Loading...
SR-11-A (15) ! . . \ , --A. JAN 2 7 1987 GS:SES:NM:ak council Meeting: January 27, 1987 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt Resolution Endorsing the proposed Program of the pico-Kenter storm Drain Task Force to Reduce Pollution of the Santa Monica Bay INTRODUCTION This report presents information regarding the general problems associated with urban runoff and the specific problems of pollution of runoff waters of the Pico-Kenter storm Drain. This report also discusses efforts of City staff and the Pico-Kenter storm Drain Task Force to evaluate these problems and recommend measures to reduce the effects of storm drain pollution. In addition, this report also recommends that council adopt a resolution supporting the five point pollution reduction program proposed by the Task Force and requests that Council conceptually commit financial resources to this effort not to exceed $150,000 for installation costs and $85,000 for annual operating costs thereafter, as its share of costs for this important program. BACKGROUND Pollution problems associated with surface water runoff into the rivers, lakes and oceans of the world have been present for the past several hundred years. It is a natural cycle in some areas for the silt runoff to so pollute a river or lake that much of the plant and animal life dies during the rainy season. - 1 - \\-~ JAN 2 7 1987 . . Problems of surface runoff in some farm areas have led to pollution of rivers or lakes due to the high concentrations of nitrates and phosphates being added to the soil as fertilizer. Urban areas such as Santa Monica also experience problems of pollution of runoff waters. However, unlike the runoff caused by precipitation that results in the silting and fertilizer pollution referred to above, urban areas have runoff throughout the year. Low flow contamination results from runoff water which picks up bacteria and chemical contamination from road dust, oil residue in streets and parking lots, decomposed plant materials, animal dropp ings and food wastes that make their way to runoff waterways such as gutters, catch basins, streets, parking lots, private driveways and lawns. In addition, there are occasional accidental or intentional spills of larger quantities of pollutants ranging from petroleum products to raw sewage. All urban storm drains face these problems and these have been addressed to some extent in the recently passed (by Congress) Clean water Bill. However, this bill will not solve the problems of the Pico-Kenter storm Drain. There are five storm drains in the City of Santa Monica that empty into the ocean at Santa Monica Bay. There are a total of sixty-four storm drain outlets which empty into Santa Monica Bay. The Pico-Kenter storm drain is but a single element in this vast system constructed to channel and control flood waters. However, the Pico-Kenter drain is somewhat unique in that its outlet is several hundred feet from the surfl ine . Al though many other - 2 - . . drains on the Westside have this same configuration, they are not located at one of the most heavily-used beaches in the world. The Pico-Kenter drain was constructed in 1935. County flood Control staff state that at the time the drain was constructed the outlet was near the surfline. Over the years, however, sand has built-up to extend the distance the runoff waters must travel before reaching the surf. Newer storm drains such as the Ashland Avenue drain in Santa Monica, were constructed with an outlet structure that reaches into the surf at all times. A separate but related pollution problem of any storm drain system is the accidental or intentional spilling of chemicals into the system. This has occurred several times in the Pico-Kenter storm drain system over the past couple of years as evidenced by the presence of oil slicks and odors of petroleum products witnessed by lifeguards, beach users and City and county staff. Although the exact source of these spills has not been determined, City and County staff concur that the most likely source is from one or more of the automobile-related businesses located in the area served by the Pico-Kenter drainage system. The awareness of these continuing pollution problems by the public, city Council and City staff led to the formation of a mUlti-agency Task Force to evaluate the problems and develop recommendations to mitigate the problems. For approximately one year the Task Force, led by the city of Santa Monica, the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, has been meeting to evaluate problems of bacterial and - 3 - . . chemical pOllution associated with the urban runoff in the Pico-Kenter storm drain system. Representatives of other agencies and organizations including the County Health Department, state Fish and Game Department, County Lifeguards, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Assemblyman Hayden's Office, Heal the Bay and Los Angeles. City Councilman Braude's Office have attended these meetings on a regular basis. However, since the Pico-Kenter storm drain serves drainage areas in both the City of Santa Monica and the City of Los Angeles, and since the County of Los Angeles owns and maintains the storm drain, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Santa Monica and the County are the principal agencies responsible for identifying pollution problems and taking appropriate action to mitigate these problems. The state & Regional Water Quality Control Board must approve any remedial measures and have indicated conceptual approval of the program described below. The program incorporates concepts and ideas provided by Task Force members and other interested parties. PROGRAM ELEMENTS The Task Force has agreed upon a five point program designed to reduce the effects of and/or affect reduction of pollutant levels for both bacterial and chemical contaminants. These program elements include many of the concerns council has requested staff to study. These concerns and Staff I s findings will be highlighted in the discussion to follow. It should be noted that this program, if implemented, could become a model for other - 4 - . . local storm drains with similar problems. The five points are described below: 1. Placement of a sub surface low flow pine 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. The drain extension will remove bacteria-contaminated low flow run-off effluent from the surf area so that bathers will not come into contact with contaminated water. An additional benefit of the extension is that live bacteria counts of the varieties of concern (fecal coliform and enterococcus) are greatly diminished in the presence of seawater. Therefore, allowing discharge of these waters at a point well beyond the surf line results in cleaner waters near the shore for recreational use, and eliminates the safety problem that occurs when the runoff forms pools on the beach. The sensor/alarm component of the program is designed to accomplish several objectives. It