Safe, Clean Water Program · 29/01/2020 · Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021...

Safe, Clean Water ProgramScoring Committee

P age 1 of 3

Meeting Minutes:Monday, January 29, 20208:00am - 12:00pmLos Angeles County Public Works, LA County Public Works, Conference Room C900 South Fremont Ave, Alhambra, CA 91803

Attendees

Committee Members Present:Bruce ReznikJR De ShazoJill SourialTJ Moon

Committee Members Not Present:Dave SoremDean Efstathiou

1) Welcome and Introductions

Mr. Bruce Reznik, the Chair of the Scoring Committee, called the meeting to order.

All committee members in attendance made self-introductions, and quorum was established.

2) Approval of Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2020

The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) provided a copy of the meeting minutes from theprevious meeting. Mr. Bruce Reznik asked the committee members for comments or revisions.

Mr. JR De Shazo made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 21, 2020. Mr. TJ Moonseconded the motion. The Committee voted to approve the meeting minutes from January 21, 2020(unanimous).

3) Committee Member and District Updates

Mr. Kirk Allen covered District updates and housekeeping items, updated Ex Parte Guidelines, and COIQ&A guidelines.

4) Public Comment Period for Non-Agenized Items

A member of the Public requested clarification if a feasibility study is required. Mr. Kirk Allen clarified thatthere should be some level of information available so that project applicants can enter information intothe Project Module, including all 19 minimum requirements and be sufficient for scoring. Mr. TJ Moon andMr. Bruce Reznik further clarified that the Scoring Committee (SC) is still looking for some type ofdocumentation to verify the benefits claimed.

A member of the Public requested clarification if it’s a requirement to use the website modeling tool. Mr.TJ Moon noted that is not a requirement, but that it is more challenging for the SC to score these. Thewebsite is not capable of modeling very complex systems, so that would require an analysis outside ofthe web tool.


P age 2 of 3

5) Discussion Items:

a) Ex Parte Communications Disclosure

Mr. Bruce Reznik noted that he is taking part in the CSMB WASC meeting, hadconversations with Ms. Liz Crosson after the meeting, and had breakfast conversation withDistrict Consultant Stantec.

b) Scoring of Feasibility Studies

Scoring Committee members reviewed the following projects. Detailed notes were taken withinthe master Scoring Rubric document.

#3 CSMB – Culver City Mesmer Low Flow Diversion #4 CSMB – Imperial Highway Sunken Median #5 CSMB – Ladera Park Stormwater Improvements Project #13 LLAR – John Anson Ford Park Infiltration Cistern #14 LLAR – Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (LB MUST) #20 LSGR – Bolivar Park #21 LSGR – Caruthers Park #31 RH – East Los Angeles Sustainable Median Stormwater Capture Project #33 SCR – Hasley Canyon Park Stormwater Improvements Project #34 SCR – Newhall Park Infiltration #36 SSMB – Harbor City Greenway O&M #38 SSMB – Wilmington Q Street Local Urban Area Flow Management #42 ULAR – Fernageles Park Stormwater Capture Project #43 ULAR – Franklin D. Roosevelt Park Regional Stormwater Capture Project #45 ULAR – Oro Vista Local Area Urban Flow Management Project #51 USGR – Barnes Park #53 USGR – Encanto Park Stormwater Capture Project #54 USGR – Finkbliner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project #55 USGR – Garvey Avenue Grade Separation Drainage Improvement Project

c) Feasibility Study Review Lead Assignments and Order of Scoring

Mr. Bruce Reznik suggested additional new feasibility studies to review.

d) Meeting Schedule

For Feb-4-2020 Meeting, the following projects will be reviewed by the SC:

o #6 CSMB – MacArthur Lake Rehabilitation Projecto #7 CSMB – Monteith Park and View Park Green Alley Stormwater Improvementso #10 CSMB – Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Diversiono #15 LLAR – Rancho Los Cerritos: Looking Back to Advance Forwardo #16 LLAR – Salt Lake Park Infiltration Cisterno #17 LLAR – Spane Parko #22 LSGR – Cerritos Sports Complexo #23 LSGR – Hermosillo Parko #24 LSGR – Mayfair Parko #25 LSGR – Skylinks Golf Course at Wardlow Stormwater Capture Project


