integrated water resources master plan public works ......integrated water resources master plan...
TRANSCRIPT
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
• Supply Source #2
• MWD Sepulveda Feeder (from
the west) – up to 52 MGD
• Source is from Jensen Plant
(Granada Hills)
5
Water System
• Supply Source #3
• 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
• Supply Source #4
• Emergency Storage Scenario
• Demands must be met through
reservoir storage and Foothill
WTP
7
Water System
• Supply Source #4
• 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
5 Water Pipeline Project No. 2 80
6 Water Pipeline Project No. 3 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
4 Water Pipeline Project No. 1 81
5 Water Pipeline Project No. 2 81
6 Water Pipeline Project No. 3 81
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
Project Criteria - Definition
• 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
Project Criteria - Definition
• 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
Project Scoring Discussion
• 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
Cost Reliability Timeframe FeasibilityEmergency Resiliency
Risk Factors
3 4 4 3 4 2
Project Scoring Discussion
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
Cost Reliability Timeframe FeasibilityEmergency Resiliency
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
5 WS-4 Water System Pipeline Project No. 2 (16,000 LF) $8,195,000 80
6 WS-5 Water System Pipeline Project No. 3 (13,000 LF) $6,899,000 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
13 G-4 Groundwater La Brea Well #3 (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
Rank Project # Project Type Name Capital Cost Score
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
19 SS-2 Sewer SystemSewer System Pipeline and Manhole Rehabilitation
Project - Year 2 (Central)$4,106,000 70
20 SS-3 Sewer SystemSewer System Pipeline and Manhole Rehabilitation
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
Rank Project # Project Type Name Capital Cost Score
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
5 WS-4 Water System Water Pipeline Project No. 2 $8,195,000 81
6 WS-5 Water System Water Pipeline Project No. 3 $6,899,000 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
11 G-3 Groundwater La Brea Well #2 (La Cienega Park) $4,324,000 75
12 G-4 Groundwater La Brea Well #3 (La Cienega Park) $4,324,000 75
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
Rank Project # Project Type Name Capital Cost Score
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
20 SS-1 Sewer SystemSewer System Pipeline and Manhole Rehabilitation
Project - Year 1 (North)$5,448,000 69
21 SS-2 Sewer SystemSewer System Pipeline and Manhole Rehabilitation
Project - Year 2 (Central)$4,106,000 69
22 SS-3 Sewer SystemSewer System Pipeline and Manhole Rehabilitation
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