> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # City has a swell plan for $200 - URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-has-a-swell-plan-for-200/ - Published: 2006-07-17T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T21:07:55.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Eyeing a clean start* *By JACQUELINE LEE Special to the Daily Press* CITY HALL — Elected officials here have moved forward with a plan to clean up Santa Monica Bay — at a cost of $200 million, with local property footing the bill for a portion of it. That is, if voters approve a stormwater fee increase in an upcoming election. The City Council approved the Santa Monica Watershed Management Plan with a 6-0 vote at a special council meeting last Wednesday — the same day the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board decided not to adopt enforceable clean water standards that could have gone into effect this past weekend. The watershed plan, which was drafted by city staff along with Brown and Caldwell, an environmental engineering consulting firm, has been in the works for years. It’s a result of the board’s regulations that require cities to reduce pollution in Southern California’s surface waters, including Santa Monica Bay. The plan outlines for the next 10 years many projects, including installing screens on thousands of catch basins throughout the city. Santa Monica already has hundreds of screens in place at catch basins, located curbside on many sidewalks, but there are thousands more throughout the city without them. Within a couple of years, all runoff during dry weather months would be diverted to sewer systems — not storm drain outfalls that lead directly to the ocean. Santa Monica has outfalls at the end of Pico Boulevard, Montana Avenue and another one to be built at Wilshire Boulevard. There also is one just south of Will Rogers State Beach, which is in the city of Los Angeles. The water quality board had approved stricter dry-weather standards for regional beaches three years ago, setting a July 15, 2006 deadline for cities to meet cleaner surface water standards as outlined by the 1972 federal Clean Water Act. Because the water quality board canceled its meeting last Thursday when it was expected to vote on enforcing the standards, there will be no penalty if Santa Monica is found to be in violation. Residents will not know, however, whether Santa Monica is in compliance with the act until early next week, after the environmental nonprofit organization, Heal the Bay, takes its daily water samples this weekend. “They could pollute all they want (Friday), but (Saturday) is the compliance deadline,” said Dr. Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay. “If Santa Monica doesn’t have the beaches clean, they will be in violation of the Clean Water Act. “Is it enforceable? That is the question,” he added. “There’s been no fines levied against anyone. There are no fines feasible until (Saturday). The vote on Thursday was to make that deadline enforceable. That is why the environmental community was so upset.” The City Council’s approval of the watershed plan is City Hall’s most recent step towards improving water quality. The City Council’s next move will be to hold a public hearing on July 25 and then vote on whether to place a Clean Beaches and Ocean Funding measure on the November ballot to pay for the watershed plan. The watershed plan would be a $200 million investment towards the next 20 years, city officials said. They hope that Santa Monicans will contribute less than a quarter of the cost, citing access to statewide funds and a partnership with the Los Angeles County as other sources of revenue. Officials estimated that doubling residents’ stormwater parcel fee, which currently totals $1.25 million a year, would generate more than $3 million a year and $40 million over the next 10 years. A recent polling of more than 400 residents throughout the city indicates that most property owners would support the local government increasing their annual stormwater fees from $36 to $100\. That’s for a single-family parcel — multi-family and commercial properties could be more or less, depending upon acreage and usage. The fees would be adjusted for inflation. The City Council asked staff to write ballot language to be adopted at the July 25 meeting. The county deadline for the measure to be placed on the November ballot is Aug. 11. City Councilman Ken Genser voiced his uncertainty as to whether the measure should move forward due to the school district also having bond measures on the November ballot. Genser said the City Council should be comfortable that the measure “meets needs to pass,” and thus advised his colleagues to “think hard about when it should be placed on the ballot,” or utilize the option of having a special election. “When people really understand it, they’ll go for it,” said City Councilman Bobby Shriver, suggesting that efforts need to be made to inform citizens about the measure if it’s placed on the November ballot. The City Council directed staff to meet with school district officials on the issue of both the district and City Hall having tax or bond measures on the November ballot, and to study how successful previous money-related measures have been. “Heal the Bay strongly urges the City Council to go forward and put this measure on the ballot in November,” Gold said. “There’s a much better chance on the November ballot... You want to have those votes when you have a big turnout. With a bigger turnout, people are going to vote to do things that are going to be better for the city.” The City Council needs to act quickly because it may not be until January 2008 before the city is able to apply the parcel tax revenue, Gold said, adding that he doesn’t recommend waiting to hold a special election for the parcel tax measure. “The turnout for special elections is often poor,” Gold added. “You hold a special election, and people resent even participating in a special election because it costs taxpayers money. It’s not a good use of taxpayer money.” Heal the Bay’s Annual Beach Report Card found that the five most polluted beaches in the state were all in LA County, and that 37 percent of the county’s beaches monitored last summer were frequently unsafe for swimming, according to a press release issued by Heal the Bay on July 12. “We have people in the water every day, 365 days a year,” Gold said. “We must make sure our beaches don’t look like a landfill after each rain... Water needs to be looked at as a resource more so than a problem we need to clean up.” City Councilmen Richard Bloom and Shriver, who seconded the motion to approve the plan, were both concerned with whether surrounding municipalities will be paying their fair share or whether Santa Monicans will be footing 100 percent of the bill to clean up the bay that is a regional problem. “Some people will start to say, you should wait for the county,” Shriver said. “Others will start to say, when they get the chance, that it’s very important for Santa Monica to do this right away so other cities will follow Santa Monica’s lead.” Discussion also focused heavily on how the special tax would be applied and which bodies within the city would be exempted, such as the school board and Santa Monica College. “I’m not thinking money and cents,” Bloom said. “I’m thinking percentage of the problem. As a community, we all contribute to the problem that accumulates in the bay. Everybody should be contributing. The idea here is fair share.” The schools are contributing less than 5 percent to the problem and would generate less than 5 percent of the funding, said John Fairbank, ofFairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, a Santa Monica-based opinion research firm, that conducted the resident poll earlier this year. “The schools are not legally obligated to pay that special tax... so we’re recommending that we exempt the schools to begin with,” Fairbank said. “We’re calling on the college and district to do the right thing. Perhaps getting access to some of their open space. Perhaps that is the beginning of a win-win partnership.” City Councilman Kevin McKeown stated several times that the watershed plan “is just awesome” and affirmed “this plan as a wonderful piece of work.” Despite Heal the Bay’s stance that the council needs to act quickly on this urgent matter, Gold agreed with McKeown’s comments. “You have two of the most progressive cities on this issue,” he said at the Wednesday meeting regarding LA County and Santa Monica. “Be proud that you have a very strong plan in front of you today.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 17, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/071706.pdf?ref=smdp.com)