Loading...
CC SR 20160301 05 - Torrance Airport Regional Storm Water Quality ProjectRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: 03/01/2016 AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business Consideration and possible action to support a regional stormwater quality project at Torrance Airport to meet MS4 Permit requirements. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of commitment for the purposes of a grant application to support a regionally -beneficial stormwater quality project at Torrance Airport. FISCAL IMPACT: Positive, but not yet determined Amount Budgeted: $150,000 Additional Appropriation: None at this time Account Number(s): 330-3037-461-73-00 ORIGINATED BY: Andy Winje, PE, Senior Engineer"-` REVIEWED BY: Michael Throne, PE, Director of Public Works APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Staff Report from June 16, 2015, City Council meeting (page A-1) B. Sample Letter of Support (page B-1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff has identified an opportunity to partner with the City of Torrance and other Peninsula agencies to develop a superior stormwater quality project to satisfy the City's MS4 Permit obligations. The City of Torrance would take the lead in applying for State grant funding to develop a stormwater quality project at Torrance Airport, and it seeks a letter of supports from the City for this application to be submitted to the State this Friday, March 4, 2016. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The City has obligations under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Permit) to reduce or prevent runoff -borne pollution in the City's drainage system from entering its three receiving waters: the ocean (Santa Monica Bay), Los Angeles Harbor and Machado Lake, located in the Harbor City neighborhood of the City of Los 1 Angeles. Of these, the obligation to Machado Lake is the most costly and most urgent. Non-structural control measures and structural (construction) projects to accomplish this were identified previously by the Peninsula Watershed Management Group (Peninsula WMG) in the draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP), and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) in June 2015. The Council authorized Staff to submit the draft EWMP that was presented at the June 16, 2015, City Council meeting (Attachment A). The draft EWMP is now under review by the Regional Board with approval expected later this spring, at which time it will be brought back to City Council for adoption. Water from the north side of the Peninsula travels through Peninsula -agency storm drains, then through City of Torrance drains before it discharges into Machado Lake. The draft EWMP identified two projects on the Peninsula — the Palos Verdes Landfill Subsurface Wetland and the Valmonte Subsurface Wetland (see Table 1 below) — that would serve to achieve Permit compliance by treatment of the runoff destined for Machado Lake before leaving the Peninsula. Table 1 — EWMP-Identified Potential Projects There are very low tolerances for pollutants entering the lake, so the treatment facilities would need to be sophisticated and costly. While not ideal, they are the best of several bad options available for projects sited on the Peninsula. The combined capital cost range for these two projects is estimated at $77M to $113M, not counting operations and maintenance costs. The City's fair share would range from $26.7M to $39AM (midpoint is $33M) if cost sharing is calculated based on tributary area, which is common. Furthermore, the projects will need to be completed by September 2018 for compliance with strict MS4 deadlines, which would be unlikely given their complexity. The significant new costs projected by the EWMP have been discussed at meetings of the Water Quality Flood Protection Oversight Committee and the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee, who have both expressed the need to develop funding sources for stormwater quality projects. In addition, the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities' City Managers Group published a report in June 2014 identifying the magnitude of and reasons for the significant and staggering Permit compliance costs for many cities (the report is posted on the City's website at http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1325). The strategies identified 2 Range of Capital RV PresumedPresumed RPV Share Proposed Project Cost of Cost Area Palos Verdes Landfill $57.8M to $86AM 38% $22M to $33M Subsurface Wetland Valmonte Subsurface $19AM to $26.5M 24% $4.7M to $6.4M Wetland TOTAL $77.2M to $112.9M $26.71M to $39AM There are very low tolerances for pollutants entering the lake, so the treatment facilities would need to be sophisticated and costly. While not ideal, they are the best of several bad options available for projects sited on the Peninsula. The combined capital cost range for these two projects is estimated