Safe, Clean Water Program · 29/01/2020 · Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021...
Transcript of 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.
-
Safe, Clean Water ProgramScoring Committee
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
-
Safe, Clean Water ProgramScoring Committee
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
Dave SoremMike Bubalo Construction Co.,
Jill Sourial
J.R. De Shazo
The Nature Conservancy
UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation
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
Water Supply 12 12 12
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 4
Project Name Imperial Highway Sunken Median
Project Lead City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation
Total Funding Requested
$50,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather
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
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
Water Supply 0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply 0 12 0
Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 5
• Would be beneficial to have more information for how the vegetative soils and bioswales are performing.
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
Leveraging Funds
0 6 0
Part 1
Leveraging Funds
4 4 0 • No letter of support provided Part 2
TOTALS 69 110 60
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 5
Project Name Ladera Park Stormwater Improvements Project
Project Lead Los Angeles County Public Works
Total Funding Requested
$2,000,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
14 20 14 Wet + Dry Weather
Part 1
Water Quality
30 30 30 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)
Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
Water Supply
0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply
0 12 0
Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 5
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
Leveraging Funds
6 6 6
Part 1
Leveraging Funds
4 4 4
Part 2
TOTALS 69 110 69
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 13
Project Name John Anson Ford Park Infiltration Cistern
Project Lead City of Bell Gardens
Total Funding Requested
$10,000,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather
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.
Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 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.
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 14
Project Name Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (LB MUST) - Phase 1
Project Lead City of Long Beach
Total Funding Requested
$10,800,000
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
0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply
0 12 0
Part 2
Community Investment 10 10 10
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
Leveraging Funds
6 6 6
Part 1
Leveraging Funds
4 4 4
Part 2
TOTALS 70 110 70
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 20
Project Name Bolivar Park
Project Lead City of Lakewood
Total Funding Requested
$1,265,900
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
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.
Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
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
Water Supply 12 12 12
Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 3
• 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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 21
Project Name Caruthers Park
Project Lead City of Bellflower
Total Funding Requested
$855,000
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
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 31
Project Name East Los Angeles Sustainable Median Stormwater Capture Project
Project Lead Los Angeles County
Total Funding Requested
$7,000,000
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
10 13 10
Part 1
Water Supply 12 12 12
Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 5
• Clarify the type of trees provided
• Dry weather project claiming flood benefit, would not be awarded that benefit. Does not change score.
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
Leveraging Funds 6 6 6
Part 1
Leveraging Funds 0 4 0
Part 2
TOTALS 83 110 83 • Dave Sorem noted that this
project is already out for bidding and fully funded.
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 33
Project Name Hasley Canyon Park Stormwater Improvements Project
Project Lead Los Angeles County Public Works
Total Funding Requested
$2,887,500
Project Type Wet
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 0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply 2 12 2
Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 5
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.
Leveraging Funds 6 6 6
Part 1
Leveraging Funds 0 4 0
Part 2
TOTALS 67 110 63
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 34
Project Name Newhall Park Infiltration
Project Lead Dan Duncan, Oliver Cramer
Total Funding Requested
$3,000,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
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.
Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
Water Supply
0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply
5 12 To Be
Determined • May change based on WQ
analysis. Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 5
• 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.
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 36
Project Name Harbor City Greenway O&M
Project Lead City of Los Angeles
Total Funding Requested
$75,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
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.
Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
Water Supply
0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply
0 12 0
Part 2
Community Investment 10 10 5
• 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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 38
Project Name Wilmington Q Street Local Urban Area Flow Management Project
Project Lead City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation
Total Funding Requested
$4,923,700
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
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
Dry Weather (20 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.
Nature-Based Solutions 12 15 12
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 42
Project Name Fernangeles Park Stormwater Capture Project
Project Lead Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
Total Funding Requested
$8,360,748
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
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
30 30 30 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)
Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) 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
Community Investment 10 10 5
• Improving access to waterways, may need more clarification/justification. Intent is for physical access and public use of waterways.
Nature-Based Solutions 15 15 15
Leveraging Funds 6 6 6
Part 1
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
Leveraging Funds
4 4 4 • SC noted a very good
collection of community support letters. Part 2
TOTALS 96 110 85
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 43
Project Name Franklin D. Roosevelt Park Regional Stormwater Capture Project
Project Lead Los Angeles County
Total Funding Requested
$4,000,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
14 20 14 Wet + Dry Weather
Part 1
Water Quality
30 30 30 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)
Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) 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.
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 45
Project Name Oro Vista Local Area Urban Flow Management Project
Project Lead City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation
Total Funding Requested
$10,590,600
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather
Part 1
Water Quality
30 30 30 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)
Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) 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.
Nature-Based Solutions 13 15 13
Leveraging Funds
0 6 0
Part 1
Leveraging Funds
4 4 0 • No community letters of
support provided. Part 2
TOTALS 72 110 68
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 51
Project Name Barnes Park
Project Lead City of Baldwin Park
Total Funding Requested
$14,735,690
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather
Part 1
Water Quality
30 30 30 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)
Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) 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
Nature-Based Solutions 10 15 10
• 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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 53
Project Name Encanto Park Stormwater Capture Project
Project Lead City of Monrovia
Total Funding Requested
$2,482,248
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
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.
Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
Water Supply
0 13 0
Part 1
Water Supply
0 12 0
Part 2
Community Investment 5 10 5
• Helpful to see details of plantings
• Are the recreational enhancements new or replaced. Unclear in the documentation.
Nature-Based Solutions 12 15 12
Leveraging Funds 3 6 To Be
Determined • SC agrees that matched staff
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 54
Project Name Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project
Project Lead City of Glendora
Total Funding Requested
$25,000,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather
Part 1
Water Quality
30 30 30
• Project applicant is claiming 100% pollutant remove. Modeling should include downstream bypass. Does not affect score.
Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts) Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) Part 2
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.
Nature-Based Solutions 12 15 12
• 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
-
Safe, Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Scoring Rubric
SCW.ID 55
Project Name Garvey Avenue Grade Separation Drainage Improvement Project
Project Lead City of El Monte
Total Funding Requested
$4,000,000
Project Type Wet
Scoring Section Applicant
Score Maximum
Points
Scoring Committee
Score Notes
Water Quality
20 20 20 Wet + Dry Weather
Part 1
Water Quality
30 30 30 Wet + Dry Weather (30 pts)
Part 2
Dry Weather (20 pts) 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
Community Investment 2 10 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