will provide an early warning detection system whereby sensors installed in the drain will detect the presence of concentrations of hydrocarbon vapors indicating the presence of petroleum products. This will warn the appropriate agencies that a spill is occurring and that the pollutants should be intercepted before they reach the ocean water. The sensing devices will act as a continual monitoring system, providing valuable data about background levels of hydrocarbon presence and patterns of changing amounts of such contaminants. Placing enough sensors incrementally along the drain will assist in determining the source of any spills by - 5 - . . limiting the search area to the point of entry into the system and upstream from that point. This system is primarily directed at detecting and controlling petroleum pollution. The County Department of Public Works has prepared a conceptual description and preliminary cost estimate for the pipeline portion of this project and city staff has obtained sensor equipment and prepared cost estimates for this portion of the project. The project will include installation (below grade at the beach) of approximately 900 feet of 24 inch diameter pipe which will transport low flow runoff from the existing mouth of the storm drain to a point 600 feet beyond the surf line. The pipe will be equipped with a suitable baffle on the ocean end to prevent sand intrusion. The design will also include a valve and dam system that can be activated should a spill of hazardous material be detected upstream. This will allow the contaminant to be contained within the storm drain before reaching the ocean so that the material can be analyzed and properly disposed of, most probably using a licensed hazardous waste pumper and hauler. The Task Force proposed that the low flow drain extension should not be installed without the sensing system. This is recommended because, with the pipe extension, the flow would no longer be visible on the beach and oil spills would be deposited 600 feet beyond the surf without detection. This would not be consistent with the objective of reducing the amount of pollutants reaching the Bay. - 6 - . . The cost for design and construction of this drain extension is roughly estimated at $300,000 to $400,000. In addition to design and construction costs, other on-going costs associated with this system will include the costs of inspections, of monitoring the recording devices and analyzing the data, of leasing data lines if necessary, and of system repairs. In addition, it is estimated that an additional $20,000 per year will be required to maintain the sensor alarm system. Other storm drain extension maintenance costs will be absorbed by the County Flood Control Department. 2. An Increased Pollution Control Enforcement Program. This element of the program is designed to make better use of the codes and statutes available to agencies to enforce compliance with these laws. Each of the agencies involved will need to develop a program that best suits their requirements and budget constraints. However, there is a commitment from the three lead agencies to increase current enforcement activities related to pollution of storm water runoff. Santa Monica proposes to spend approximately $50,000 annually to enforce the recently adopted industrial waste control ordinance. This program will include requiring each hazardous or noxious waste-generating business which is not equipped with clarifiers for proper effluent separation to install and maintain such devices. This will affect nearly 400 businesses and almost every - 7 - . . restaurant and automotive facility in the city as well as many others. Other increased enforcement efforts will include: - Increased enforcement of Ifpooper scooper" ordinances designed to reduce the amount of animal fecal material coming in contact with runoff waters. In addition, the city of Santa Monica will enforce a new ordinance making it unlawful to place animal droppings in streets and gutters. - staff of the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation have indicated that they will conduct quarterly surveys of businesses and catch basins in the drainage area in an effort to identify evidence of willful pollution and to increase the visibility of enforcement efforts related to waste control ordinances. 3. Development and Implementation of an Education Program Designed to Reduce Non-Point Source Pollution. This aspect of the program is intended to inform the public as to the purpose of storm drains and sewers, how they differ, what the allowable discharges to each system are, and what the effects of illegal dumping can be. If properly done, this program can help reduce both bacterial and chemical contamination. Each involved agency will need to develop its individual approach with some common messages developed where appropriate. Santa Monica proposes the following activities: - Develop and distribute instructional mailer to Seascape mailing list. COST: $10,000 - 8 - . . - Incorporate wastewater system education within the current ongoing program of water conservation education. A full-time Water Conservation coordinator is currently on staff to do this. Paint signs at the catch basins warning the public of the illegality and the effects on the environment of dumping chemicals into the system. - Produce an educational video film regarding the subject of ocean pollution resulting from storm drain contamination and air the video on public access channels in the impact areas. - prepare public service announcements about the dangers of dumping chemicals or wastes into the storm drain system. Much of the staff time required to implement these programs can be absorbed into current operations. However, it is estimated that approximately $20,000 will be needed to provide professional services (graphics, video production technicians, etc.) required to produce effective educational materials. The estimated total annual cost for Santa Monica for the public education program is $30,000. The Task Force recommends that, in addition to education efforts on the part of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, a county-wide or even regional promotional campaign designed to reduce non-point source pollution of runoff waters should be implemented. suggested components of this program include: Some - 9 - . . - A IIWe Tip" program similar to the current City of Los Angeles program whereby rewards are offered for information submitted by individuals leading to the arrest and conviction of willful polluters. - A public education program with a consistent or common theme or even a symbol similar to Woodsy Owl or McGruff the Crime Dog. - More publicity about the penalties available for convicted polluters. Under this category of informing the public, Council requested that Staff improve signing at the drain outlet, including temporary mobile signs near or at the surf line. In an information item presented to Council on October 14, 