integrated water resources master plan public works ......integrated water resources master plan...

July 9, 2020

Integrated Water Resources Master PlanPublic Works Commission Meeting

Ad-hoc Committee Presentation Summary

• PWC Workshop held on June 11, 2020

• Ad-hoc Meetings held on June 19th and June 24th

• Attended by Chair Greer and Vice Chair Alpert, City staff, and

Hazen and Sawyer Team

• The purpose for today is to provide a summary of the Ad-hoc

Committee presentations to the PWC

2

Agenda

1. Water System Overview –

System Supply Sources

2. PWC Questions from June

11th Workshop

• Demand Projections

• Project Costs

• MWD Tiered Pricing

3. Project Criteria Discussion

• Additional definition of criteria

4. Project Scoring Examples

• Reservoir 4C

• Cabrillo Reservoir

• Coldwater Pump Station (PS 2)

Improvements

3

Water System

• Average Demand = 8 MGD

• Supply Source #1

• MWD Santa Monica Feeder

(from the east) – up to 52 MGD

• Source is from Weymouth Plant

(La Verne)

4

Water System


• MWD Sepulveda Feeder (from

the west) – up to 52 MGD

• Source is from Jensen Plant

(Granada Hills)

5

Water System


• LADWP Interconnections at

three (3) different locations –

up to 20 MGD total

• LADWP system is supplied by

LA Reservoir and SFV

groundwater supply (separate

from MWD Feeders).

6

Water System


• Emergency Storage Scenario

• Demands must be met through

reservoir storage and Foothill

WTP

7

Water System


• Emergency Storage Scenario

• IWRMP Assumptions:

• Reservoir Capacity at Low Levels

(25% of Full Capacity)

• Summer Month Demand

8

Water System

• The BH system is robust and

resilient to emergencies with

each of the supply options

originating from different

sources

• The City would fill reservoirs to

high-level as soon as a single

supply source went offline

• Low likelihood of all supply

sources failing simultaneously

9

Water Demand Projections

• Are the demand

projections conservative

enough?

• How do we avoid over-

building for a demand that

does not materialize?

Questions

10

Water Demand Projections

• The demand projections are appropriate for a master plan level analysis,

and have an appropriate level of conservatism

• The demand projections do not have a significant impact on

infrastructure design

• For example, pipelines are typically sized based on fire flow requirements, not average day

demand projections.

Response

11

Project Costs – “Soft” Costs vs Construction Costs

• Provide background on “soft” costs compared with actual

construction costs

• Example: Reservoir 4C – Total Estimate = $4.9 M

• Construction Costs: $3.7 M (75%)

• Soft Costs: $1.2 M (25%)

• Example: La Brea Well #2 – Total Estimate = $4.3 M

• Construction Costs: $3.2 M (75%)

• Soft Costs: $1.1 M (25%)

Question/Response

12

MWD Tier 2 Pricing

• How do we account for MWD Tier 2 Pricing? Cost or risk impacts?

• Tier 1 pricing is volumetric, annual basis. Up to 12 MGD through 2024

• IWRMP highest demand projections is 11.5 MGD in 2025

• Foothill WTP (2.3 MGD) will reduce MWD import starting in 2021

• Unlikely the City will reach Tier 2 pricing in the next 5 years

Question/Response

13

Project Criteria – Previous Weighting

• Cost (17%)

• Reliability (17%)

• Timeframe (17%)

• Feasibility (17%)

• Emergency Resiliency (17%)

• Risk Factors (17%)

14

Cost

Reliability

TimeframeFeasibility

Emergency Resiliency

Risk Factors

Project Criteria

Project Criteria – Potential New Weighting

• Cost (10%)

• Reliability (20%)

• Timeframe (15%)

• Feasibility (15%)

• Emergency Resiliency (25%)

• Risk Factors (15%)

Higher emphasis on emergency resiliency

15

Cost

Reliability

Timeframe

Feasibility

Emergency Resiliency

Risk Factors

Project Criteria

Project Score Comparison – “Top 10”Previous Weighting vs New Weighting

16

Rank Name Score

1 Reservoir 4C 87

2 Foothill WTP Expansion to 4.7 MGD 80

3 LADWP Interconnection Upgrade at Coldwater Reservoir 80

4 Water Pipeline Project No. 1 80



7 Oakhurst Drive Capacity Improvement Project 80

8 Small Diameter Capacity Relief Project 80

9 N. Sierra Drive "Bottleneck" Capacity Relief Project 80

10 La Cienega Park Irrigation Supply 77

Total Cost $48.5

Rank NameNew

Score

1 Reservoir 4C 86

2 Foothill WTP Expansion to 4.7 MGD 84

3 Oakhurst Drive Capacity Improvement Project 82




7 N. Sierra Drive "Bottleneck" Capacity Relief Project 80

8 Small Diameter Capacity Relief Project 80

9 LADWP Interconnection Upgrade at Coldwater Reservoir 78

10 La Cienega Boulevard Capacity Improvement Project 77

Total Cost $48.1

Previous Weighting New Weighting

Note: Cabrillo Reservoir project scored 67

in initial scoring; ranked 22 among all

projects

Note: Cabrillo Reservoir project scored 69

in new scoring; ranked 19 among all

projects

Project Criteria - Definition

• Cost - Is the project cost effective? Are there outside issues driving

costs that are beyond the City’s control?