P age 3 of 3

o #26 LSGR – El Dorado Regional Projecto #27 LSGR – Adventure Park Multi Benefit Stormwater Capture Projecto #28 NSMB – Viewridge Road Stormwater Improvements Projecto #46 Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Park Projecto #47 ULAR – Strathern Park North Stormwater Capture Projecto #48 ULAR – The Distributed Drywell System Projecto #49 ULAR – Valley Village Park Stormwater Capture Projecto #50 ULAR – Walnut Park Pocket Park Projecto #57 USGR – Pedley Spreading Groundso #58 USGR – Wingate Park Regional EWMP Project

Mr. Bruce Reznik suggested canceling the February 10 Meeting. Committee Membersconquered.

6) Public Comment Period for Agenized Items

Public Comment – noted it was important to capture the stormwater and groundwater interaction forprojects.

7) Voting items:

a) Return passing scores of projects and feasibility studies to WASCs

Mr. JR De Shazo made a motion to approve. Ms. Jill Sourial seconded the motion. TheCommittee voted to approve. (unanimous).

b) Inform project applicants and WASCs of the projects that do not reach the Threshold Scoreand/or those that lack sufficient information to be scored. Applicants will have one week to correctand resubmit their applications for final scoring.

Pending a 5-day resubmittal process for project applicants, Mr. Bruce Reznik removed this votingitem.

8) Items for next agenda

Mr. Bruce Reznik requested agenda should include next weeks’ list of projects.

9) Adjournment

Mr. Bruce Reznik thanked the committee members and public for their time and participation andadjourned the meeting.

Scoring Committee MeetingCOMMITTEE MEMBER SIGN-IN

Dean Efstathiou Consulting Engineer [email protected]

SAFECLEANWATER

Taejin Moon

Bruce Reznik

LA County Public Works

LA Waterkeeper

[email protected]

[email protected]

Dave SoremMike Bubalo Construction Co.,

[email protected]

Jill Sourial

J.R. De Shazo

The Nature Conservancy

UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation

[email protected]

[email protected];

[email protected]

January 29, 2020

Scoring Committee MeetingPUBLIC SIGN-IN

C-Na \ -v\kNoc\IA4o

\\A od

r a_ V Laa-p-L-LL._

Coy

"St. -Apt

CLO4 V A—S

C.101--)? .

SAFECLEANWATER

t c.1746/2ctC-4-k-c\N\-1-1 414\irkm-)c, coe_ct;cbta

tior

CASTY ci 10 rY) 0-Cy \ tet-11105 CI t

CAp_bs .efer.vL-iN '12v1I'Vf cV;A-iP•

i/e

44 (I': AZ12

\

Scoring Committee MeetingPUBLIC SIGN-IN

SAFECLEANWATER

r4,1„-frido

eP

Vi

Lc)

c 61- rt 1 -e

44- 7L//tb Pk) (/),,,/, /460

VkAA- C CAciL

41-''N I ( 4\W cc--

54'44 c co (/'_ S(.``^

,

\? ?)pitt. Ct

*Signing or completing this form is voluntary for members of the public January 29, 2019

Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021

Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 3

Project Name Culver City Mesmer Low Flow Diversion

Project Lead City of Culver City

Total Funding Requested

$950,000

Project Type Dry

Scoring Section Applicant

Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality

20 30 20 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)

Part 2

Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2

Water Supply 13 13 13

• Relying on future project for future supply benefit

Part 1


Part 2

Community Investment 0 10 0

Nature-Based Solutions 0 15 0

Leveraging Funds

6 6 0

• Is applying for prop 1 funding enough to be considered leveraged funds. SC noted it’s unclear if the project applicant will receive this funding.

• SC has decided that future potential funding should not include potential future funding options.

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 4

Part 2

TOTALS 75 110 69


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 4

Project Name Imperial Highway Sunken Median

Project Lead City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation


$50,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality

30 30 25

• Applicant claims 100% reduction of all water captured. There would be some level of bypass in the drain. There should be some level of pollutants that bypass the site.