1986, Staff recommended posting two additional cautionary signs north and south of the existing County Health Department signs, to provide increased visibility to the public. staff intends to install these signs before the summer season. staff is also developing methods of placing similar "mobile" signs to be placed near the surf line to alert those persons located at a distance from the permanent signs. These signs will be mounted on a base light enough for life guards (or other authorized personnel) to readily relocate them to conform with changing surf conditions, yet resistant to being carried away by vandals. - 10 - . . council also requested the increased use of human guarding to prevent the public from coming into contact with the effluent from the drain. Los Angeles County lifeguards who are posted on beaches within the Santa Monica city limits are currently following an established policy of IIred flagging" the area of the storm drain outlet to prohibit swim/surf activities in conjunction with the posted County Health signs. Their policy is also to attempt to keep all waders, swimmers and children outside the area marked by the area flags. This policy is effective during days of low beach usage, but on high usage days up to 100,000 people may be on the santa Monica beaches, and the 17 lifeguards available are hard pressed to effectively apply the policy. For the guards to be asked to increase the frequency of their patrols or otherwise increase the enforcement activities would probably be unproductive since, during the high usage period, they are by necessity occupied with their first responsibility which is protecting swimmers. However, City staff discussions with the lifeguards indicate that the lifeguards are quite sensitive to the problems associated with the drain and are usually the first agency to become aware when a spill occurs. Their prompt notification of City and County staff has been most invaluable in the past. 4. An Increased Effluent Monitorinq Program. This feature is included so that further problem identification can occur and the status of currently identified contaminants can be tracked. Preliminary indications are that random testing for any and all toxic substances is very expensive ($1,000 per - 11 - . . sample.} An increased testing schedule for bacterial contaminants is feasible and selective testing for certain other compounds can be done on a request basis. Again, however, the limitation is budgeted funds. Certainly, if evidence of contamination of a certain chemical is found, extensive testing must be done to determine concentrations, possible origin, and possible effects on the public. But universal testing for any and all toxic compounds on a regular basis is not feasible. other activities proposed to increase monitoring are: 1. Increase County Health monitoring for coliform bacteria (including enterococci) from weekly to twice weekly. Increase City monitoring of volatile hydrocarbons and coliform bacteria from monthly to bi-weekly. Maintain city of Los Angeles daily coliform bacteria tests. It is believed that tests for lead and other heavy metals is not necessary since previous tests have consistently shown levels which are below EPA limits for drinking water. 2. Recently, the EPA released the results of a study undertaken to find a more reliable method of determining the probability of the presence of pathogenic organisms in marine waters. The study was based on comparisons of the incidence of intestinal disorders resulting in bathers using heavily polluted beaches with those utilizing relatively unpolluted ones. The results indicated that Uenterococci showed the strongest relationship to gastroenteritis", which is the most common health effect associated with swimming in polluted - 12 - . . marine waters. In view of these findings, the EPA "strongly recommends that states begin the transition process to the use of enterococci.. II as the indicator organism for marine waters (as opposed to to the use of E-col i and/or fecal coliform for fresh water recreational areas). It is emphasized that the presence of these various organisms (including enterococci) in themselves do not represent a threat to the public. Rather it is their presence in certain quantities (as established by the EPA and other studies) that indicate an increase in the probability of the presence of disease causing organisms. city Council has asked Staff for information on the health risks for Bay users presented by the presence of enterococci in water samples analyzed by County Health authorities. While a comprehensive discussion of microbial water quality indicators is beyond the scope of this document, the following information should clarify somewhat the role of the bacteria and its use in the measurement of water quality. Enterococci is defined as a bacteria normally present in the intestinal tract of mammalian life, as is the e-coli and fecal coliform bacteria. All three are utilized by health authori ties as II indica tors. II These organisms are II counted II in laboratory analysis to indicate the "probability" of the possible presence of pathogenic (disease causing) organisms, since, due to their rarity, the detection and measurement of the pathogens themselves is considerably more difficult and - 13 - . . laborious. The total of these coliforms formed the basis for the development of a state Health Standard (1000 colonies/lOO ml) I and this standard has been used by health authorities for determination of beach suitability for swimmers for some years. However, coliform bacteria are also found elsewhere than in the intestinal tract, such as in common dirt, for example. It is not, then, surprising that the test results of storm drain runoff and the sea waters it enters show not only high but sometimes erratic counts of coliform content, as many types of foreign materials are contacted by the effluent en route to the Bay. 5. An Improved street Debris Removal Program. This aspect of the program is included because it is an operation under the control of both the City of Santa Monica and the City of Los Angeles. The task force agrees that effective street sweeping can reduce the amount of pollu ants entering a storm drain system. Dirt, organic material such as leaves and grass clippings, animal droppings, and discarded food can be removed from the street by the mechanical street sweeper before the material has a chance to be washed into the storm drain. It stands to reason that effective street sweeping will reduce the amount of pollutants which will reach the Bay. In addition, and possibly more important than street sweeping, is the necessity of regular cleaning of catch basins. Dirt, leaves, paper, and any other debris that is deposited in the street can eventually be washed to catch basins, which are openings to the storm drain. These catch basins act as traps for some of the debris and, if - 14 - . . not regularly cleaned out (manually or by using vacuum trucks), can be the source of