• Most projects scored at 3 representing neutral cost effectiveness – you get what you pay for

• La Brea Well #4 scored at 1 because the City has to acquire property

• Projects that already have some infrastructure in place score higher (Reservoir 4C, LADWP

interconnection)

• Reliability - To what extent does this project increase the system’s

reliability?

• Expanding local water supply scores high in this category

• Some infrastructure projects score higher because of their urgency – deficient capacity

• Some infrastructure projects score lower because they are maintenance oriented

17


• Timeframe - Can the project be implemented in the near future? Can

the project be implemented within 5-years?

• Projects that are straightforward to implement score higher – pipelines and other

maintenance projects

• Projects with longer design/CEQA process and construction score lower – well projects

require longer design/CEQA and have two construction contracts (drilling, then equipping)

• Feasibility - Is the project within the City’s control or are there outside

agencies involved? Will permits or other regulatory requirements impact

implementation? Is the required technology available?

• Most of the top projects scored higher

• La Brea Well #4 is outside BH, so other agency permits extend the project schedule

18


• Emergency Resiliency - Does the project make the system more

resilient to emergencies? Does the project reduce the likelihood of

emergencies from occurring? Applies to all systems, not just water.

• Foothill WTP Expansion (score 5) provides more resiliency to emergencies than storage

projects (score 4)

• Maintaining infrastructure (pipelines, pump stations) also makes the systems more resilient

to emergencies

• Risk Factors - What is the risk of either deferring, or not implementing

this project at all? What are the risks of implementing this project?

• Projects with greater construction risk for the project type scored lower

• Projects with normal construction risk for the project type scored as 3

19

Project Scoring Discussion

• Cost – Site acquisition is not required, infrastructure like piping is already in place. Costs are favorable based on these aspects. However, reservoir foundation replacement is required, which is why it was scored as 4 instead of 5.

• Reliability – The system is more reliable with an additional 1 MG reservoir. Adds redundancy.

• Timeframe – The project is a typical storage project. There should be no issues with the project completed under 2-years.

• Feasibility – The project can immediately move into the design phase. There are no major obstacles to moving forward through completion.

• Emergency Resiliency – The project adds to the City’s emergency storage. Not as much as local water supply projects do.

• Risk Factors – Risk is typical for a reservoir project, but slightly less since there’s an existing reservoir on-site already, and a geotechnical report previously identified the need for foundation replacement. The unknowns are reduced compared with a new site.

Reservoir 4C

20

Cost Reliability Timeframe FeasibilityEmergency Resiliency

Risk Factors

4 4 5 5 4 4


• Cost – Site acquisition is not required, but extensive excavation, groundwater dewatering, and cast-in-place concrete construction is required. These factors balance out the cost scoring to a 3.

• Reliability – The system is more reliable with an additional 3 MG reservoir. Adds redundancy.

• Timeframe – The project could be completed within 2-3 years. Construction will take longer than Reservoir 4C.

• Feasibility – CEQA required to evaluate environmental impacts. Since the site is relatively inactive, the major construction required may result in pushback from the neighbors during CEQA.

• Emergency Resiliency – The project adds to the City’s emergency storage. Not as much as local water supply projects do.

• Risk Factors – Risk is higher than a typical reservoir project. Construction will require demolition of the existing structure, installation of groundwater dewatering system, and construction of the below grade structure. Higher risk than above-grade construction (Reservoir 4C).

Cabrillo Reservoir

21


Risk Factors

3 4 4 3 4 2


The project was identified because it didn’t meet the pump station criteria identified in the IWRMP. Pump station capacity needs to be increased.

• Cost – Costs are fair for the work involved. Existing site with existing infrastructure in place.

• Reliability – Primary supply to Zone 6 (Greystone Reservoir) by pumping. MWD Sepulveda Feeder (supply source #2) can’t supply Zone 6 without this pump station, so this further shows the importance of this facility. Adding capacity increases the reliability of the system.

• Timeframe – The project could be completed within 2 years. Existing infrastructure will result in favorable timeframe.

• Feasibility – Since it’s an existing site already in operation, CEQA process can be reduced. No outside agencies or permits required.

• Emergency Resiliency – Neutral score.

• Risk Factors – Neutral score. Typical construction process. Mostly above-grade construction.

