storm Drain.
Background
In January 1987, Council approved a five-point program for
interim improvements to the pico Kenter storm drain. The
improvements to be implemented included:
1. Placement of a subsurface low flow pipe from the end of the
storm drain to a point 600 feet beyond the surf line and
installation
of
a
sensor/alarm
system
within
the
Pico/Kenter storm drain;
2. An increased pollution control enforcement program;
3. Development and implementation of an education program
designed to reduce non-point source pollution;
4. An increased effluent monitoring program;
5. An improved street debris removal program.
The Council urged staff "to expedite the project." In addition,
Council requested that staff investigate the feasibility of
implementing a treatment process as a more permanent solution to
the problem. Since that time, significant progress has been made
- 1 -
/I--E
SEP - 8 1981
.
.
on items 2, 3, 4, and 5. Limited progress, however, has been
made on placement of a permanent subsurface low flow pipe due to
a disagreement regarding which entity should be the "lead agency"
for environmental review.
Lead Agency Issue: An initial environmental study regarding the
placement of the low flow pipe to a point 600 feet beyond the
surfline has been completed by a consultant who concluded that
there is no significant impact caused by the installation of the
drain pipe extension. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, prior to such
installation, a lead agency must be determined, a public hearing
held on the environmental documents, and findings made to
determine whether or not a Negative Declaration is appropriate or
if an Environmental Impact study must be done. The City Attorney
has recommended that the County of Los Angeles be the lead agency
since it owns and operates the storm drain and since the storm
drain serves other portions of the county in addition to Santa
Monica. He believes that the city becoming the lead agency would
be an unnecessary risk in view of the pollution issues concerning
the effluent which is discharged into Santa Monica Bay.
The County Counsel believes that the City of Santa Monica should
be the lead agency because Santa Monica initiated the project and
because the primary reason for the project is that contaminated
waters flow across the Santa Monica beach. They further believe
that the primary beneficiary is the City of Santa Monica.
- 2 -
.
.
The discussion between the two groups of attorneys has been
continuing for approximately three months without success. staff
does not have strong feeling on which agency should be the lead
but is very concerned that the proj ect be builtin accordance
with Council's direction and in accordance with the approval and
agreement for financial participation by the City of Los Angeles
and the County of Los Angeles.
Financial Impact
The financial impact to the city for assuming the duties of lead
agency is negligible except for future possible liability costs
which are unknown. Regarding funding of the storm drain
improvements, all three of the agencies involved (City of Santa
Monica, City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles) have
commi tted a one-third share of the proj ect. The most recent
commitment came from the City of Los Angeles whose City Council
approved the funding in early August.
Recommendation
staff recommends that city Council authorize the city of Santa
Monica to become the lead agency for this important project in
view of great local concern regarding pollution of the Santa
Monica Bay and problems with storm drain effluent across Santa
Monica beach.
Prepared by: Stanley E. Scholl, Director of General Services
srpicokn
- 3 -