bacterial contamination due to the decomposition of organic materials that accumulate. Currently I Santa Monica sweeps each street gutter lane in the city at least once per week. Commercial areas are swept three to six times per week depending on the area. The city of Santa Monica already uses wet sweeping methods and has a very functional vacuum sweeper. staff sees no significant improvements that can be made to the current street sweeping program in Santa Monica. The City of Los Angeles is still considering whether or not to increase street sweeping. The City of Santa Monica and City of Los Angeles will also evaluate the benefits of increasing catch basin cleaning as a further effort to reduce possible contaminants from the storm drain effluent. city Council has requested that staff investigate the feasibility of continuing to paint warning signs at catch basins. staff's investigations revealed that roughly 50 % of the 1,200 catch basins (storm drain inlets) in Santa Monica belong to the Los Angeles County Flood Control unit of the Los Angeles Public Works Department, and the remainder are owned by the City of Santa Monica. Approximately two years ago, the County began painting stenciled signs in the area of each of their catch basins warning that II dumping" materials in the catch basin is prohibited and perpetrators could be subject to a $500 fine. The painting of these signs is done any time County crews are working or cleaning a basin, but there is no full-time effort being made to complete - 15 - . . the signing in Santa Monica (or in the West Los Angeles basins contributing to the Pico/Kenter effluent) as their program is County-wide and contains 68,000 catch basins. City staff has embarked on a program to paint similar signs on all City-owned basins, beginning with the PiCO-Kenter storm drain system and then encompassing all others. The County-owned basins will also be signed utilizing stencils borrowed from them. A contract painter will be assigned full-time until the signing is complete. The message being painted on the City inlets is: NO DUMPING FINE/JAIL CITY OF SANTA MONICA STORM DRAIN A contractor will be used so that all City-owned basins can be marked in a relatively short time period rather than using City maintenance forces and marking a few each week. The total cost will not exceed $10,000. PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS The information outlined above is presented as a plan in concept for a program designed to reduce bacterial and chemical contamination of the Pico-Kenter Storm Drain. A great deal of inter-agency coordination and cooperation will be required. For example, City of Santa Monica and City of Los Angeles Staff have discussed the possibility of executing a Memorandum of Understanding that would provide for administrative details such - 16 - . . as which agency will pay the cost of disposal if a spill occurs. For example, in the case of a spill, it was discussed whether, if the origin of the spill could be detected, either by the sensor system or by some other means, the agency where the spill occurred would pay the cost of disposal. If the origin could not be determined the cities would share the cost. Many details such as these will need to be agreed upon. SUMMARY Santa Monica Staff, via this staff report, are presenting the Task Force proposal to City Council, asking for endorsement of the program and a commitment to participate proportionately in the funding of the program. It is anticipated that Staff of the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles will also request such endorsement. If these endorsements take place, budget estimates for implementing the program will be prepared so that requests for budget appropriations can be made. Should some or all of these program elements be implemented and the effects evaluated, valuable information will be gathered that should assist in improving storm drain effluent quality in other regions. - 17 - . . BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT above are as follows: preliminary cost estimates for the five point program outlined Item Capital Cost 1. Lowflow pipe extension and sensor/alarm system $400,000 2. Increased pollution control enforcement 3. Education Program 4. Increase Effluent Monitoring 5. Improved street Debris Removal TOTALS $400,000 Less: Contribution from City of L.A. and County (267,000) Permit Fees from Industrial Waste Control Program NET TOTALS 133,000 Footnotes: Annual Operating Cost $ 25,000 (l) 50,000 (2) 30,000 (3) 20,000 (4) 10,000 $135,000 ( 50,000) $ 85,000 1) Some portion of this cost will be assumed by County Public Works Flood Control Division as part of their system maintenance. 2} All Santa Monica costs are intended to be recovered through user fees. 3) This is a maximum figure depending on the need for outside consultants. other agencies will bear their own costs. 4) This will provide approximately 20 quantitative and qualitative tests in addition to current levels of testing. - 18 - . . To allow for a margin of error, it is estimated that City of Santa Monica costs will not exceed $l50,000 for a one-third share of the capital costs and $85,000 for annual operating costs. staff is not asking for an appropriation at this time. Staff is, however, requesting City Council conceptual commitment of funds to implement the pollution mitigation program. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Assuming appropriate approvals are received from the governing bodies of the city of Santa Monica, the City of Los Angeles and the county of Los Angeles, the des ign and construction of the drain extension and sensor/alarm system could be completed within eight months of the date of funding approval. Several of the other efforts such as the Public Education component can begin immediately upon receipt of endorsement from the respective governing bodies. PLANS FOR SUMMER, 1987 It is very unlikely that all of the necessary agency approvals and subsequent design of the drain extension improvements can be made prior to the upcoming summer season. Therefore, the agencies involved are again faced with decisions as to how to reduce the level of contact beach users have wi th low flow run-off~ The alternatives available are: 1. Reinstalling the temporary 161r pipe extension which moves the low flow waters for the drain outlet to the surf. This keeps the low flow waters from running across the sand and helps reduce the ponding that occurs. 2. Increasing the number of warning signs. Staff is planning to do this for the coming summer season. - 19 - . . 3. Fence off or close a section of the beach in the vicinity of the drain. 