at $77M to $113M, not counting operations and maintenance costs. The City's fair share would range from $26.7M to $39AM (midpoint is $33M) if cost sharing is calculated based on tributary area, which is common. Furthermore, the projects will need to be completed by September 2018 for compliance with strict MS4 deadlines, which would be unlikely given their complexity. The significant new costs projected by the EWMP have been discussed at meetings of the Water Quality Flood Protection Oversight Committee and the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee, who have both expressed the need to develop funding sources for stormwater quality projects. In addition, the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities' City Managers Group published a report in June 2014 identifying the magnitude of and reasons for the significant and staggering Permit compliance costs for many cities (the report is posted on the City's website at http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1325). The strategies identified 2 include pursuit of partnerships on regional projects and seeking grant funding from the State and other sources (pg. 56 and elsewhere). Since the writing of the draft EWMP, the Peninsula WMG (which is chaired by the City) has learned of a project that the City of Torrance is pursuing to meet their MS4 requirements for Machado Lake. This project, if modified to accommodate flows from the Peninsula, can eliminate the need to build the other two EWMP projects described above. By effectively preventing the Peninsula's pollutants from entering the lake, an upsized Torrance project would meet the MS4 requirements for the City's portion of the Machado Lake watershed. Thus, the City's obligation for structural solutions for Machado Lake (Public Works construction) under the current Permit would be satisfied. The Torrance project is much more cost-effective than the two EWMP projects because it is based on a less-expensive technology (infiltration vs. treatment). Projects relying on detention and infiltration were rejected in development of the Peninsula's EWMP because of limited availability of large lands areas needed for detention and because the geologic conditions of the Peninsula do not often favor infiltration. Because no infiltration locations on the Peninsula could be found for this watershed, the two treatment wetlands projects were put forward as best alternatives. However, the location of the stormwater infiltration project at the Torrance Airport, where pipes from the Peninsula converge and where flow from the Peninsula can be conveniently captured, detained and infiltrated before it enters Machado Lake, enables the City to participate in this more economical route. Additionally, infiltrated water would recharge groundwater for some future beneficial use. Furthermore, since the project has already developed some momentum from Torrance's preliminary planning efforts, it is much more likely than the two EWMP projects to be completed prior to the 2018 Permit compliance deadline. Torrance is seeking a competitive State grant to support its design effort for the project and welcomes our partnership. Multiple -benefit and multiple -agency projects make the grant application much more attractive for award, thus increasing the project's chances for outside funding. By participating, the City stands to benefit by drastically reducing the anticipated capital cost to comply with the Permit requirements for Machado Lake. The Torrance project's design effort is expected to cost around $1 M and the grant amount requested is $500,000. The remainder of funding for design would be shared among the participating agencies, based on their tributary area contributing runoff to the project. Final cost for design will not be known until the grant award is determined, a design consultant is selected by Torrance, and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between cooperating agencies is finalized. Looking beyond the design phase, the estimated cost to design and build the project, including the capacity to capture runoff from the Peninsula, is currently about $14.5M. Although this number is very preliminary and will adjust as the design and construction bidding are completed, it is clear that the project will be much preferable financially as compared to the two EWMP projects. The City also stands to reduce its cost of compliance by cost-sharing the project with 3 other agencies. If all of the Peninsula agencies participated with Torrance, the City's share would be about 17%, less any grant funding. If only Torrance and RPV participate, the City's share would be about 46%. The City's share of a final project could be reduced from about a third for the EWMP projects to as little as 17%, and perhaps less if grant funding is obtained for the Torrance project. Table 2 presents a worst-case scenario (Torrance and RPV only) sharing of project costs for the Torrance Airport