Coldwater Pump Station (PS 2) Improvements

22


Risk Factors

3 4 4 4 3 3

Next Steps

• Incorporate PWC comments into Final Report

• Criteria

• Priorities

• Assumptions

• PWC recommendation for City Council Adoption of IWRMP

• City Council Adoption of IWRMP

23

Thank you for your time

Summary of Capital Improvement Projects IdentifiedPrevious Weighting

25

Rank Project # Project Type Name Capital Cost Score

1 ER-1 Emergency Resiliency Reservoir 4C (1 MG) $4,915,000 87

2 G-6 Groundwater Foothill WTP Expansion $5,493,000 80

3 WS-2 Water SystemLADWP Interconnection Upgrade at Coldwater

Reservoir$433,000 80

4 WS-3 Water System Pipeline Project No. 1 (30,000 LF) $15,561,000 80



7 SS-5 Sewer System Oakhurst Drive Capacity Improvement Project $3,519,000 80

8 SS-4 Sewer System Small Diameter Capacity Relief Project $836,000 80

9 SS-11 Sewer System N. Sierra Drive "Bottleneck" Capacity Relief Project $213,000 80

10 AS-4 Alternative Sources La Cienega Park Irrigation Supply $1,392,000 77

11 SS-12 Sewer System La Cienega Boulevard Capacity Improvement Project $1,031,000 77

12 G-3 Groundwater La Brea Well #2 (La Cienega Park) $4,324,000 73


14 G-7 Groundwater Hollywood GWB Deep Well $5,447,000 73

15 G-8 Groundwater Hollywood GWB Shallow Well $5,187,000 73

Summary of Capital Improvement Projects IdentifiedPrevious Weighting

26


16 SS-10 Sewer System Annual Rehabilitation Project $271,000 73

17 WS-1 Water System Coldwater Pump Station (PS 2) Improvements $3,538,000 70

18 SS-1 Sewer SystemSewer System Pipeline and Manhole Rehabilitation

Project - Year 1 (North)$5,448,000 70


Project - Year 2 (Central)$4,106,000 70


Project - Year 3 (South)$4,749,000 70

21 SS-14 Sewer System Inflow & Infiltration Study $433,000 70

22 ER-2 Emergency Resiliency Potable Water Cabrillo Reservoir (3 MG) $6,352,000 67

23 SS-6 Sewer System Additional Permanent Flow Monitoring Sites $240,000 67

24 G-5 Groundwater La Brea Well #4 (Location TBD) $7,947,000 63

25 SS-13 Sewer System Dry-Weather TMDL to Sewer Diversion Project $313,000 57

26 G-9 GroundwaterSanta Monica GWB Irrigation Supply Well (Roxbury

Park)$2,825,000 50

27 AS-2 Alternative Sources Roxbury Park Stormwater Diversion $3,688,000 33

28 AS-3 Alternative Sources Subterranean Parking Groundwater Diversion $6,398,000 33

29 SD-6 Storm DrainStorm Water System Pipeline Upgrade Project and

Optional Flood Barrier Protection Project$24,294,000 30

Summary of Capital Improvement Projects IdentifiedNew Weighting

27


1 ER-1 Emergency Resiliency Reservoir 4C $4,915,000 86

2 G-6 Groundwater Foothill WTP Expansion to 4.7 MGD $6,493,000 84

3 SS-5 Sewer System Oakhurst Drive Capacity Improvement Project $3,519,000 82

4 WS-3 Water System Water Pipeline Project No. 1 $15,561,000 81



7 SS-11 Sewer System N. Sierra Drive "Bottleneck" Capacity Relief Project $213,000 80

8 SS-4 Sewer System Small Diameter Capacity Relief Project $836,000 80

9 WS-2 Water SystemLADWP Interconnection Upgrade at Coldwater

Reservoir$433,000 78

10 SS-12 Sewer System La Cienega Boulevard Capacity Improvement Project $1,031,000 77



13 G-7 Groundwater Hollywood GWB Deep Well $5,447,000 75

14 G-8 Groundwater Hollywood GWB Shallow Well $5,187,000 75

15 AS-4 Alternative Sources La Cienega Park Irrigation Supply $1,392,000 74

Summary of Capital Improvement Projects IdentifiedNew Weighting

28


16 SS-10 Sewer System Annual Rehabilitation Project $271,000 72

17 G-5 Groundwater La Brea Well #4 (Location TBD) $7,947,000 71

18 WS-1 Water System Coldwater Pump Station (PS 2) Improvements $3,538,000 70

19 ER-2 Emergency Resiliency Potable Water Cabrillo Reservoir $6,352,000 69


Project - Year 1 (North)$5,448,000 69


Project - Year 2 (Central)$4,106,000 69


Project - Year 3 (South)$4,749,000 69

23 SS-14 Sewer System Inflow & Infiltration Study $433,000 66

24 SS-6 Sewer System Additional Permanent Flow Monitoring Sites $240,000 63

25 SS-13 Sewer System Dry-Weather TMDL to Sewer Diversion Project $313,000 52

26 G-9 GroundwaterSanta Monica GWB Irrigation Supply Well (Roxbury

Park)$2,825,000 49

27 AS-2 Alternative Sources Roxbury Park Stormwater Diversion $3,688,000 35

28 AS-3 Alternative Sources Subterranean Parking Groundwater Diversion $6,398,000 35

29 SD-6 Storm DrainStorm Water System Pipeline Upgrade Project and

Optional Flood Barrier Protection Project$24,294,000 34

integrated water resources master plan public works ......integrated water resources master plan...

Documents