• Modeling results show that there are 79% reductions (not quite 80%)

Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2


Water Supply 0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply 0 12 0

Part 2


• Would be beneficial to have more information for how the vegetative soils and bioswales are performing.


Leveraging Funds

0 6 0

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0 • No letter of support provided Part 2

TOTALS 69 110 60


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 5

Project Name Ladera Park Stormwater Improvements Project

Project Lead Los Angeles County Public Works


$2,000,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

0 12 0

Part 2



Leveraging Funds

6 6 6

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 4

Part 2

TOTALS 69 110 69


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 13

Project Name John Anson Ford Park Infiltration Cistern

Project Lead City of Bell Gardens


$10,000,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality

20 30 To Be

Determined

• Applicant provided their own modeling results.

• Applicant claims the water quality benefit of the full build out of all phases of the project.

• If run through the model, it would likely not be a high water quality score. Would likely score 0 points if run through the model.

• Possible suggestion to SC would provide a partial credit for different phases of the project.

• Recommend the applicant redo the modeling for combining Phase 1 & 2.



Water Supply

10 13 10 • Unclear if the water is reaching

a usable aquifer. Part 1

Water Supply

12 12 12

Part 2

Community Investment 10 10 10 • Difficult to tell what phase

these CI benefits are claimed.



Scoring Rubric

Leveraging Funds

3 6 0

• Applicant is claiming some portion of Phase 1 funding as part of this projects leveraged funding.

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0

• Letters of support from community organizations or the public. Only letters of support from municipalities.

Part 2

TOTALS 89 110 Above

Threshold


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 14

Project Name Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (LB MUST) - Phase 1

Project Lead City of Long Beach


$10,800,000

Project Type Dry


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

0 12 0

Part 2



Leveraging Funds

6 6 6

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 4

Part 2

TOTALS 70 110 70


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 20

Project Name Bolivar Park

Project Lead City of Lakewood


$1,265,900

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 20

• SC has reclassified as a Dry Weather Project

• If applicant wants to keep as a wet project, applicant should rerun model to note downstream bypass

Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality

25 30 20

• Applicant is claiming 100% of pollutant removal of all flows incoming to the project

• Recommend the project as a dry weather project. Would provide 20 points.



Water Supply

10 13 10

• Claims recharge in Lakewood. Unclear if this area has usable groundwater aquifer.

• Would also need to provide a letter of confirmation by the local groundwater master.

Part 1


Part 2


• Only school adjacent, not greening of school

• Unclear what natural turf is.

• What does marginally increased trees mean.

Nature-Based Solutions 5 15 0 • Only utilizing existing natural

features. Did not reduce impervious cover.

Leveraging Funds 6 6 0

• Project is claiming Caltrans match that was for construction but not O&M. Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0

• Within video, there does not appear to be a strong local support. Recommend providing a letter of support.

Part 2

TOTALS 87 110 65


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 21

Project Name Caruthers Park

Project Lead City of Bellflower


$855,000

Project Type Dry


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

6 13 6

• Unclear if Bellflower has access to usable groundwater aquifer.

• WRD provided a general letter of acknowledgement of projects that provide groundwater recharge benefit.

Part 1

Water Supply

9 12 9

• SC to provide additional clarity on Feasibility Guidelines on what level (short & long term) of supply is applicable.

Part 2

Community Investment 5 10 To Be

Determined

• Unclear how the pre and post enhancements are different. Is this new turf and trees?

• No backup provided to clarify this.

• Is the O&M including maintenance of the Community Investment enhancements?

• Applicant should provide clarity on what O&M activities are covering.

Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 To Be

Determined


Scoring Rubric

Leveraging Funds

6 6 0

• Applicant is using original construction cost share from Caltrans.

• Recommend project applicant provide some level of municipal cost share.