project. In this scenario, the City's capital outlay for the project (and full compliance in the Machado Lake watershed) is estimated at $6.71 M. That still compares favorably (by a factor of 5) to the $33M estimated as the City's share of the two EMWP projects. Staff would likely recommend that the City partner with Torrance for this project, whether or not a grant is received and whether or not the other Peninsula agencies participate, based upon these costs savings alone. Table 2 — Torrance Airport Project Estimated Costs City Tributary Area Design Cost Construction Cost CM, Inspection & Contingency Total Projected Torrance 53.7% $0.54M $5.37M $1.88M $7.79M RPV 46.3% $0.46M $4.63M $1.62M $6.71 M TOTAL 100% $1M $10M $3.51VI $14.51VI Torrance has requested a letter of support for the grant application, and Staff has prepared the attached draft letter for the City Council's consideration. The letter states that if the grant is received, the City would enter into an MOU to share in the cost of design. If the design cost is reduced to $500,000 by award of the full grant request and if no other agencies participate, the City's design cost share obligation would be about $231,500 (46.3% of $500,000). However, it is likely that other Peninsula agencies will participate in design and bring the City's obligation down further, perhaps to as little as $85,000 (17% of $500,000). City Council is invited to modify the draft letter as desired, but the Torrance is required to submit the application by this Friday, March 4, 2016. The City Council would have the opportunity for further input into the process when the MOU is brought back for approval, and again prior to continuing into the construction phase. CONCLUSION The City has an enormous financial burden under the requirements of the MS4 Permit to protect Machado Lake against pollutants found in the City's urban runoff. Partnering in the Torrance Airport project could reduce that estimated burden by a factor of five or more (reducing it from $33M to $6.71 M), and greatly increase the chances to meet the Regional Board's 2018 compliance deadlines, avoiding the potential for fines and El penalties. A letter of support committing the City to a fair -share of the cost to design the project will increase the chances for successful grant funding and provide access to partnership on a project that would be superior to the two that can be built on the Peninsula. 5 MEMORANDUM kibr& RANCHO • • TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS _PLI� DATE: JUNE 16, 2015 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT DRAFT ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER U,",' Project Manager: Andy Winje, Senior Engineerc,0 RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to submit the Draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board on behalf of the Peninsula Water Management Group in accordance with the permit compliance schedule. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The latest Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Permit), which addresses urban runoff and storm water quality, was adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) on November 8, 2012. The Permit outlines three means of compliance, with the most robust protections afforded to permittees that adopt a so-called Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). In 2013 the City Council agreed to join other agencies having stormwater jurisdiction on the Palos Verdes Peninsula to develop an EWMP. The agencies are known as the Peninsula Watershed Management Group (Peninsula WMG). The City of Rancho Palos Verdes serves as the administrative lead for Peninsula WMG and is required by Permit regulations to submit EWMP plan documents on or prior to June 29, 2015 to remain in compliance. The group has met and worked collaboratively to prepare these documents with the assistance of technical experts hired through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Peninsula WMG members, which was entered into for this cost- sharing purpose. The EWMP outlines activities that the City and other agencies of the Peninsula WMG will need to undertake, including general schedules and estimates of cost, both of which present challenges. The documents are being made ready for submittal by the deadline on June 28, 2015. The documents to be submitted, subject to a few minor changes, are available for review on the City's website at http://www.rpvca.gov/347/Stormwater-QuaIity-Program. 