City of Hermosa Beach --- 04-28-98


EDUCATIONAL SITE VISIT PROGRAM MEMORANDUM

OF UNDERSTANDING


Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with The County of Los Angles Public Works Department for the educational site visit reimbursement program.


Background:

The County of Los Angles and the City of Hermosa Beach are Permittees to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Storm Water Permit (NPDES Permit) issued by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Both the County and the City are required by the NPDES Permit to perform industrial/commercial education site visits, to apprise business owners and facility operators of the NPDES Permit, and best management practices to enhance runoff from these properties.

On August 12, 1997, the County Board of Supervisors approved making funds available from the County to the City for site visits and authorized the County of Los Angles Public Works Director to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the City. (see attachment A)


Analysis:

The City of Hermosa Beach has been conducting site visits since 1994 as it was mandated by Natural Resources Defense Council lawsuit settlement. Staff is recommending that educational site visits be continued with the County of Los Angles site visit reimbursement program. Inspections were made at 209 potential sites for storm water pollution in 1997. Results of the Hermosa Beach 1997 site visit survey and the comparison with the previous years are attached as Attachment B.



Fiscal Impact:

Since 1994, the site visit inspection has cost the City approximately $7,000 per year from the Sewer Fund. The County Site Visit Reimbursement Program will relieve the Sewer Fund obligation for this cost.


Agendas / Minutes Menu | Top of Page | Back to Agenda




HERMOSA BEACH 1997 SITE VISIT SURVEY

AND COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS YEARS



Food Service Businesses

Point scores of the 122 food service businesses ranged from 0 (low pollution potential) to a high of 76. the average score was 17. A chart showing the point distribution is provided (see Figure 1). Five (5) businesses had score of over 40, which was an "elevated score" as determined in the original survey. Other results, and a comparison with earlier surveys are:


Food Service Businesses

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

Sites with Exposed Drain Inlets

19%

27%

19%

Sites with Good housekeeping

94%

98%

99%

Sites with Personnel Training

20%

80%

81%

Sites that Recycle

47%

61%

55%

Mean Score

27

22

17

*Score range is 0-100 with 100 being the greatest pollution potential

(Figure 1)



Automotive Services

Point scores of the 56 automotive service businesses ranged from 0 to a high of 52.5. the average score was 12.5. A chart showing the point distribution is provided (see Figure 2). No businesses had score of over 55, which was an "elevated score" as determined in the original survey.


Automotive Services

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

Sites with Exposed Drain Inlets

14%

34%

25%

Sites with Good housekeeping

82%

100%

93%

Sites with Personnel Training

38%

88%

82%

Sites that Recycle

56%

72%

70%

Sites with Storm Water Treatment Systems

1

4

9

Mean Score

28

19

12.5

*Score range is 0-100 with 100 being the greatest pollution potential

(Figure 2)



Other Businesses

Point scores for the thirty-one (31) other businesses ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 15. The average score was 5. A chart showing the point distribution is provided (see figure 3). No businesses had scores of over 25, which was an "elevated score" as determined in the original survey. Other results, and a comparison with earlier surveys are:

Other Businesses

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

Sites with Exposed Drain Inlets

13%

34%

23%

Sites with Good housekeeping

60%

100%

100%

Sites with Personnel Training

6%

67%

74%

Sites that Recycle

17%

22%

39

Mean Score

13

12

5

*Score range is 0-100 with 100 being the greatest pollution potential

(Figure3)


Agendas / Minutes Menu | Top of Page | Back to Agenda




ATTACHMENT B

No measurements of pollutants in storm water run off were taken and a high score should not be construed as an indication that significant storm water pollution has been or will be occurring from any specific site.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

Staff is recommending that Educational Site Visit be continued with Los Angeles County Site Visit Reimbursement Program.

The following conclusions and recommendations are limited and based upon observations and information obtained during interviews and site walks, not analytical testing of runoff.

  1. The mean scores have improved (decreased) over the previous surveys.
  2. There has been significant improvement in knowledge regarding storm water pollution at most of the sites inspected. However, knowledge of the underlying causes of storm pollution was still lacking. The distribution of public outreach materials should continue.
  3. Although a majority of trash dumpsters were observed with the lids closed, a sizable number were open. A significant amount of litter had accumulated around 53 others. Outside storage of waste grease is usually located adjacent to the garbage dumpsters. Grease spills were not uncommon around these areas. An emphasis should be made to encourage business to:
  • Keep the dumpster and outside waste grease storage areas clean,
  • Ensure that all dumpsters and waste grease drums are equipped with lids, and spill container, and
  • Ensure that lids are closed on all dumpsters and waste grease drums when not in use.
  1. Outdoor storage (without covering and/or spill containment) of pollutant materials such as drums or junk parts from auto repair shops should be discouraged.
  2. All private storm water treatment systems and all tributary yard drains or catch basins should be painted or otherwise marked with the Heal-the-Bay or a similar "Don't Dump, Drains to Ocean" logo.


All storm water treatment systems should be inspected on an annual basis by City personnel just prior to the rainy season. These treatment systems could become breeding areas for mosquitoes and should be properly treated or pumped dry during the dry season.
Agendas / Minutes Menu | Top of Page | Back to Agenda