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

0 4 0

Part 2

TOTALS 76 110 To Be

Determined


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 31

Project Name East Los Angeles Sustainable Median Stormwater Capture Project

Project Lead Los Angeles County


$7,000,000

Project Type Dry


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

10 13 10

Part 1


Part 2


• Clarify the type of trees provided

• Dry weather project claiming flood benefit, would not be awarded that benefit. Does not change score.



Part 1


Part 2

TOTALS 83 110 83 • Dave Sorem noted that this

project is already out for bidding and fully funded.


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 33

Project Name Hasley Canyon Park Stormwater Improvements Project

Project Lead Los Angeles County Public Works


$2,887,500

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply 0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply 2 12 2

Part 2


Nature-Based Solutions 14 15

10

To Be determined

• For impervious area reduction, not clear how this was determined. No explanation for the reduction of imperviousness.

• Not clear if bioswales were new or replaced.


Part 1


Part 2

TOTALS 67 110 63


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 34

Project Name Newhall Park Infiltration

Project Lead Dan Duncan, Oliver Cramer


$3,000,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 To Be

Determined

• No documentation to confirm these numbers. No Engineering Analysis provided (dimensions and engineering drawings)

Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality

30 30 To Be

Determined

• Applicant claiming 100% pollutant reduction. Should include downstream bypass.



Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

5 12 To Be

Determined • May change based on WQ

analysis. Part 2


• Applicant to provide clarification for DAC benefit. Applicant should use definition of DAC benefit within the SCW Ordinance and Feasibility Guidelines

• Unclear if natural or artificial turf.

• Provide the types of trees

• School adjacent, may not be technically greening of schools, but provides access to the green space and benefits the school. Applicant provides an agreement with the school to note these benefits.


Scoring Rubric


Leveraging Funds

6 6 0

• Project is utilizing local return.

• Applicants is utilizing future speculative leveraged funds.

• Project is asking for $3M, utilizing $3M of municipal, unclear if the match is based on total cost. ($3M/$19M)

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0

• No letter of support from community. Project should provide the letter noted in the application.

Part 2

TOTALS 80 110 To Be

Determined


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 36

Project Name Harbor City Greenway O&M

Project Lead City of Los Angeles


$75,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 20 • This is a difficult project to

score. Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality

10 30 20

• Only trash benefit claimed

• May want to classify this as a dry weather project, this project would receive more points.

• SC treated this project as a Dry Weather Project to boost the score.

• Score may raise if wet weather pollutants is modeled.



Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

0 12 0

Part 2


• Credit for 3 benefits, but not six. How does the O&M support these community investment benefits.

• If there is monitoring information, that would help confirm these benefits are reached.

Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10 • Would be beneficial to know

what other upgrades are being made.

Leveraging Funds

6 6 To Be

Determiend

• Cost share for the construction phase of the project should not be counted.

• Provide additional clarity how cost share will be provided for

Part 1


Scoring Rubric

this project. A matching fund of 25% could raise this score.

Leveraging Funds

4 4 4

Part 2

TOTALS 60 110 To Be

Determined


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 38

Project Name Wilmington Q Street Local Urban Area Flow Management Project



$4,923,700

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 To Be

Determined

• Lankershim technical report provided instead of the Wilmington Q street technical reports.

• Correct report can be provided in the resubmittal.

Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality

30 30 To Be

Determined Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)

Part 2


Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

0 12 0

Part 2

Community Investment 5 10 5 • School adjacent and not direct

greening of school. Does not affect score.


Leveraging Funds

0 6 0

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0 • Only letter of support from

Council office, vs community group. Part 2

TOTALS 71 110 To Be

Determined


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 42

Project Name Fernangeles Park Stormwater Capture Project

Project Lead Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)


$8,360,748

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 20

• Engineering analysis is just one page factsheet currently. Would be beneficial to see additional details for this project.

• SC would recommend a more solidified design to better confirm cost estimates to the WASC.

Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

6 13 0

• Water supply cost effectiveness is based on the stormwater enhancement vs total project cost.

• SC recommends that for consistency the project total cost should be used for this metric vs just the cost of the stormwater enhancement.

Part 1

Water Supply 5 12 5

Part 2


• Improving access to waterways, may need more clarification/justification. Intent is for physical access and public use of waterways.