1 A-1 Authorization to Submit Draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program June 16, 2015 Page 2 of 6 The City Council has previously agreed to participate in the Peninsula WMG and has authorized the development of the group's draft EWMP. At this time, staff intends to update the Council on the group's progress and simply seeks authorization to submit the draft EWMP to the Regional Board by the June 28th deadline. BACKGROUND The Permit gives cities and agencies three pathways towards compliance: (1) compliance with the baseline Permit and its numeric water quality standards; (2) development and implementation of a watershed management program; and (3) development and implementation of an EWMP, which was selected by the Peninsula WMG. The EWMP option provides additional compliance coverage (i.e., protection against liability under the Clean Water Act) for the Permit's water quality standards so long as permittees effectively develop and implement an EWMP. The EWMP is a comprehensive assessment of the conditions of the watersheds that the City collects water from and the receiving water bodies to which it discharges. A detailed analysis of steps necessary to achieve pollution reduction goals, including identifying specific and effective treatment systems, is based on that assessment and analysis. The approach required by the Permit is much more complex than previous permit terms. It is has also been expected that costs for development and construction of the specific treatment systems will be an order of magnitude in cost higher than what agencies across LA County have been used to spending on water quality issues. For that reason, there have been several collaborative, yet still incomplete, efforts to develop funding sources for these programs. These include efforts by the County Flood Control District and the Los Angeles County Division of the California Contract Cities Association. Staff has presented information on the new Permit requirements to the City Council on several occasions. These presentations have outlined the evolution of the City's response to the Permit requirements as Staff has worked to determine the most advantageous path forward. At its June 18, 2013 meeting, the City Council authorized Staff to notify the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) that the City would follow the EWMP approach in conjunction with the Peninsula WMG. A Notice of Intent was filed on June 27, 2013 with the Regional Board to signal this approach. The Regional Board approved the Notice of Intent. On August 6, 2013, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the Peninsula WMG agencies in order to begin collaborative work on the EWMP for the new Permit requirements. Because it is the largest agency by area within the group, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes serves as the administrative lead. On October 1, 2013, the City Council awarded a contract to John L. Hunter & Associates to begin work on the EWMP documents. On June 17, 2014 the City Council directed staff to submit an EWMP Work Plan on behalf of the Peninsula WMG. The EWMP Work Plan outlined the technical process and methods to be followed to develop the EWMP itself. On two occasions (May 8, 2014 and May 6, 2015) the Peninsula WMG hosted public 2 A-2 Authorization to Submit Draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program June 16, 2015 Page 3 of 6 workshops to encourage stakeholder input on the process, intent, findings and conclusions of the EMWP. Stakeholders invited included City Council, Water Quality and Flood Protection Oversight Committee members, other governmental organization staff and officials, non-governmental organization staff, environmental organizations, community organizations and Peninsula residents. A member of the RPV City Council was present at each of these workshops along with staff from other Peninsula WMG agencies and other stakeholders (South Coast Botanic Garden, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, Cal Water, residents, etc.). A full list of invited stakeholders, excerpted from the EWMP document is included as Attachment A. In addition, three separate meetings were held with specific stakeholders who asked to have additional input. Two of the City's citizen committees (Water Quality and Flood Protection Oversight Committee and Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee) have also received briefings on the requirements of the Permit and the potential impacts to the City's operations and budgets. City staff posted the draft EWMP documents on the City's website on May 21, 2015 and provided notice of their availability in the weekly administrative reports on June 3rd and June 10th. A list serve message was also distributed on June 3rd for those subscribed the Storm Water Quality category. DISCUSSION Permit Requirements. The purpose of the EWMP is to achieve compliance with the Permit through identification of pollutants of concern in receiving water bodies, quantifying the pollution contributed in runoff from the Peninsula watersheds and developing watershed control measures to reduce or eliminate those contributions. Certain control measures must be undertaken by all jurisdictions and these are described in the Permit as Minimum Control Measures (MCMs). These measures are primarily non-structural in nature and are a continuation or enhancement of the specific measures the