Hermosa Beach commission backs grant application for dry‑well stormwater project, with attorney review requested

Hermosa Beach — The Public Works Commission voted July 15 to authorize staff to apply for county Safe Clean Water funding to design a joint distributed infiltration ("dry‑well") stormwater project, while preserving flexibility on site selection and asking the city attorney to review legal constraints for Greenbelt use.

The action follows a staff presentation that described a conceptual, multi‑site approach divided between two LA County storm‑drain branches that discharge to the Gerondo (Hirondo) storm drain and ultimately Santa Monica Bay. Staff said the application must be filed by July 31 and would fund feasibility work and final engineered plans, not construction. If funded, staff estimated one year for design work and additional time to secure construction funding.

The concept reduces an earlier, larger proposal. Instead of the 2016 plan for a single large infiltration gallery, staff described a smaller set of about 13 dry wells for Hermosa Beach (eight in South Park plus four or five in either the Greenbelt or Bicentennial Park), joined with separate installations in Redondo Beach. Staff said concentrating capture closer to the confluence of upstream lines offers similar pollutant capture with fewer wells and lower cost than distributing 20-plus wells across the hill east of Pacific Coast Highway.

Why it matters: the regional watershed management plan and NPDES stormwater requirements set performance targets. Staff said the city faces fines if it fails to complete required projects, and the grant would pay for the technical work needed to show a site is feasible before construction.

Commissioners and residents pressed staff on technical issues that will be addressed by grant‑funded studies: seasonal groundwater elevations (staff said a 10‑foot minimum separation between the bottom of a dry well and groundwater is required), liquefaction and seismic impacts, pretreatment to reduce contaminant loads entering infiltration systems, maintenance and monitoring, and whether nearby homes or tree roots could be affected. Staff repeatedly emphasized the current stage is conceptual — "dots on a map" — and that final siting would depend on borings and geotechnical work.

Residents who spoke during public comment strongly opposed placement on the Greenbelt. Several speakers described prior Greenbelt proposals that were canceled, cited historical high groundwater and liquefaction concerns, and urged that no site‑specific work proceed on the Greenbelt without borings and CEQA review. One resident said, "We are flying blind" and called the Greenbelt proposal "pure guesswork" without site borings; another urged the commission to "freeze any decisions until full transparent geotechnical and CEQA studies are conducted." Staff responded that the grant would fund the necessary studies and that sites could be moved or discarded if infeasible.

The formal motion, passed by the commission, authorized staff to move forward with the dry‑well project concept, to include options presented and other feasible alternatives in the grant application, and asked the city attorney to promptly review whether the Greenbelt is a legally acceptable site for the improvements. The roll call recorded ayes by the commissioners present and the motion passed.

Next steps: staff will submit the grant application by July 31, pursue targeted geotechnical and hydrologic studies if funded or as feasible in advance, expand community outreach, and return to the commission and city council with detailed feasibility results and design documents before any construction decision.

Quotes: "This is step — it's not even step 1. We already mailed out 2,500 mailers," said the staff presenter, underscoring outreach plans. A resident warned, "We are flying blind," urging site‑specific borings for the Greenbelt. City staff said the project would not be installed where it would not work.

Outcome: Motion to pursue the grant application with flexibility and prompt city‑attorney review of Greenbelt feasibility — approved by the commission.