4. continue efforts to channelize the path of the low flow water across the sand to prevent ponding. This can be done by hiring a private contractor to use a large bulldozer to cut a path in the sand from the permanent drain outlet to the surf. This needs to be done daily because of tide and surf action. The Pico-Kenter Task Force will be studying these alternatives and will make recommendations as to the desired configuration of activities that will reduce the hazard to beach users. RECOMMENDATIONS The Pico-Kenter Canyon Task Force has spent many hours evaluating the pollution problems associated with the Pico-Kenter storm Drain and have culminated this study with the five point proposal to reduce pollution discussed in this report. The Task Force and involved staff now need direction from their respective governing bodies to continue the planning of this program and to receive a commitment that funding will be forthcoming. Therefore, staff is recommending that Council adopt the attached resolution which endorses the five point program and conceptually commits City funds, pending approval of a detailed program, in an amount not to exceed $l50,000 in capital costs and $85,000 in annual operating costs. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Stan Scholl, Director of General Services Neil Miller, Assistant Director of General services Ed Lash, utility Manager - 20 - 1 . <.. . . BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION # i7~~S' Council Meeting Date Yo/?Jr7' Agenda Item # /1- A- Was It amended? j\;lo ALL FOR CITY CfERK'S ACTION ORDINANCE It Introduced~ Adopted: Ali^lAYS PUBLISH A!X)P'l'!ill ORDINANCES* *Cross out Attorney's approval VOTE: Affirmative: Negative~ Abstain: Absent: -::i) PROOF VO'TE~ WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING DISTRInuIIuN': ORIGINAL 1:0 be signed, sealed and filed in Vault. ~-d NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: ) Department orIginating staff report ( * ) *CIty Attorney does not want copies of his OrdJ.nancesor reso.Lutions. i~anaryement SerYJices Lvnne Barrette -urdInances only b ... _ L- I ~ _ {;, . Agency mentioned In document or staff report (certified?) Subject file (agenda packet) 1 Counter file 1 Others -: (Review for departments who need to krlow). Airport Parking Auth. AudItorum Personnel Building Dept. Planning Cullnuni ty and Econanic [)eV. FInance Police (en- forcement?) General Servo / Purchasing Recr/Parks . Fire Library Transportation Treasurer Manager SE~D FOU~ COPIES OF ALL QRDINANCES TO: CODpD SYSTEMS, Attn Peter Macfearie 1. :_0 \fain' ,C't.r~et ~ " Avnl7 ~'~~v.' ~ersey_O'Z717 SEND FOUR COPIES OFAT.T. ORDTNA.NrFS TO: b~b.ra \1yr1.ck SAN'rA MO:JICA MUNICIPAL COURT " 725 MAIN STREEt Room ll8 SA;.lTA MONICA, CA 9040l *Check COde SectIOns before sending. -3 TOTAL COPIES , . . . RESOLUTION NO. 7369(CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ENDORSING AND PROVIDING FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR THE FIVE POINT PROGRAM PROPOSED BY THE PICO KENTER STORM DRAIN TASK FORCE DESIGNED TO REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF WATERS FLOWING THROUGH THE PICO KENTER STORM DRAIN WHEREAS, the city of Santa Monica recognizes the problems of urban water run off and the contamination of low flow waters which run through the City's storm drain system: and WHEREAS, the pico Kenter Storm Drain is a major regional drainage channel which has become the focal point of urban run off issues for this region: and WHEREAS, the city Council has previously endorsed the formation of a mUlti-agency task force to study the problems of chemical and bacterial contamination of the Pi co Kenter Storm Drain: and WHEREAS, the pico Kenter Storm Drain Task Force recommends the funding and implementation of a five point program designed to reduce levels of contamination of the low flow waters running through the storm drain to the Santa Monica Bay, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Santa Monica hereby endorses the recommendations of the pico Kenter storm Drain Task Force designed to reduce contamination of the low flow run off water passing through the Pico Kenter storm drain. i .Ii:. :p . . SECTION 2. The City of Santa Monica commits to funding on a pro rata share with the city of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles the cost of capital improvements to the pico Kenter storm Drain as proposed by the Task Force in an amount not to exceed $150,000. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Monica will provide funding, not to exceed $75,000 per year, to maintain and operate the storm drain improvements and provide funds for the purposes of: a) Increased public education regarding storm drain contamination, b} Increased enforcement of industrial wastes ordinances, and, c) Increased monitoring of contamination levels in the drain waters. SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica requests that the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles provide similar endorsements and funding commitments to this vital problem. SECTION 5. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~\--..~ ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney ... ~ . . I hereby certify th t the foregoing Resolution No. 7369(CCS) 27th January, 1987. . --.......... " was duly adopted by the the City of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on January 27, 1987 by the following council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Finkel, Jennings, A. Katz, H. Katz, Reed, Zane and Mayor Conn Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: councilmembers: None ATTEST: ~7'h~ City Clerk . 5oS-f!)O~-O/ . ,--- -, , ~J-><) "--..."~ '-- -~_...- " '\...J.JCt. _ . 'r- t ~.~"",---.,J' I.. / -' 5-E 13-A 14-A: PICO KENTER STORM DRAIN SANTA MONICA BAY: presented were the request of councilmember Zane to discuss the pica Kenter storm drain signage and testing information, continued from October 14, 1986 (5-E); the request of Carl Byker, Heal the Bay, to address council regarding pollution in county storm drains (13-A); and a report from Mayor Reed regarding appointment to the santa Monica Bay study committee (14-A) . councilmember Zane moved to hear from the public for three minutes each and combine li-A with this item. Second by councilmember A. Katz. The motion was approved by a voice vote. ~ayor Reed move~ to pull Item l4-A at the same time. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously approved. Discussion was held. During discussion, it was agreed to hold a study session in regard to the matter. Members of the public Carl Byker, AnguS Alexander, and Mike Frazer spoke regarding pollution in the bay from storm drain discharge. John Jurenka recommended a water truck to clean the streets. councilmember Zane moved to direct staff to (1) pursue improved signage, including Councilmember Conn's suggestion of temporary mobile signs that could be moved with the tide, (2) investigate the prospect of improving human guarding , conceivably using lifeguards of the area, (3 ) introduce more frequent testing for toxics several times a day for a period of time and intermittently to get randomized, better coverage of toxics in the storm drain, and (4) try to find out more about interococcis bacteria, the results of the County test and the possibility of finding ways to do our own testing of the bacteria to provide more accurate information on the safety of the beach area around the storm drain. second by H. Katz. During discussion, and there being no objection from the second, councilmember Zane accepted as friendly an amendment by Mayor Reed to add direction to staff to report on the possibility of painting signs on all the inlets warning that there is a fine for improper disposal into the storm drain. The motion was approved by the following vote: Council vote: unanimously approved 7-0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1986 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . . /L/-A CITY OF SANTA MONICA OCT 2 8 1986 INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO October 28, 1986 Council Members Mayor Chrlstine E. Reed Santa Monica Bay Steering Committee Some months ago Maureen Klndel, Presldent of the Board of Public Works for the City of L.A., called a meetlng of all official parties interested In the state of Santa Monlca Bay. At the tlme I notlced the Councll and staff Vla E-Mall and have been attendlng Slnce then. The report on the flrst meeting of thlS work effort was clrculated to Councll and lS attached for your lnformatlon. From this lnltial effort, 1n which our Assemblyman Tom Hayden's staff partlclpated, has come a study to be undertaken by SCAG, and funded from the Envlronmental Trust Fund of the C1ty of Los Angeles. This study 15 speciflcally aimed at answerlng the questlons about the safety of the waters In the Bay -- especlally wlth regard to publlC health concerns. I have agreed to serve on the Steerlng Commlttee for thlS study. The Clty Manager has asslgned Kenyon Webster to serve as staff for thlS effort. For your informatlon I have also attached a copy of the Study Work Plan and other material distributed wlth the agenda of the flrst meeting. There wlll be a serles of publ1C workshops conducted to provlde a forum for the publlC to pose their questions about the state of Santa Monlca Bay. The flrst workshop wll1 be here. 10 our (Dunell Chambers, on Saturday mornlng, November 8. /'-I-A OCT 2 8 1986 . CITY . OF Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA SOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MfMSERS F'1=!:E:S'::':E:1't1"" OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 485 3376 373 CITY H"LL Los A"GELES CI< 900 1 ~ 8 .J '1cI{ELVEY 5E:'CRET AR'P '-IAUqEEN A K'NCEL t-'O....E"l c e"lOOME.JR ....ICE PFlES"DE,"'T" GENERAL INFORMAT:ON 413$-338 , 485 3378 ROYAL 0 SCHWE:r-<OINGER PRE$I::f:.....r ::l!fO ..~fotPORE:' 48!5 3379 EDWARD J AVILA 485 3377 STEVE HARRr"'GTON 4B!5-3375 TO:v1 BRADLEY MAYOR APt< 2 { 1986 ~ /L~ ~L",-;ty-- (J -0-- l o--U-,r-- ~f ./r2c if01~- - r '-/~~ ' d+ '--I ,0-G---/l/1 C\/) , J l ~"\ "'-" Honorable Chr~stlne Reed, Clty of Santa MaUlea 1685 Maln Street ~ . Santa Monica, Cal~fornla Mayor ~ /k 90401 .L r..J Dear t4ayor Reed: Enclosed please find a copy of the statement of the outcome of the Santa Monica Bay meeting of March 25, 1986. Thank you fot your participation. Yours Very Truly, /' I -; <::::--~ ..7 //1/1 ~~ 1 ;[ ,~ 1...---____ I I I ! /' /' /f "" I < / '-.. L", l./~~ --' v - Qla.u.JULU-J~d ~UREE~ A. KI1~EL. President Board of Public Works Enclosure --~-- ,/1 t..-- ,,"-- \ ~ J'-- )/1 LL-- 1" i j . r v\; \ r i r '1 r..-G\. /t {~ i , d~ ---r--~ don/84 AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER . . SANTA MO~ICA BAY MEETING OF ~~RCH 25, 1986 STATEMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE ~EETIXG All attendees at this meet1ng agree that Southern California Coastal waters (SCCW) must be adequately protected. There have been many studies of the SCCW but there has not been a coordinated interact10n between public/env1ronmental groups/sc1entific co~~unity/public po11cy makers which utilizes scientif~c data as a base for establ~sh1ng exist1ng public policy. We bel1eve that SCAG can assume a leadership role 1n bringing together the public, env1ronmental groups, SC1ent1fic community and public policy makers to deternine what appropriate mechanisms are necessary to accompl~sh the protect1on of the SCCW and, further, we request that SCAG return to this group with a specific proposal as to how this might be accomplished. It is expected that proaucts of th1s effort would be useful to local, state and federal regulatory agenc~es in develop1ng responslble pub11c policy and sU1table long term water quality protect1on programs for our coastal waters. don/82 ( . IOUTHERn CALIfORniA AI/OCIATlon OF GOVERnmEnTI 600 kMllh Commonwealth Avenue .Juile 1000 .lo, Angele;. CallfornlO. 90005.213/385-1000 '++-1 {t'" _ .1, I .'-;.+-- . / / \ ~ 'I.~-.-/ ......... MEETING NO. 1 SANTA MONICA BAY STEERING CCM4ITTEE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1986 2:00 P.M. -s;:/ -j j-- \ Southern California Association of Governments 600 ~ . Commonwealth Avenue. Suite 1000 10th Floor Main Conference Room Los Angeles. California 90005 ~~~~~~~~~~~**********************************************************~...* Please contact Marianne Yamaguchi regarding attendance {213} 739-5791 AGE N 0 A 1. We 1 come 2. Introductions 3. Election of Chair/Vice-Chair 4. Purpose of Study I Phase r Work Program The overall purpose of the study will be discussed. as well as the Phase I Work Program approved by the Santa Monica Bay Organizing Committee, and antici- pated Phase II work. 5. Study Area Boundaries The Committee will be asked to approve the proposed study area boundaries for Santa Monica Bay contained in Attach- ment 2A. Background information on the Bay 1s included in Attachment 2B. Hon. Pat Russell 2:00-2:10 2:10-2:25 2:25-2:35 Gloria McGregor 2:35-2:50 Information/Discussion Attachment 1 Jack Anderson 2:50-3:05 Action Attachment 2A/2a ~i;b~r 15, 1986 ,,~ ~/, ' iY-( Vr' ~V / '::"vO'- \ \j / Yl 6. Public Workshops - November 8, 10, 17 The basic approach to the workshops will be discussed, as outlined in the Phase I Work Program. and the committee will be asked to give input on format, resource people and publicity~ 7. Scientific Review Committee (SRC) The initial role of this Committee will be to recommend to the Steering Com- mittee the format and scope of Phase II work, based on issues identified by the public~ A list of SRC members will be distributed at meeting. The list was developed based on recommendations by various agencies and groups. 8. Preliminary Identification of Public Questions/Issues Pertalning to Bay A primary objective of the Phase I study is to determine from the public what it views as the key issues pertaining to the Bay (via the workshops) to serve as the foundation for Phase II Work. SCCWRP and SCAG have put together a preliminary list of issues to be circulated as background material for the workshops. 9. Next Meeting Date(Adjournment The next meeting is sc~u]ect fo~__ December 17, 1986 at F:ce-p~~ . Marianne Yamaguchl 3:05-3:15 Discussion Joanne Freilich 3:15-3:25 Information Joanne Frei11ch/ Jack Anderson 3:25-3:50 Discussion Attachment 3 . . Attachment 1 /1 ~ ' l I 'M-.,'~ \ i SANTA MONICA BAY STUDY PHASE I WORK PLAN --!