City is already undertaking. However, there are some significant additions to this list. The City must now address non-stormwater runoff more vigorously, including monitoring and potentially source tracking of dry weather flows at the City's storm drain outfalls, and a program to reduce runoff attributable to irrigation overspray. The City must also implement some standard structural control measures, including adoption of a Low Impact Development ordinance (which the City Council adopted on April 21, 2015) and a commitment to installation of full capture screens in catch basins not previously requiring a retrofit. While these MCMs require an increase in effort compared to what the City already does, the real impact to the budget will be on the Targeted Control Measures (TCMs). Lists of the new and enhanced non-structural MCMs and non-structural TCMs proposed are included in Attachment B. As the name implies, TCMs are pollutant control measures that address specific pollutants in specific watersheds. Some of these pollutant / watershed pairings have County -wide prescribed programs (known as TMDLs) to which the City is already committed. The Permit also requires the MS4 operators to identify non-structural and structural measures that will address all remaining predicted pollutant exceedances. It" A-3 Authorization to Submit Draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program June 16, 2015 Page 4 of 6 These pollutant predictions, and the prescribed methods to control them are detailed by a computer modeling effort known as a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA). The RAA mathematically tests the sufficiency of a proposed treatment system to reduce the pollutant of concern in the receiving water body. Each watershed group was required to adopt an RAA as part of the process of developing an EWMP. RAA Findings. The RAA takes into account anticipated pollution reduction across all watersheds for non-structural elements of the EMWP. It also takes into account anticipated reductions from regional projects already underway. In the case of the Peninsula watershed, these efforts did not produce enough of a reduction to avoid the need for more structural projects. RAA modelers proposed several technologically appropriate projects to meet the remaining demand for pollutant reduction. These were sited where stormwater might be treated most effectively before leaving the Peninsula watersheds. Of the three catchments in which Peninsula drainage flows, the Machado Lake watershed presents the biggest challenge to the Peninsula WMG. Because of limited real estate for treatment, geologic hazards that preclude infiltration options, and an extremely low tolerance for nutrients (primarily phosphorous) in Machado Lake, treatment solutions are limited and expensive. Two projects were identified in the RAA, at the Palos Verdes Landfill and at the Valmonte Canyon, respectively, that provide sufficient treatment. A smaller, but still significant issue exists in the watershed draining to the LA Harbor, and the RAA has identified a potential project at Eastview Park to sufficiently reduce pollutants. Fortunately, the Peninsula's contribution to pollution in the Santa Monica Bay is or can be managed by current programs or retrofitting catch basins with trash screens, so no major capital projects are required in this watershed. A map showing the location of the projects considered by the RAA followed by a summary table of those projects, excerpted from the EWMP, is included as Attachment C. Cost and Schedule Implications. The cost to implement these capital projects is difficult to estimate at this time. Rough costs for construction, permitting, engineering and project management can all be extrapolated from industry data. Further work would need to be done to determine the regulatory and political feasibility of these projects. In addition, land acquisition, legal process and financing efforts are too vague to estimate at this time. Furthermore, while the projects would be built in only one jurisdiction, they benefit others so costs should be shared. Details of cost allocations among the Peninsula agencies would have to be worked out, but they are typically founded on tributary area. Table 1, below, summarizes data from the EWMP regarding cost, schedule and tributary area for the three identified projects discussed. S1 i Authorization to Submit Draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program June 16, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Table 1 — Project Data for RAA Identified Potential Projects Proposed Range of Range of Annual RPV Compliance Project Capital Cost O&M Cost Tributary Deadline Area Eastview Park $12.8M to $0.19M to $0.2 M 100% 2032 Infiltration Basin $16.6 M Palos Verdes Landfill $57.8M to $0.86M to $1.OM 38% 2018 Subsurface Wetland $86AM Valmonte Subsurface $19AM to $0.29M to $0.32M 24% 2018 Wetland $26.5M Table 1 also includes the final water