Part 1


Scoring Rubric

Leveraging Funds

4 4 4 • SC noted a very good

collection of community support letters. Part 2

TOTALS 96 110 85


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 43

Project Name Franklin D. Roosevelt Park Regional Stormwater Capture Project

Project Lead Los Angeles County


$4,000,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

2 12 2

Part 2

Community Investment 5 10 5 • Replacement of natural turf for

artificial turf is not desirable.


Leveraging Funds

6 6 6

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

0 4 0 • Community supported natural

turf, unclear why natural turf could not be achieved. Part 2

TOTALS 67 110 67


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 45

Project Name Oro Vista Local Area Urban Flow Management Project



$10,590,600

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

0 12 0

Part 2

Community Investment 5 10 5 • Would be helpful to know the

types of trees.


Leveraging Funds

0 6 0

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0 • No community letters of

support provided. Part 2

TOTALS 72 110 68


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 51

Project Name Barnes Park

Project Lead City of Baldwin Park


$14,735,690

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply 0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

5 12 5

Part 2

Community Investment 5 10 5 • Would be helpful to see a

planting plan.

• 17 trees, but what types


• Why does impermeable area not change if there is a large area of concrete/pavement is removed. Should benefit this project’s score.

Leveraging Funds

0 6 0

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0 • No Letters of support from the

community. Part 2

TOTALS 74 110 70


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 53

Project Name Encanto Park Stormwater Capture Project

Project Lead City of Monrovia


$2,482,248

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality

20 20 20 • Not treating the 85th percentile

flow. Wet + Dry Weather

Part 1

Water Quality

30 30 To Be

Determined

• Applicant claiming 100% pollutant reduction. Should include downstream bypass in modeling.

• Applicant may be able to reclassify this as a dry weather project.

• SC notes the project is between a .25 & .75 inch storm, so it’s a challenge to max out on this scoring category.



Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

0 12 0

Part 2


• Helpful to see details of plantings

• Are the recreational enhancements new or replaced. Unclear in the documentation.


Leveraging Funds 3 6 To Be

Determined • SC agrees that matched staff


Scoring Rubric

Part 1

time can be considered as leveraged funding.

• Does not specifically state there is a cost share, just that the city will explore opportunities for cost share.

• Applicant should provide additional detail on this cost share.

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0

• There is a community engagement strategy, but no existing letters of support. Only letters are from a group of cities.

Part 2

TOTALS 74 110 To Be

Determined


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 54

Project Name Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project

Project Lead City of Glendora


$25,000,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality

30 30 30

• Project applicant is claiming 100% pollutant remove. Modeling should include downstream bypass. Does not affect score.



Water Supply

0 13 0

Part 1

Water Supply

12 12 12

Part 2

Community Investment 5 10 5 • Would be beneficial to see

green alley and design plans.


• Applicant claims impervious surface removal. Unclear what part of the project this reduction comes from.

Leveraging Funds

0 6 0

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0 • No letters from community

groups, only from municipalities. Part 2

TOTALS 83 110 79


Scoring Rubric

SCW.ID 55

Project Name Garvey Avenue Grade Separation Drainage Improvement Project

Project Lead City of El Monte


$4,000,000

Project Type Wet


Score Maximum

Points

Scoring Committee

Score Notes

Water Quality


Part 1

Water Quality


Part 2


Water Supply

13 13 To Be

Determined

• Unrealistic dry weather flow assumption. SC recommends 0 cfs dry weather flow based on the size of the project.

• Applicant should recalculate based on these edits.

Part 1

Water Supply 12 12

To Be Determined

Part 2


Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 5 • NBS solutions don’t appear to

meet the intent of this scoring section.

Leveraging Funds

0 6 0

• Applicant could use the grade separation project as part of the matching funds. Could provide a boost to score.

Part 1

Leveraging Funds

4 4 0 • No letters of support from

community groups. Part 2

TOTALS 91 110 To Be

Determined

Date post:	04-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Safe, Clean Water Program · 29/01/2020 · Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021...

Documents