~ ..-... ~ /- .-/ Phase I Objective: To understand and clarIfy PUbl,c concerns a~d questions about the Santa Monica Bay environment and Its potent,al effects on human and marine organlsms~ as well as the managementJregu1atory act,ons relevant to the Bay. To use these concerns a~d questions to provide the focus for identifying~ reviewing, and consolidating informat~on cur~~~tiy availaole doout the condition of the Bay. Task I Identifying Study Area Identify the boundaries of the study area based on relevant information such as currents, location of maJor discharges and other Jurisdict,onal concerns. Prepare prel,m,nary maD dnd f,nalize after Steer,ng Committee has approved the boundaries (Task 2). Product: Schedule: Agency(s) : Study Area Map September 16 - October 1 SCCWRP _Task 2 Identifying Steering Committee and Hold Meeting Identify Santa Monica Bay Steerlng Committee (SMBASC) members from public~ environmental groups, scient,fic communlty and public policy members. Convene initial meeting to discuss Phase I objectlves, prellminary public issues and concerns regarding the conditIon of the Bay, study area boundaries and public workshop format/content. SCCWRP to assist SCAG in developing agenda materlals illustrating prelimlnary issues and concerns. Product: Schedule: Agency(s}: Preliminary issues/concerns, final study area boundaries, workshop format and content September 16 - October 15 SCAG; SCCWRP Task 3 Conduct Public Workshops/Evaluate Conduct 3 public workshops at different locations adJacent to the Santa Monica Bay study area. Workshops to be approximately 2-1/2 hours eachy aimed at recelving from the publ1C its questions and concerns regarding the condition of the Bay. Wor~shops to include a facilitator/moderator and resou~ce panel representing agencies such as wQes, Department of Fish & Game~ Department of Health Services. Product: Schedule: Agency{s) : Report outlinlng public lssues and concerns raised in workshops November 8~ 10. 17 (Workshops) SCAG September 23. 1986 . . Task 4 Scientific Review Committee Selection and Recommendations Es:aclish SClentific Review Commlttee (SRC) of scie~tists familiar wi~n the marine envlronment and ~elated DUbl;c health concerns to reVleN q~es:1cnsl issues identlfied in wo~Kshop report; and to forward recommercatlons :0 the SM6ASC regarding scope of Phase II worK program, based on results vf workshops. Pr~duct: Schedule: Agency(s}: Preliminary recommendations on Phase II work program October 1 - December 10 SCAG; SCCWRP Task 5 Steering Committee Workshops Evaluation Provide staff support, and organize 5MBASC meeting to review wor~shop results and SRC recommendations; develop 5MBASC overall comments and recommendations on outcome of Phase I and parameters for Phase II literature review. Product: Schedule: Agency(s): Recommendations for format and subject matter focus of literature review of Santa Monica Bay related studles December 17 {meetlng); December 30 (Report) SCAG Task 6 Progress Report Meetings Meet with Santa Monica Bay Organlzing Committee established by City of Los Angeles to report progress. Product: Schedule: Agency(s): Progress reports September 16, Octobey 21, December 18, January 6 SCAG; SCCWRP Total Budget: $25,500 . ;1.-./ / \ ~ \ \ 1 I i j { i I ~ ~ ~ --~ ------~-- 1I3AI1l9U!Jl'lo"Yscn ~ ~ U5 '" z ""= r/1 ,...., "" -J o c- .c zr"; :z- ,..- ~;z~ .... <( ... =-z Clio.! :~;:;S~= :~ ~<~ 0: _ or ",;,.,,,, 0 z: =.-; ..... """. ~ ... ~;~ "':~::t~:t i= -< ~ ";:!- - -- -- -- ("i V \J \j ."..-c, ,..... .~ ., ,.,- 'l.I ? .-J ,- --' \ .-.~< {: / ~ "... -"-,.-....> ~ ~ -~ // '.f': // . ..J .~ -:::-/" "~ /'-...J / --- ....-: V C -"" c Z " V ,J ;; .::-J Q ;n :.: - Z ;oj < ... '-.J - -' ,. ::i ~ r ~ r .-'- ~ I -' < '" I ..- ~ ~ I -" '-' Z \fI .k '. ~....O l.i.l ..., .... C. IX .... .-- '-' .::I: i \ .,..J ,/ ~ "-l ~ \ r- I -- -----::-- ! -' z ~ < ::: .... .--' '" ~ - '0 -:::-"" (I:J 0( -0. z j r <I .." C=.-- -<" "" . ----)-----< ! Attachment 2f. :,8 /;/~ J' (J/ I / I ! ( I --- [I(! , I I I ] ) ) ( , I I \ 1\ \ , I { 11/ i \ \ I \ \ I \ \ 1\ \.A/ /\ \ / \ ' '\ \. \ / ,"- \ \ i: r ... ~ I . '" -1 -.r _ E-:r _t _" ~ :: :r -' " :3 in :! ,- ~ ,~::L- -'-fIlZ~~ =z-:.:.l~- 0l.;:J Z ,:::::E .."...;~::= <:..1---1'""\ ~, (.l".=:~::: ~~=:;...:=::-: ;...;.;.:~~~ <~~;:;:~~ ~~rz;:i J __v~ .OO<1;..~ % .~ =:: ;.= - - ~~ .;;~ ~:: ....- -- ~~ -... ...... ~~ :;~ ~:: ;- ~ ., :; < z '" ~ '" " z . . Attachment 2B The Santa Monica Bay Background The Santa Monica Bay Study area is a part of the Southern California aight~ which extends from Point Conception to Cabo Colnatl on the Baja Coast. locally, the Bay is the result or a complex fauit system dominated by the San Anreas Fault, which has resulted in unusual sea floors of baslns. troughs and canyons. This topography allows deep~ cold waters and related nutrients to encroach shoreward 1n the continental shelf area. The oceanlC conditions are affected by countercurrents, several weather reglmes and various periods of extreme weather conditions. As a result. the typical condition of a completely balanced ecological system~ with steady mlxing and stable transport are not characteristlc of the Bay environs. ~: Manis intervention in the natural ecology of the Bay is tYPlfied by regulation of sediment loads in major rivers and streams~ fishing activities which have interrupted the natural ecologlcal chaln and deposition of wastes into the ocean. The regulation of sediment loads has interrupted the normal deposition of sediments on the beaches and 1n the ocean~ thereby significantly altering the shoreline. Continuous discharge of industrial and muniCipal wastewaters is an important source of fresh water to the Bay, as well as emissions of various biological and non organic constituents. These include such metallics as iron~ lead. chromium, silver, nickel, copper~ mercury, zinc~ manganese and cadmium; PCBls and DOT. Other wastewater constituents lnclude chemical oxygen demand, oil. grease. suspended solids~ ammonla nitrogen. phophate, phosporous~ biological oxygen demand, organlc nitrogen, dissolved silica~ detergents. cyanide dnd phenols. Contaminants are also contributed by surface runoff~ vessel antifouling paint and fuel consumption~ ocean dumping. airborne inputs and transport of pollutants from other areas by the California current. Ocean dumping in the past included refinery wastes, chemical wastes. filter cake, oil drilling wastes, refuse and garbage. radioactive wastes, military explosives~ dredge spoils~ and others. Some of these activities may still be occurring tod~. A recent NOAA study (March 1986) states that the highest concentration of total DOT on the West Coast has and continues to be in marine organisms in the Palos Verdes Penninsula area. Levels of DOT have declined dramatically, but levels of PCB's appear to have remained constant at unacceptably high levels. Land uses along the coast are varied, inCluding residential, commercial, industrial, public. agrlcultural and wilderness. Recreational activities are extensive and include swimming, boating (or sailing)~ wading, surfing, skin and scuba diving~ sunbathlng. plcnicking. camping, fishing and aesthetic enjoyment of the land. ocean and aquatic and bird life. Most activlties occur in re1atively sha110w water. over 90% within the 20 meter contour. (The continental shelf ranges from less than 1 km to 16 km. averaging about 5 km) Many marinas dot the coast. . . Page 2 Attac~ment 28 Offsnore oil production~ although not occurri~g in the Santa Monica Bay area, ;5 present in nearby waters; Santa Ba~bara to the north and Long Beach to t~e south. All drilling activities have been proposed 1n the Paclfic Palisaaes. There has been mining in the adjacent coastal lands in the past, and it is possible that surface transport of exposed m1ne~als could occur and affect the ocean waters in tne Bay. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of Los Angeles have recently agreed to settle a long standing suit, by providing that the City will give full secondary treatment to municlpal and industrial wastewaters being discharged into the Bay by 199B and will cease the discharge of sewage sludge into the Bay by 1987. Other sewage treatme~t plarts and storm water drains are located along the coast and discharge wastewaters which have received varying levels of treatment. The Bay condition has improved somewhat since the 1970's, evidenced by the recovery of kelp beds and the reappearance of various marine biota. However~ various soort fishes still appear ;-:0 be contaminated with toxic substances and are not considered suitable for human consumption. A recent request that the Bay be declared a Superfund s1te was denied by the EPA. The Southern California Coastal Waters Research Project (SCCWRP), founded in 1969 by five sanitation districts in Ventura, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, has extensively studied the Santa Monica Bay since that time. It has produced d maJor amount of research data. The EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Department of the Interior, Ca11forn1a Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Commissions~ academics and others have researched and written reports about the Bay, giving the Bay the clalm of being one of the most studied bodies of water in the world. The reports all indicate that the Bay has unacceptable levels of pollutants~ although there is not general agreement about the effects of these pollutants on marine and human life~ nor is there agreement on what managem~nt techniques should be recommended. The wide range of conditions, natural fluctuations and human impacts on the Santa Monica Bay and its environs have made easy answers to questions about the Bay not possible. There have been both negatlve and positive effects from man's influence on coastal waters. Marine ecosystems may be severely stressed. Human health may be adversely affected through fish consumpt1on and body contact with ocean waters. The identification of technological responses and/or perhaps changes ;n current management practlces ;s of 1mportance to bath affected involved agencies and the pub11c. '. . . . Attachment 3 October 79 1986 TO: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: SCCWRP and SCAG Staffs Subject: Preliminary List of Questions and Issues Regarding Santa Monica Bay and Vie,nity ~~~~~;~~~~~**************************************************************** The major objective of Phase I of the Santa Monica Bay Study is to identlfy and clarify those issues and questions of concern to the public regarding the condition of the Bay. These concerns will be utilized as a focus for the r~v;ew of available informatlon on the Bay during a future phase of the Study. While there currently exists much information and research on the BdY9 it has never been consolidated into a form that has been readlly -~available or understandable to the non-scientific community. Through this latter effort 9 it is expected that there will be a better understanding of what is known and what is still unknown about the condition of the Bay and its effects on humans9 and marine life. and what additional research might be necessary to "fill the gaps'l in information. The outcome of this work ;s also expected to aid in the development of appropriate policy actions for the Bay. Therefore~ during Phase I~ staff will be seeking input in the identification of issues fram the Steering Committee and through the publlC workshops. To initiate that process, the following preliminary list of questions and issues has been developed by SCCWRP and SCAG staffs. Please be prepared to discuss, clarify and prioritlze at the Steering Committee meeting. '. ' Da.ge 2 A.ttachmer:t 3 ~ Is Santl Mcn~ca Bay getting cleaner or dirtier? . . 2. What changes have occurred in the Bay over time--blol~glc~ ecologls, levels of contaminants, turbldityjclarity of water? 3. ~re areas contiguous to Santa Monica Bay gett1ng cleane~ or dirtier? How much ccntimlnation do these contiguous areas contribute to Santa r-1omca Bay? 4. How does the condition of the Bay compare with other maJor coastal water bOdies along the West Coast? 'r5:\ .;0 Is it safe to s~im a~d fish in Santa Monica Bay? wastewater outfalls is it safe to SWlm or fish? drains ;s it safe to swim or fish? How c10se to the How close to the storm ~ ~ 00 pathogenic viruses or bacteria travel from the outfalls to the ~ beach? /' .......... ~) Can contaminants be absorbed through the skin? Through mucous membranes? How do these contamlnants affect human health? 8. Should sportfishing guidelines concerning the taking and consumption of contaminated fish be applied to commercial fishing? Should sportfishing (sport & commercial) be restricted to specific geo- graphical areas? Should fishing guidelines be applled to specific l~speCies or all species in each area? ~What contam1nants or pathogens are present 1n storm dra1n runoff? -10. What are the sources of contaminants, in order of increasing importance (how do wastewater outfalls compare to other sources of contaminants)? What contaminants have reduced or increased? Over what period Of time? 11. How do the effects on marine life from wastewater outfalls and storm drains compare to those caused by other factors (e.g. commercial fisheries, climate, currents)? 12. If the two major wastewater facilities went to complete secondary treatment, what changes in the environment could we expect to see, over what period of time? 13. What are the effects of thermal pollution on the marine ecosystem and what do these effects mean to the general populatlon? 14. How does entrainment (i.e. power plant intake) affect marine life? (~hat is known about the old dump sites in the Bay? How are they .~regulated and/or monltored? What impact do they have on the Bay envlronment? 16. What is the extent Of the DOT/PCB problem in the Bay, and how does it affect marine biota/human health?