quality compliance deadlines for these projects. Some of the watersheds have more urgent timelines than others. The Machado Lake watershed has a significant deadline in 2018. The LA Harbor watershed project could conceivably be pushed out to the early 2030's. Despite the Permit deadlines, there is also considerable uncertainty in the schedule, as legal challenges, new watershed information and funding mechanisms come to light. The Permit's interim and final compliance milestones for the various pollutant / waterbody combinations are shown in Attachment D, excerpted from the EWMP. Using the assumption that the costs would be allocated purely on tributary area, which may or may not be what is decided, the City's share for these projects could range between $49 million and $56 million to build over the next two decades and more than $580,000 per year to operate and maintain once they are built. But the uncertainties with these figures are as significant as the projected costs themselves and no conclusion should be drawn other than this: a large financial outlay, likely in the tens of millions of dollars over the next two decades, will be needed to implement the plans outlined in the EWMP. Adaptive Management. These proposed pollution control measures are based on modeling estimates for pollution levels, assumed treatment system performance and very limited field data to calibrate the results. The Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP), formerly approved by Council and currently under review by the Regional Board, will function as a data collection program and is also a part of the City's Permit response. The CIMP will begin implementation later in 2015. Additionally, progress toward the water quality objectives, reconsideration of the water quality standards by the regulatory agencies, and other new information, may justify new or modified pollution control measures. The data gathered over the next few years and the further studies into appropriate treatment solutions that will continue after the EMWP is submitted will contribute to a fine tuning process known as Adaptive Management. Through Adaptive Management, the City will periodically adjust its programs to respond to the availability of new information and actual pollutant measurements observed over time. 5 A-5 Authorization to Submit Draft Enhanced Watershed Management Program June 16, 2015 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION The City has committed itself to the EWMP process, including a CIMP, by earlier City Council action in accordance with Staff's recommendations. The draft EWMP identifies MCMs and TCMs that the City will need to implement in the near future to remain in compliance with the Permit. Despite likely and significant cost increases to the City and challenging schedule milestones, the City has committed to the EWMP process. Some modifications to the control measures listed in the draft document will likely occur due to review by the Regional Board and through the Adaptive Management process as better data become available. In any case, the City will be required to significantly increase its level of effort to remain in compliance with the increasingly complex demands of the newest MS4 Permit. The Permit compliance schedule requires that agencies committed to the EWMP method of compliance submit their draft document for review by June 29, 2015. Therefore, Staff recommends that City Council provide authorization to submit the posted draft EWMP, subject to minor technical and editorial changes, in accordance with the Regional Board's deadline. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The EWMP is a planning document that must be reviewed and approved by the Regional Board, and any implementing projects and actions would proceed only after Regional Board approval is granted. Therefore authorizing submittal of the EWMP to Regional Board is not a project for purposes of CEQA because it is not an approval of the plan. (14 Cal Code Regs. 15378(c).) Upon approval by the Regional Board, the City may undertake implementing actions which will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT Aside from the project costs estimated in the tens of millions of dollars over the next decades identified earlier in this report, Staff is still developing costs to implement the CIMP and non-structural aspects of the EWMP on an annual basis. The CIMP is expected to be approved by the Regional Board sometime this summer and monitoring work will begin within 90 days of approval. The Draft FY2015-16 Budget has an allocation of $190,000 for the CIMP program. The EWMP program is not expected to be approved until early 2016 but the Draft FY2015-16 Budget allocates $100,000 to implement the non -capital aspects of the program that will require immediate attention. These appear to be sufficient for the coming year. Better estimates of annual costs will be known after the EWMP has been approved and will be worked into future budgets. Attachments: A — Stakeholder Incorporation (page 7) B — New and Enhanced MCMs and TCMs (page 8) C — Existing and Planned Regional BMP Projects (page 10) D — Interim and Final Water Quality Compliance Milestones (page 12) Palos Verdes Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management Program 3.2.4.2.4. STAKEHOLDER INCORPORATION STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS In addition to participating in the various Technical Advisory Committees and Subcommittees, the Peninsula WMG has actively encouraged stakeholder input on the Peninsula EWMP development. Two workshops were held to engage stakeholders in the Peninsula EWMP development process and solicit input. Key stakeholders were identified and invited to participate. These stakeholders include: • Key City Staff including, but not limited to, the following: o Administrators o Public Works o Stormwater Managers • City Council Members and Water Quality and Flood Protection Oversight Committee • Governmental Organizations Staff including, but not limited to, the following: o California Water Service Company (CalWater) o LA County Parks o LA County Sanitation Districts o Regional Water Quality Control Board'nu are coraiatty ix'Y'rexi t© o US EPAC"UM* .1, enc o West Basin Municipal Water District tilePaluavV'rtiesPe"'"$"�� • Non-Governmental Environmental�pord""Axed a"dnhan�a0t tYlatershed Manug�"�etxt !'rog Organizations Staff including, but not limited to the following: o California Coastal Conservancy; o Council for Watershed Health o Environment Now o Heal the Bay " o Los AngelesWaterkeeper,�;�< o Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)''t4=.neer+a o Palos Verdes Botanic Garden o Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. (PVPLC) o Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School� District o Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission o The Nature Conservancy o Watershed Conservation Authority o Water Replenishment District of Southern California • Non-Governmental Organizations Staff including, but not limited to, the following: o LA County Parks o Palos Verdes Golf Course o Palos Verdes Peninsula News o South Coast Botanic Garden (SCBG) o Trump National Golf Club • Palos Verdes Peninsula Residents 3-50 P a g e a A-7 m 7 c .E a, a a) E E N 0 a �Ixi ixl ':�f�l�lxl Ixix! ixlxl I�Ixlki�l � I� z� ♦❑ ❑❑❑❑a, �C3 ❑ C3 C3 ❑000 ❑ ❑? M, C f O i v E _ f ♦❑ ❑ ♦♦♦♦ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑♦00 ❑ ❑:� s v m E { v E i 1 u( i .Y 7 .V a) E C 0.a N c al ^ m a) m E ip c, a) c E 'II v p C a Y -pi o a) v v v i a) N ° Q v o ,«- Y 0 3 Y — O E _ .0 C C o N t t I - � tm o- d m S Y fa m i 3 i p }ate) ° a m 3 m 3 ao O a) 3 Ez r -a m L= E r a) 0 c c ^ v E' e v c c E m a u o p w b4 i c t E E O tin C ami •y. ra a) N° -O m •m � N N C '� O p •C G` Y _. .V ,� GA 0 W 1 v Y m oc + t C ; N a) C v Y do Y ti a c cr a O E p Z r ° I 'O E O a ` d O C N a) W on u I t M O VI to d a) v b4 O C Y V C J j a => 'O .L N ca Y i c E C E N V c ` O_ +..I O Y •� N Z C z� ♦❑ ❑❑❑❑a, �C3 ❑ C3 C3 ❑000 ❑ ❑? M, C f O i v E _ f ♦❑ ❑ ♦♦♦♦ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑♦00 ❑ ❑:� s v { v E i 1 u( .Y 7 .V a) E C 0.a N c al ^ m a) E ip c, a) c E 'II v p C a Y -pi o a) v v v i a) N ° Q v o ,«- Y 0 3 Y — O E _ .0 C C o N t t - tm o- d m S Y fa u p }ate) ° a m 3 m 3 ao O a) 3 m x_ " -a m L= E r a) 0 c c ^ v E' e v c c E m a u o p w b4 i c t E E O tin C ami •y. ra a) N° -O m •m � N N C '� O p •C G` Y _. .V ,� GA 0 W 1 v Y m Q C N N a) C v Y do Y ti a c cr a O E p a ° 'O E O a ` d O C N a) W on u O M O VI to d a) v b4 O C Y V C C j a => 'O .L N ca Y i c E C E N V c ` O_ +..I O Y •� N y a C a) C O u C C L 7 a1 •d u -- O m B v O '� p r E cL p E C u a u� a d0 �. ' o ` u > O E u u C `a j i U \ h Q C ,C N (a V N L a C m fo a) p' a) E fa Caj C E ea N O N C �? v a a) a a) o a) a) 40. C '�; 'p a) a) . Y aJ O 0 a) .s C c o u N v u uu¢ u C a) N p C •h V1 (6 C f6 ` fa N fa ` ra fa aD fa N a C N ♦- L d Q m C m l V w w w w w d Lnn w a w w w� Ou w} v CL m cu o' c� �x v x v a z a z s z a! z a z a z a z a z a z x , I x x x a z a z z a z z a z z ! Fo. T>*01 O' O♦� ♦ ♦O1,00001 O O O♦ a a E E = 0 � i 0 E c o a do a C N C •C N C C I m p O ° O c; nnl °° u v m c m u 3 a u o v m E E c o V) «€ c a u a v a p U on ° : m a do `° nn 'n m a a a, c m o a a bo 0 c a c c c a c on a CL Q nn a o a) To ° ii y c c � m .0 v o u� nco u U Y@ y v — a m y a, N v! v E c o c r a aEi 3 II �' oc a, o o c o a D o = E o °e Y o. 'i u a a a J o O .y m n m 3 u a+ a Q a) T a) m Y 'S c c + v c m v t° .!:n i-0 E v v n v .� v v .4 a) o o i c nco do m w ��, m 0/c `o O c aci a iz v `Q 1- c •2 ;4 m" on ^ U m— _ 3 !fin o c m v c m a o T �.. r. m 'C3 'II hA 7 V '4 ao '° m O m c o °° a a) a m c a a a m u a `O U c w m c v c o m ° m o a Q u n c u v E >_ a s > m v CO U N C C 3 m U N N N O. m o C 'N N a) a) w T= C a) C c �n O_ — Y V al m m m O 7 c 'oa V O 'i. �) D_ m c OQ. 7 �° .` a a � C H 2 a w a S w` cc w a .� 5 m a as O a t7 w 'O Is 9 A-9 m a_ m Palos Verdes Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management Program 3.2.4.2. REGIONAL BMPS A summary of existing and planned Regional BMPs within the Peninsula EWMP area is summarized below in Error! Reference source not found. and Table 3-4. Dail? Figure 3-1: Existing, Planned, and Proposed Regional BMPs. Error! Reference source not found. 3-28 1 P a g e 10 A-10 m m a v s C � V O_ v Y [2 � 0 'a+ d � v U i c o N c V O Y C Ou c -o ya o r4 r4 0 _q o i--4 � -4 N to :M ,tN -. H N V1 F ai d d U 3 N A •� LU 2 = m CA S Q .= LU Q > a 2 so Y a m OE LU to o c d IA L Y > •Eb d G. u v on ° cz u3 q oco u ❑ C3 v V s .4 yr a) u cu u W ca� C N C U N i CL O v CQ O 7 v d V m O d U L v = d gi o CL O ocn o Q LnN ❑ co p ! m ❑ cc LS ❑ co LM Ln A N _ ^U C - L U VO ul a, a c a) 3 o Q Lr) a Ln W Y a) m L L M N LU mor 2 c C: -d 0 L Y N n C of �= u d'Q m S:J w d 3 O w f9 Y 4` d- v v o c o o_ O d u .E = 0 Ga (a ut O o c. ro m mow, m m m m L d E d "y Cc:y u u w CL o v E Y LU X O o C a) > O Y 40 d d V N L a v E i, CF Nt.� u d m y d =) O d E co w v (u dD- F Ln m _ -° v ate) o u o m to w a m m cc= ,s E .>- d - c o _ co o N o E c o: a. D_ U o m Q F— Q > 6 m CL `. Yi. 7 O 77. m C.e ; ;a) d Y d Y, ;'V L F h t U U im ,, bz u N X O a sa O CL cs O a t> c w o ¢ o o c�3 'S2 Lu ' fa m Ob 2 o O O Om 0d0 ti C 2 a f m fa ca co 3 Q Tw Y c V Y c Y` c:, m u U 1 V) 7 V) V} ria' Ccm L~ O U lr1 z > � w c! V1 a .. ;. °a'.. Q til LU w } y .. d v tv d A �+ F. wd ', rf .°. N K M V' V`E - . lD F`r 00 a o° C �. OC y'_OC- U (7m K o m. m c. a: ni rt)�=m o m ao;� ^ m p a O E, vr u� u) r > v s C C O_ v Y [2 � 0 'a+ d � v U i c o N c V O Y C Ou c -o Y ru Y � Y (] C C ai d d U 3 N _0 a, � o a so Y a m OE LU to o c d o o L Y > •Eb d 4- u v ajO d +' d � v 00 C � d N Q Y F X W C N C U N i CL O v CQ O 7 v d V m O d U L v = d gi o CL O ocn o Q `o )y w Ln N _ ^U C - L U VO ul a, a c a) 3 o u o a = a o a O .L u W Y a) m L L M N LU mor 2 c C: -d 0 L Y N n C of �= u d'Q m S:J w d 3 O w f9 Y 4` d- v v o c o o_ O d u .E = 0 Ga (a ut O o Q) C d 00d awl 7 GO m d d C t C > 0C 'O O Ul C E E O 00 L d E d D_ Cc:y u u w CL o v E Y LU X O o C a) > O Y 40 d d V N L a v E > m Nt.� u d m y d =) O d E co w v (u dD- N ° ° m _ -° v ate) o u o m to w a m m cc= ,s E .>- s L c c V v V O - o N o E c o: a. D_ U o m Q F— Q > 6 m CL `. _.. ._ _• z p o N e N m O O o\° N O N O m O N O 000 O N 0 O� N~ N m W 0} M 00 O O oo O LL N ry ~ N m 0 M c .O \oo 0000 N 00 ry m `r ey n a ti V l0 O rl O N m 0 O m 0 m \ ti n N N 00 Ln G p , ba ti ry [\ W O ti O o m O N to m m1-4 'D o N0 m 0 N00 00 00 m� ' 00 C-4 , N N� C 0 U v E: c c c c c c c m m sE 3 3 3 3 3 3 0) 3° a 3 n o o c o o c d g c v m O 7 t7 Q m N N t� ++ N N y 'O fL0 y O) 0y N y O 'O E° a �Fm C F w o V w : E E C M 3 `• '6:O Q1 C to — -o N -�6 O C U U O L F,. L fCQ vs k,.; O ._ r o a O bbTo O Z �' O` 0: CL m - YV1 F— O QU. H N OU. O Q N X Q o O: d O J N N '. p r m c v p 0 Q s V v v° CO uJ d V +� e.,. .a 03 C C. o> a c> m CL 01 y C C 001 > c c o t°J m — f° m '° o m - a m — ¢ vo a — ¢ ¢ ¢ �c `a o oco - c a 0) nm'a m a nm c ^'5n ii E O m — CCLV m N: m = O v N O m V C F N a -� of [ Y C '. m a fYv J C L `v m m O v M: O W N O N .'_^ f`o O Q O] O v O -o O 0 :'CT '�C O N 'a 0J ` ..D m cg •x m O m m: t m a p w Z Q m >- a uC oii m ` u F U m y a.: u •� `° � u W t= = O F O m M C> m m .a > m Z oC c g -' 1O °°vmi m m cn a 12 A-12 Q) leo d Ln CITV OF kAkRANCHO PALOSVERDES March 1, 2016 Mr. John Dettle Managing Engineer City of Torrance, Public Works Department 20500 Madrona Avenue Torrance, CA 90503 Dear Mr. Dettle: Thank you for including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) in your stormwater best management practice project to construct underground infiltration basins at the Torrance Airport. As a stakeholder in the Machado Lake watershed, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is pleased to be a partner with the City of Torrance in its request to the Proposition 1 Storm Water Planning Grant Program. Funding for final design of underground infiltration basins at Torrance Airport will help expedite project construction and provide coastal cities with an excellent option for stormwater management. As currently envisioned, the new basins will capture urban stormwater from RPV and other Peninsula communities that otherwise flows into Machado Lake, an impaired water body, and it will also provide for valuable groundwater recharge. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will commit to a pro -rated share of the matching funds required for the Proposition 1 Storm Water Planning Grant Program and will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Torrance that would outline the specific roles and responsibilities as well as a proportional matching fund commitment from each partner should the grant be awarded. We hope to hear good news soon as it relates to the success of this application. Sincerely, Ken Dyda Mayor 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 1